5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Trends in cancer incidence by socioeconomic deprivation in Germany in 2007 to 2018: An ecological registry‐based study

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Age‐standardized cancer incidence has decreased over the last years for many cancer sites in developed countries. Whether these trends led to narrowing or widening socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence is unknown. Using cancer registry data covering 48 million inhabitants in Germany, the ecological association between age‐standardized total and site specific (colorectal, lung, prostate and breast) cancer incidence in 2007 to 2018 and a deprivation index on district level (aggregated to quintiles) was investigated. Incidence in the most and least deprived districts were compared using Poisson models. Average annual percentage changes (AAPCs) and differences in AAPCs between deprivation quintiles were assessed using Joinpoint regression analyses. Age‐standardized incidence decreased strongly between 2007 and 2018 for total cancer and all cancer sites (except female lung cancer), irrespective of the level of deprivation. However, differences in the magnitude of trends across deprivation quintiles resulted in increasing inequalities over time for total cancer, colorectal and lung cancer. For total cancer, the incidence rate ratio between the most and least deprived quintile increased from 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.01‐1.12) to 1.23 (1.12‐1.32) in men and from 1.07 (1.01‐1.13) to 1.20 (1.14‐1.26) in women. Largest inequalities were observed for lung cancer with 82% (men) and 88% (women) higher incidence in the most vs the least deprived regions in 2018. The observed increase in inequalities in cancer incidence is in alignment with trends in inequalities in risk factor prevalence and partly utilization of screening. Intervention programs targeted at socioeconomically deprived and urban regions are highly needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Estimating average annual per cent change in trend analysis

            Trends in incidence or mortality rates over a specified time interval are usually described by the conventional annual per cent change (cAPC), under the assumption of a constant rate of change. When this assumption does not hold over the entire time interval, the trend may be characterized using the annual per cent changes from segmented analysis (sAPCs). This approach assumes that the change in rates is constant over each time partition defined by the transition points, but varies among different time partitions. Different groups (e.g. racial subgroups), however, may have different transition points and thus different time partitions over which they have constant rates of change, making comparison of sAPCs problematic across groups over a common time interval of interest (e.g. the past 10 years). We propose a new measure, the average annual per cent change (AAPC), which uses sAPCs to summarize and compare trends for a specific time period. The advantage of the proposed AAPC is that it takes into account the trend transitions, whereas cAPC does not and can lead to erroneous conclusions. In addition, when the trend is constant over the entire time interval of interest, the AAPC has the advantage of reducing to both cAPC and sAPC. Moreover, because the estimated AAPC is based on the segmented analysis over the entire data series, any selected subinterval within a single time partition will yield the same AAPC estimate—that is it will be equal to the estimated sAPC for that time partition. The cAPC, however, is re-estimated using data only from that selected subinterval; thus, its estimate may be sensitive to the subinterval selected. The AAPC estimation has been incorporated into the segmented regression (free) software Joinpoint, which is used by many registries throughout the world for characterizing trends in cancer rates. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

              Objectives To review, summarise, and compare the evidence for effectiveness of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy in the prevention of colorectal cancer occurrence and deaths. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two investigators independently extracted characteristics and results of identified studies and performed standardised quality ratings. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials and observational studies in English on the impact of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in the general population at average risk. Results For screening sigmoidoscopy, four randomised controlled trials and 10 observational studies were identified that consistently found a major reduction in distal but not proximal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Summary estimates of reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 31% (95% confidence intervals 26% to 37%) and 46% (33% to 57%) in intention to screen analysis, 42% (29% to 53%) and 61% (27% to 79%) in per protocol analysis of randomised controlled trials, and 64% (50% to 74%) and 66% (38% to 81%) in observational studies. For screening colonoscopy, evidence was restricted to six observational studies, the results of which suggest tentatively an even stronger reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, along with a significant reduction in mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. Indirect comparisons of results of observational studies on screening sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy suggest a 40% to 60% lower risk of incident colorectal cancer and death from colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy even though this incremental risk reduction was statistically significant for deaths from cancer of the proximal colon only. Conclusions Compelling and consistent evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies suggests that screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy prevent most deaths from distal colorectal cancer. Observational studies suggest that colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy decreases mortality from cancer of the proximal colon. This added value should be examined in further research and weighed against the higher costs, discomfort, complication rates, capacities needed, and possible differences in compliance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Journal of Cancer
                Intl Journal of Cancer
                Wiley
                0020-7136
                1097-0215
                August 04 2023
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Epidemiological Cancer Registry Baden‐Württemberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
                [2 ] Division for Health Economics, Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg Oldenburg Germany
                [3 ] Cancer Registry Rheinland‐Palatinate gGmbH Mainz Germany
                [4 ] Bremen Cancer Registry, Leibniz‐Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology: BIPS Bremen Germany
                [5 ] Cancer Registry Saarland Saarbrücken Germany
                [6 ] Cancer Registry of North Rhine‐Westphalia Bochum Germany
                [7 ] Cancer Registry Mecklenburg‐Western Pomerania, Institute for Community Medicine University Medicine Greifswald Greifswald Germany
                [8 ] Cancer Registry Hamburg Hamburg Germany
                [9 ] Institute for Cancer Epidemiology University Lübeck, Cancer Registry Schleswig‐Holstein Lübeck Germany
                [10 ] Clinical Cancer Registry Sachsen‐Anhalt gGmbH Halle Germany
                [11 ] Epidemiological Cancer Registry Lower Saxony, Registerstelle Oldenburg Germany
                [12 ] Division of Social Determinants of Health, Robert Koch‐Institute Berlin Germany
                [13 ] Bavarian Cancer Registry, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority Nürnberg Germany
                Article
                10.1002/ijc.34662
                ca510618-99c1-4b42-a7f8-7f40d58ff3c2
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article