Literature DB >> 7773946

Socioeconomic variation in cancer survival in the southeastern Netherlands, 1980-1989.

C T Schrijvers1, J W Coebergh, L H van der Heijden, J P Mackenbach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The survival rates of patients with cancer by socioeconomic status (SES) has never been investigated in the Netherlands, a country characterized by good general access to health care services. The association between socioeconomic status and survival from cancer of the lung (n = 4591), breast (n = 3928), colorectum (n = 3558), prostate (n = 1484), and stomach (n = 1455) was studied, and the impact of some prognostic factors (stage at diagnosis, histologic type, and treatment) on this association was assessed.
METHODS: Subjects were patients who were diagnosed from 1980 to 1989 and included in the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry in the Southeastern Netherlands. The patients were classified by socioeconomic status based on their postal code of residence at the time of diagnosis (3 or 5 categories). The follow-up ended July 1, 1991, at which time relative survival rates and hazard ratios were calculated.
RESULTS: A more favorable relative survival for patients living in high SES areas was found for those with cancer of the lung, breast, colorectum, and prostate, whereas for those with stomach cancer, lower survival was found for patients living in high SES areas. For cancer of the lung, colorectum, and prostate, the socioeconomic variation in survival could not be explained by the distribution of the prognostic factors stage, histologic type, and treatment. For patients with breast and stomach cancer, the socioeconomic variation in survival could be ascribed mainly to differences in the percentage of patients diagnosed with a metastasis.
CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic variation in survival from a number of common cancer sites exists in the Netherlands, despite the fairly equal access to health care services for different socioeconomic groups. Most of the variation could not be explained by the differential distribution of stage, histologic type, and treatment across SES categories.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7773946     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950615)75:12<2946::aid-cncr2820751223>3.0.co;2-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  19 in total

1.  The attractiveness of an additive hazard model: an example from medical demography.

Authors:  O Kravdal
Journal:  Eur J Popul       Date:  1997-03

2.  An international comparison of cancer survival: advantage of Toronto's poor over the near poor of Detroit.

Authors:  K M Gorey; E J Holowaty; E Laukkanen; G Fehringer; N L Richter
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1998 Mar-Apr

3.  Measuring social class differences in cancer patient survival: is it necessary to control for social class differences in general population mortality? A Finnish population-based study.

Authors:  P W Dickman; A Auvinen; E T Voutilainen; T Hakulinen
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Prognostic factors in women with breast cancer: distribution by socioeconomic status and effect on differences in survival.

Authors:  C S Thomson; D J Hole; C J Twelves; D H Brewster; R J Black
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan areas.

Authors:  K M Gorey; E J Holowaty; G Fehringer; E Laukkanen; A Moskowitz; D J Webster; N L Richter
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Lung cancer: district active treatment rates affect survival.

Authors:  M L Cartman; A C Hatfield; M F Muers; M D Peake; R A Haward; D Forman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  A cancer survival model that takes sociodemographic variations in "normal" mortality into account: comparison with other models.

Authors:  Ø Kravdal
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Cancer incidence, mortality from cancer and survival in men of different occupational classes.

Authors:  Annika Rosengren; Lars Wilhelmsen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Socioeconomic measures and CKD in the United States and The Netherlands.

Authors:  Priya Vart; Ron T Gansevoort; Josef Coresh; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Ute Bültmann
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 8.237

10.  Deprivation and emergency admissions for cancers of colorectum, lung, and breast in south east England: ecological study.

Authors:  A M Pollock; N Vickers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.