Document Detail

Diverging trends in educational inequalities in cancer mortality between men and women in the 2000s in France.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  24015917     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality have been observed in different European countries and the US until the end of the 1990s, with changes over time in the magnitude of these inequalities and contrasted situations between countries. The aim of this study is to estimate relative and absolute educational differences in cancer mortality in France between 1999 and 2007, and to compare these inequalities with those reported during the 1990s.
METHODS: Data from a representative sample including 1% of the French population were analysed. Educational differences among people aged 30--74 were quantified with hazard ratios and relative indices of inequality (RII) computed using Cox regression models as well as mortality rate difference and population attributable fraction.
RESULTS: In the period 1999--2007, large relative inequalities were found among men for total cancer and smoking and/or alcohol related cancers mortality (lung, head and neck, oesophagus). Among women, educational differences were reported for total cancer, head and neck and uterus cancer mortality. No association was found between education and breast cancer mortality. Slight educational differences in colorectal cancer mortality were observed in men and women. For most frequent cancers, no change was observed in the magnitude of relative inequalities in mortality between the 1990s and the 2000s, although the RII for lung cancer increased both in men and women. Among women, a large increase in absolute inequalities in mortality was observed for all cancers combined, lung, head and neck and colorectal cancer. In contrast, among men, absolute inequalities in mortality decreased for all smoking and/or alcohol related cancers.
CONCLUSION: Although social inequalities in cancer mortality are still high among men, an encouraging trend is observed. Among women though, the situation regarding social inequalities is less favourable, mainly due to a health improvement limited to higher educated women. These inequalities may be expected to further increase in future years.
Authors:
Gwenn Menvielle; Grégoire Rey; Eric Jougla; Danièle Luce
Related Documents :
9089527 - The need for health promotion in oral cancer prevention and early detection.
2213107 - Response of oral leukoplakia to beta-carotene.
11152107 - First report of the united network for organ sharing transplant tumor registry: donors ...
21470127 - Role of mmps in metastatic dissemination: implications for therapeutic advances.
2725337 - Endometrial sampling using the mi mark procedure as a primary routine: first year's exp...
22449617 - Plasma concentrations of ang-1, ang-2 and tie-2 in gastric cancer.
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2013-9-10
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMC public health     Volume:  13     ISSN:  1471-2458     ISO Abbreviation:  BMC Public Health     Publication Date:  2013 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-9-10     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100968562     Medline TA:  BMC Public Health     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  823     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Public Health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Publisher: BioMed Central
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright © 2013 Menvielle et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
open-access:
Received Day: 12 Month: 4 Year: 2013
Accepted Day: 3 Month: 9 Year: 2013
collection publication date: Year: 2013
Electronic publication date: Day: 10 Month: 9 Year: 2013
Volume: 13First Page: 823 Last Page: 823
PubMed Id: 24015917
ID: 3847008
Publisher Id: 1471-2458-13-823
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-823

Diverging trends in educational inequalities in cancer mortality between men and women in the 2000s in France
Gwenn Menvielle12 Email: gwenn.menvielle@inserm.fr
Grégoire Rey3 Email: gregoire.rey@inserm.fr
Eric Jougla3 Email: eric.jougla@inserm.fr
Danièle Luce124 Email: daniele.luce@inserm.fr
1Inserm U1018, Center for Epidemiology and Population Health, Occupational and social determinants of health, Bat 15/16 Hôpital Paul Brousse, 16 ave Paul Vaillant Couturier, Villejuif Cedex 94807, France
2University of Versailles Saint Quentin, UMRS 1018, France
3Inserm, CépiDc, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
4Inserm U1085, Irset, Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, French West Indies

Background

Cancer is a major cause of death in Europe and worldwide. Nowadays, almost 50% of deaths at middle age is caused by cancer [1]. In addition, socioeconomic inequalities in cancer rates are an important contributor to socioeconomic inequalities in total mortality. During the 1990s, this contribution was large in Southern European countries as reported in several studies [2,3]. This was also reported in other settings where cardiovascular diseases used to play an important role in socioeconomic inequalities in mortality such as Sweden [4] or New Zealand [5], cancer being there now the main driver of socioeconomic inequalities in female mortality during the 1990s.

