K P Chu1, S Habbous1, Q Kuang1, K Boyd1, M Mirshams1, F-F Liu2, O Espin-Garcia3, W Xu3, D Goldstein4, J Waldron2, B O'Sullivan2, S H Huang2, G Liu5. 1. Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 4. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Canada. 5. Medicine and Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: Geoffrey.liu@uhn.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite universal healthcare in some countries, lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with worse cancer survival. The influence of SES on head and neck cancer (HNC) survival is of immense interest, since SES is associated with the risk and prognostic factors associated with this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed HNC patients from 2003 to 2010 (n=2124) were identified at Toronto's Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Principal component analysis was used to calculate a composite score using neighbourhood-level SES variables obtained from the 2006 Canada Census. Associations of SES with overall survival were evaluated in HNC subsets and by p16 status (surrogate for human papillomavirus). RESULTS: SES score was higher for oral cavity (n=423) and p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC, n=404) patients compared with other disease sites. Lower SES was associated with worse survival [HR 1.14 (1.06-1.22), p=0.0002], larger tumor staging (p<0.001), current smoking (p<0.0001), heavier alcohol consumption (p<0.0001), and greater comorbidity (p<0.0002), but not with treatment regimen (p>0.20). After adjusting for age, sex, and stage, the lowest SES quintile was associated with the worst survival only for OPC patients [HR 1.66 (1.09-2.53), n=832], primarily in the p16-negative subset [HR 1.63 (0.96-2.79)]. The predictive ability of the prognostic models improved when smoking/alcohol was added to the model (c-index 0.71 vs. 0.69), but addition of SES did not (c-index 0.69). CONCLUSION: SES was associated with survival, but this effect was lost after accounting for other factors (age, sex, TNM stage, smoking/alcohol). Lower SES was associated with greater smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidity, and stage.
BACKGROUND: Despite universal healthcare in some countries, lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with worse cancer survival. The influence of SES on head and neck cancer (HNC) survival is of immense interest, since SES is associated with the risk and prognostic factors associated with this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed HNC patients from 2003 to 2010 (n=2124) were identified at Toronto's Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Principal component analysis was used to calculate a composite score using neighbourhood-level SES variables obtained from the 2006 Canada Census. Associations of SES with overall survival were evaluated in HNC subsets and by p16 status (surrogate for human papillomavirus). RESULTS: SES score was higher for oral cavity (n=423) and p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC, n=404) patients compared with other disease sites. Lower SES was associated with worse survival [HR 1.14 (1.06-1.22), p=0.0002], larger tumor staging (p<0.001), current smoking (p<0.0001), heavier alcohol consumption (p<0.0001), and greater comorbidity (p<0.0002), but not with treatment regimen (p>0.20). After adjusting for age, sex, and stage, the lowest SES quintile was associated with the worst survival only for OPCpatients [HR 1.66 (1.09-2.53), n=832], primarily in the p16-negative subset [HR 1.63 (0.96-2.79)]. The predictive ability of the prognostic models improved when smoking/alcohol was added to the model (c-index 0.71 vs. 0.69), but addition of SES did not (c-index 0.69). CONCLUSION: SES was associated with survival, but this effect was lost after accounting for other factors (age, sex, TNM stage, smoking/alcohol). Lower SES was associated with greater smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidity, and stage.
Authors: S Tribius; M S Meyer; C Pflug; H Hanken; C-J Busch; A Krüll; C Petersen; C Bergelt Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Luke R G Pike; Trevor J Royce; Amandeep R Mahal; Daniel W Kim; William L Hwang; Brandon A Mahal; Nina N Sanford Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Nicholas R Lenze; Douglas Farquhar; Siddharth Sheth; Jose P Zevallos; Jeffrey Blumberg; Catherine Lumley; Samip Patel; Trevor Hackman; Mark C Weissler; Wendell G Yarbrough; Adam M Zanation; Andrew F Olshan Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: L Giraldi; E Leoncini; R Pastorino; V Wünsch-Filho; M de Carvalho; R Lopez; G Cadoni; D Arzani; L Petrelli; K Matsuo; C Bosetti; C La Vecchia; W Garavello; J Polesel; D Serraino; L Simonato; C Canova; L Richiardi; P Boffetta; M Hashibe; Y C A Lee; S Boccia Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Siddharth Sheth; Douglas R Farquhar; Nicholas R Lenze; Angela Mazul; Paul Brennan; Devasena Anantharaman; Behnoush Abedi-Ardekani; Jose P Zevallos; D Neil Hayes; F Olshan Journal: Am J Otolaryngol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 1.808
Authors: Nicholas R Lenze; Douglas R Farquhar; Siddharth Sheth; Jose P Zevallos; Catherine Lumley; Jeffrey Blumberg; Samip Patel; Trevor Hackman; Mark C Weissler; Wendell G Yarbrough; Andrew F Olshan; Adam M Zanation Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 5.972