How many deaths would be avoidable if socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England were eliminated? A national population-based study, 1996–2006
Introduction
Inequalities in survival between rich and poor have been reported for most adult cancers in England and Wales.1, 2 The origin of these disparities in survival is still not fully understood, but factors such as stage at diagnosis and access to optimal treatment have been implicated.3 Such observations suggest that deprived patients do not benefit equally from health-care services in the United Kingdom (UK), despite a universal health-care system that is free to all at the point of use. Quantifying the public health impact of these inequalities in cancer survival is important to inform health policy. One such approach is to consider the number of deaths that would be avoidable if all patients were to have the same survival from their cancer as that observed for the most affluent patients.
The NHS (National Health Service) Cancer Plan for England, published in late 2000, was designed to improve prevention, early diagnosis and screening, and to provide optimal treatment for all patients. One of the main aims of the Cancer Plan was to tackle inequalities in cancer survival for people from deprived or less affluent backgrounds.4 Recent observations suggest there has been a modest acceleration of the previous upward trend in survival in England since implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan.5 However, there is little evidence that the Cancer Plan has been effective in reducing socioeconomic inequalities in short-term survival in the period up to 2006.2 Inequalities in short-term survival between rich and poor were still large for many cancers among patients diagnosed in 2006.
We set out to update the public health evaluation of socioeconomic inequalities in survival by estimating how many cancer deaths would have been avoidable within three years of diagnosis if relative survival for all patients had been as high as for the most affluent patients. We examined National Cancer Registry data for England in three calendar periods, defined in relation to the NHS Cancer Plan: 1996–2000 (five years; before the Cancer Plan), 2001–2003 (three years; initialisation) and 2004–2006 (three years; implementation). Trends in the annual number of avoidable deaths can be used as a public health measure of progress towards the goals set out in the NHS Cancer Plan.
Section snippets
Relative survival, excess mortality and avoidable deaths
The overall mortality in a group of cancer patients can be divided into two components: the background mortality (or expected mortality, derived from all-cause death rates in the general population), and the excess mortality, attributable to the cancer. Excess (cancer-related) mortality is estimated using the relative survival approach.6, 7 Avoidable deaths are the component of excess mortality that would not occur if relative survival in all deprivation categories was as high as in affluent
Results
For patients diagnosed with one of 21 common cancers in England during 2004–2006, a total of 7122 of the 64,940 excess (cancer-related) deaths a year would have been avoidable within three years since diagnosis if survival for all patients had been as high as the most affluent group. This represents a fall in the number of avoidable deaths within three years since diagnosis from 8435 per year among patients diagnosed during 1996–2000. The percentage of excess deaths that was avoidable fell from
Discussion
The absolute number of avoidable deaths for a particular cancer depends on the deficit in relative survival between affluent and deprived groups (the ‘deprivation gap’), but also on the number of patients diagnosed with that cancer and on the relative survival for that cancer. Our findings show that for adult cancer patients diagnosed in England during 2004–2006, 7122 (11%) of the 64,940 cancer-related deaths that occurred each year within three years since diagnosis would have been avoidable
Role of funding source
This work was supported by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) [NT-04/2355A]; and Cancer Research UK [C1336/A5735]. ONS collated the data from the regional registries and arranged their linkage to data on deaths at the National Health Service Central Register. Neither Cancer Research UK nor ONS had any role in study design, analysis, interpretation of the data, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The findings and conclusions in this report are
Author contributions
B.R. and M.P.C. led the study design. L.E., B.R. and M.P.C. carried out the data preparation and quality control. L.E. did the analyses. L.E., B.R. and M.P.C. contributed to interpretation of the findings and drafted the report.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Cancer Registry staff in England: their sustained data collection and quality control have enabled the survival of patients to be analysed and compared in this study. We also thank the Cancer Team at ONS for extensive work in preparing the data in the National Cancer Registry.
References (28)
- et al.
Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review
Ann Oncol
(2006) - et al.
Population-based cancer survival trends in England and Wales up to 2007: an assessment of the NHS cancer plan for England
Lancet Oncol
(2009) - et al.
Breast cancer survival in Ontario and California, 1998–2006: socioeconomic inequity remains much greater in the United States
Ann Epidemiol
(2009) - et al.
Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)
Lancet Oncol
(2008) - et al.
Trends and socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales up to 2001
Br J Cancer
(2004) - et al.
Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS Cancer Plan
Br J Cancer
(2010) The NHS cancer plan
(2000)- et al.
Calculation of survival rates for cancer
Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clinic
(1950) - et al.
The relative survival: a statistical methodology
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
(1961) - Cancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group. Life tables for England and Wales by sex, calendar period, region and...
The English indices of deprivation 2004
Cancer mortality in Scotland (2009)
Education, survival and avoidable deaths in cancer patients in Finland
Br J Cancer
An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan areas
Am J Public Health
Cited by (72)
Referral Patterns and Outcome of Patients With Synchronous Brain Metastases From Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Gamma Knife Radiosurgery in a Third-Line Treatment Centre in The Netherlands – A Retrospective Analysis
2020, Clinical OncologyCitation Excerpt :Patients in both groups had a similar number of comorbidities, which might serve, at least partly, as a proxy for overall health. Socioeconomic status was also compared, as a lower socioeconomic status and education level are correlated with a poorer prognosis in cancer patients in general [25–27]. A recent study found that the cultural backgrounds of patients with multiple brain metastases from NSCLC, specifically, had a significant influence on the patients' survival prognosis [28].
Loss in life expectancy and gain in life years as measures of cancer impact
2019, Cancer EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :We will also consider alternative formats of the metric; both the proportion of life lost and also conditional measures to calculate updated impact on a patient’s life expectancy. A number of investigators have tried to quantify the impact of differences between population groups by calculating the deaths that could be avoided at given timepoints post diagnosis if inequalities in relative survival were removed [8–12]. One alternative would be to calculate the life expectancy for cancer patients should the differences in relative survival be removed [12,13].
Non-parametric estimation of reference adjusted, standardised probabilities of all-cause death and death due to cancer for population group comparisons
2022, BMC Medical Research Methodology