Time trends in socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality differ by cancer site and by country. Large inequalities have been reported for respiratory, cervix uteri, stomach and liver cancer in the US [6]. Over the 1980s and the 1990s, an increase in educational differences in cancer mortality has been shown in the US [7-9] or in Norway [10] for all cancers combined as well as for lung and colorectal cancer, with a decrease in mortality rates more pronounced among higher educated men and women. On the contrary, stable inequalities in cancer mortality have been observed in Barcelona during the 1990s [11]. In France, inequalities in total cancer and specific cancer site mortality increased until the end of the 1990s both in men and women [2]. A specific situation has been observed for breast cancer mortality. Educational differences in mortality disappeared during the 1990s in France [12] as in Finland [13], whereas higher mortality rates among higher educated women were still observed in most countries [14].

These studies focused on the period until the end of the last century, or the very first years of the 2000s. Given that socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality within and between countries have changed over time, it is worthwhile examining recent trends especially in a country where large inequalities have been reported in the past. In addition, both relative and absolute measures of inequalities as well as measures comparing the two extreme educational groups and measures taking into account the whole population are needed to get an accurate and comprehensive picture of educational differences in cancer mortality and eventually help the policy makers to tackle these inequalities.

The aim of this analysis is to provide an overview of relative and absolute educational differences in cancer mortality in France during the period 1999–2007 and to compare these inequalities with those reported during the previous decade (1990–1998).


Methods

The analysis is based on a representative sample of the French population (the Echantillon Démographique Permanent) created by the French National Institute of Statistics (INSEE) containing about 1% of the population [15]. The sample includes all persons born on any one of four specific calendar dates in any year and is regularly updated to include new subjects with any of these birthdays. Data are updated at each successive census. We excluded people born outside of mainland France because their vital status was not adequately recorded. Causes of death were obtained by linkage with the French national death registry (CépiDc, INSERM). The causes of death were identified for over 99% of the deceased included in this analysis. The underlying causes of death were classified according to the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for the years until 1999 and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for the years 2000–2007.

Socioeconomic status was measured using education level as declared at census in 5 categories: no diploma, primary education, lower secondary or vocational upper secondary education, general upper secondary education, tertiary education.

Educational differences in cancer mortality were studied for the period 1999–2007. In addition, these differences were compared with those observed in the previous decade (1990–1998). Analyses were restricted to people aged 30–74 at 1990 or 1999 census, depending on the analysis. Subjects were followed until death, their 75th birthday, or 31/12/1998 or 31/12/2007 (depending on the analysis), whichever occurred first. We excluded people with missing educational information (n = 156, 0.1% in 1990 and n = 16224, 5.8% in 1999). The analysis was finally conducted among 120,307 men and 130,980 women for the period 1990–1998 and among 127,843 men and 137,833 women for the period 1999–2007.

Analyses were conducted separately for men and women. We used several indicators to assess educational differences in mortality. Relative socioeconomic inequalities in mortality were assessed using Cox regression models, with age as the time variable. We computed hazard ratios (HR) by education as well as relative indices of inequality (RII). Details about the calculation of the RII can be found elsewhere [16]. Briefly, the calculation of the RII is based on a ranked variable for education, which specifies for each educational group the mean proportion of the population with a lower level of education. The RII is then computed by regressing the mortality on this ranked variable. Thus, the RII expresses inequality in the whole socioeconomic continuum. It deviates further from 1 as the educational inequalities in the study population widen. In addition, age standardized mortality rates (MR) were computed with direct standardisation, using the WHO European standard population as standard [17].

A trend test was carried out to test the hypothesis that the RII changed over time. Mortality for the entire period was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model, with age as the time variable and the following explanatory variables: the period as a categorical variable to take into account mortality that is generally decreasing over time; the ranked variable for education; an interaction term between the period and the ranked variable for education. This interaction term measures the linear trend of the progression over time of the RII.

We also computed the Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) attributable to education as follows [18]:


PAF=∑i=15piRRi−1∑i=15piRRi

with pi the share of the ith educational group, RRi the hazard ratio of mortality in the ith group when compared with the highest educated. It can be interpreted as the proportion of deaths that could be avoided if all educational groups had the same rate of mortality as the tertiary educated.

