BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is known that the socioeconomic status (SES) of the patient is associated with cancer survival in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the association between SES and survival is also present in Canada, a society with a comprehensive, universal, health insurance program. METHODS: A population-based cancer registry was used to identify the 357,530 cases of invasive cancer diagnosed in the Canadian province of Ontario between 1982 and 1991. Information from the 1986 Canadian census was linked to the registry and used to describe the SES of the area in which each patient resided. Cox regression was used to describe the association between median household income and survival while controlling for age, sex, and the region in which the patient resided. The Cox model was fitted in a competing risk framework to assess the association between income and the probability of specific causes of death. RESULTS: Lung cancer and cancers of the head and neck region were relatively more common in poor-income communities, and cancers of the breast, CNS, and testis were relatively more common in richer communities. A strong and statistically significant association between community income and survival was observed in cancers of the head and neck region, cervix, uterus, breast, prostate, bladder, and esophagus. Smaller, but significant associations were seen in cancers of the lung and rectum. No significant association between community income and survival was observed in cancers of the stomach, colon, pancreas, or ovary. Analysis of the cause of death showed that community income is associated both with the probability of death from cancer and with the probability of death from other causes. CONCLUSION: Although Canada's health care system was designed to provide equitable access to equivalent standards of care, it does not prevent a difference in cancer survival between rich and poor communities.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is known that the socioeconomic status (SES) of the patient is associated with cancer survival in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the association between SES and survival is also present in Canada, a society with a comprehensive, universal, health insurance program. METHODS: A population-based cancer registry was used to identify the 357,530 cases of invasive cancer diagnosed in the Canadian province of Ontario between 1982 and 1991. Information from the 1986 Canadian census was linked to the registry and used to describe the SES of the area in which each patient resided. Cox regression was used to describe the association between median household income and survival while controlling for age, sex, and the region in which the patient resided. The Cox model was fitted in a competing risk framework to assess the association between income and the probability of specific causes of death. RESULTS: Lung cancer and cancers of the head and neck region were relatively more common in poor-income communities, and cancers of the breast, CNS, and testis were relatively more common in richer communities. A strong and statistically significant association between community income and survival was observed in cancers of the head and neck region, cervix, uterus, breast, prostate, bladder, and esophagus. Smaller, but significant associations were seen in cancers of the lung and rectum. No significant association between community income and survival was observed in cancers of the stomach, colon, pancreas, or ovary. Analysis of the cause of death showed that community income is associated both with the probability of death from cancer and with the probability of death from other causes. CONCLUSION: Although Canada's health care system was designed to provide equitable access to equivalent standards of care, it does not prevent a difference in cancer survival between rich and poor communities.
Authors: Danielle A Southern; William A Ghali; Peter D Faris; Colleen M Norris; P Diane Galbraith; Michelle M Graham; Merril L Knudtson Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2002 Nov-Dec
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: H Naik; X Qiu; M C Brown; L Eng; D Pringle; M Mahler; H Hon; K Tiessen; H Thai; V Ho; C Gonos; R Charow; V Pat; M Irwin; L Herzog; A Ho; W Xu; J M Jones; D Howell; G Liu Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Steven K M Lau; Bhavani S Gannavarapu; Kristen Carter; Ang Gao; Chul Ahn; Jeffrey J Meyer; David J Sher; Aminah Jatoi; Rodney Infante; Puneeth Iyengar Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Judy Gould; Christina Sinding; Terry L Mitchell; Diana L Gustafson; Ito Peng; Patti Mcgillicuddy; Margaret I Fitch; Jane Aronson; Linda Burhansstipanov Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Khaled El Emam; Ann Brown; Philip AbdelMalik; Angelica Neisa; Mark Walker; Jim Bottomley; Tyson Roffey Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 2.796