combined effect of individual and neighborhood ses in esophageal cancer
DESCRIPTION
Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal cancer. 2013/7/16 吳晉嘉. Topic Literature Review Coding sheet of literature Introduction Result Limitation. Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal cancer. Literature Review. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal
cancer2013/7/16
吳晉嘉
• Topic• Literature Review• Coding sheet of literature• Introduction• Result• Limitation
• Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal cancer
Literature Review
• Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in gastric cancer patients Literature.
• Pubmed: “socioeconomic status” AND “esophageal cancer”
Coding SheetNo Journal Year Title Authors Main conclusion
1 NEJM 2003 Esophageal cancer Enzinger Review of esophageal cancer
2 BMC cancer 2012incidence and survival of esophageal and gastric cancer
Coupland incidence and survival.Primary prevention
3Indian journal of cancer
2012
Risk factors and survival analysis of the esophageal cancer in the population of Jammu, India
Sehgal
snuff, salt tea, smoking and sundried food are the most powerful risk factor of esophageal cancer.
improve economic status
4
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention
2011Epidemiologic risk factors fir esiohageal cacer development
Mao Rsik factors and EC development
Nitrosamine, tabacco abd alcohol, BE and GERDm nutrition, HPV
5 BJC 2006
Role of SES in decision making on dx and tx of esophageal cancer in Netherlands
Vliet
individual SES related to histology . Higher SES related to resection. Lower SES: stent. High SES: more C/T but not significant
6 BJC 2004 Trends and SES inequality in cancer survival Coleman
Deprived patients not benefitial from earlier diagnosis and treatment
Ref: Dixon, High SES more resources
7 JCGE 2012 SES , staging and treat decisions in EC BUS
SES related to tx choice.Netherlan. Related to patient and physician??
Curative treatment==> similar survival. Neighborhood. High ==> curative resection, or CCRT ==> better survival
8
international journal of epidemiology
2009SES, population based case control study in high risk area,Iran
Islami high SES, low risk.Individual. Multiple SES measures. Occupation, area, education
9
Journal of epidemiol Coomunity health
2001 Neighborhood SES and health outcomes Pickett Neighborhood SES rekated to
health outcom
10Cancer epidemiology
2005SES and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Sweden
Janssonindividual SES related EAC and ESC, high ==> low. Especially without partner.
11
health and quality of life outcomes
2009Quality of life as prognostic factor in cancer survival.
Montazeri Fatigue, physical function
12 PLOS one 2013
Sociodemographic and geographical factor in EC and GC mortality in Sweden
Ljung
neighborhood : density high ==> poorer outcome. Single: poorer. High education: better outcome
13 EJC 2008
Sociol inequality, incidence and survival of EC and GC and PC in Denmark
Baastrup
high SES, low risk. Disadvantaged group ==> lower survival but not significant
14 JCO 1999 Community income and cancer survival Boyd Canada remove SES inequality
more than US
15 BJC 2006Impact if SES ib death rate after surgery for UGI cancer
LeighAfter surgery, social deprivation significant associated mortality
16 CA: cancer J clin 2011 Global cancer statistics Jemal Statistics
17
international journal of epidemiology
2007 SES, risk of GC and EC in European Nagel GC related to SES, others no
specific.
18 Ann Surg Oncol. 2013
Outcome of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis.
Chen
age, sex, and curative treatment were significant predictors of lifetime survival in patients with esophageal cancer.
• SES related to esophageal cancer incidence.• In developed country EAC and ESCC related to
high SES ( Denmark )• In developing countries ESCC related to low
SES• SES related to treatment choice of esophageal
cancer• Surgery improved outcome• Low Neighborhood SES related higher post-
esophagectomy mortality.
• Plos one 2013 : neighborhood and individual SES, but no combination.
• Limited literature about combined effect of neighborhood and individual SES
Study Design
• Taiwan’s NHIRD for the years 2002 to 2006. • 6557 Esophageal cancer patient• Combined Individual SES and neighborhood
SES survival• Individual: occupation and insurance income• Neighborhood: average household income
台灣不分性別 每 10 萬人口標準化發生率 (2000 年世界標準人口 ) , 2002-
2006 年
年度
食道
個案數 平均年齡 年齡中位數 標準化率 癌症百分比
2002 1,310 61 61 5.47 2.08%
2003 1,356 61 61 5.42 2.14%
2004 1,534 60 59 5.99 2.16%
2005 1,527 59 58 5.76 2.13%
2006 1,764 59 57 6.44 2.34%
7,491
國健局網站 癌登系統
<65 years old
食道
年度 個案數 平均年齡 年齡中位數 標準化率 癌症百分比
2002 787 52 52 3.65 2.34%
2003 810 52 52 3.61 2.41%
2004 963 52 52 4.17 2.56%
2005 983 51 51 4.07 2.58%
2006 1,175 52 52 4.74 2.95
>65years old
食道
年度 個案數 平均年齡 年齡中位數 標準化率 癌症百分比
2002 523 74 73 25.78 1.77%
2003 546 74 74 25.69 1.84%
2004 571 74 73 26.4 1.72%
2005 544 74 73 24.61 1.62%
2006 589 75 74 25.47 1.66%
Limitation
• No staging ( If limited to curative resection, may overcome this bias ) previous review showed that the most important factor is “curative resection”
• No histopathological report ( more than 90% in Asian is SCC )