Absolute inequalities were assessed with mortality rate difference (RD) between the highest and the lowest education groups. We also calculated the number of deaths attributable to education differences in mortality, thereafter called AD, as the product of the PAF by the average MR [16]. This can be interpreted as the total number of deaths that could be avoided if all educational groups had the same rate of mortality as the tertiary educated.

The research that is reported in the manuscript has been performed with the approval of the CNIL (French data protection agency, reference 902368). The permission to use the data within the frame of this approval has then been given by the organisms in charge of data collection (Insee for census data and Inserm-CepiDc for mortality data).


Results

Education level increased between 1990 and 1999 both in men and women, the increase was more pronounced among women. In 1999, the education distribution was quite similar among men and women except a higher proportion of women with primary education and a higher proportion of men with lower and vocational upper secondary education (Table 1). Between 1990–1998 and 1999–2007, the age-standardized cancer MR strongly decreased among men from 375 (per 100000) to 312 whereas it remained stable among women (from 161 to 154). In the period 1999–2007, when compared with men with tertiary education, the HR of total cancer mortality was significantly elevated in all the other educational groups, ranging from 1.30 (95% CI: 1.10-1.53) among men with upper secondary general education to 2.40 (2.10-2.73) among men without any diploma (Table 1). Among women, we observed similar significantly higher total cancer MR among the four lower educational groups when compared with tertiary education. During the period 1999–2007, lung, upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) and colorectal cancers were the most frequent cancers among men, and breast, lung and colorectal cancers the most frequent among women. These cancer sites accounted for slightly less than 50% of the total cancer MR both in men and women (Tables 2 and 3).

During the period 1999–2007, marked relative educational differences in total cancer mortality as measured with RII were observed among men (RII = 2.42, 95% CI: 2.13-2.74) (Table 2). Differences were particularly large for UADT and oesophagus (RII > 5.5). A RII higher than 3 was found for stomach, bladder and liver cancer. An elevated RII of 2.45 was found for lung cancer mortality. On the contrary, no association between education and mortality was found for cancer of kidney, brain and central nervous system, and lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue. Colorectal cancer mortality increased slightly with decreasing education but the RII did not reach statistical significance. For women, modest educational differences in total cancer mortality were found (RII = 1.28, 1.08-1.52) (Table 3). The RII was significantly higher than 1 only for uterus (RII = 2.12, 1.01-4.47) and UADT (RII = 2.95, 1.16-7.48) cancer mortality. High RIIs were found for lung, UADT, colorectal, and liver cancer, but without reaching statistical significance.

When compared with the period 1990–1998, no change was observed in the magnitude of the RII for total cancer and for most specific cancer mortality both in men and women (Tables 2 and 3). A significant increase in inequalities was nevertheless observed for mortality from “other cancers” among men. A decrease was observed among women for mortality from oesophagus and stomach cancers, although based on small numbers. In addition, the RII strongly increased between the two periods for lung cancer among women and a modest increase in RII was reported for total and lung cancer among men, although the estimates did not statistically differ between the two periods. On the contrary, the RII for breast cancer decreased.

If all educational groups had experienced the same mortality as the highest educated, the proportion of cancer deaths avoided (estimated with the PAF) would have decreased among men from 48 to 40% between the 1990s and the 2000s (p for tend = 0.24) but strongly increased among women from 9% to 24% (p for tend = 0.20) (Tables 2 and 3). During the 1999–2007 period, the PAF was highest among men for UADT and oesophagus cancer, followed by liver, stomach, kidney and lung cancer. Among women, the PAF was highest for colorectal cancer, followed by uterus, liver, UADT and lung cancer. It was null for breast cancer. When compared with the previous period, among men the PAF decreased for lung cancer (p for tend = 0.14) and increased for colorectal cancer from 5 to 15% (p for tend = 0.36). Among women, an increase was observed for almost all cancer sites, in particular for colorectal (p for tend = 0.06) and lung (p for tend = 0.23) cancers.

Among men, the RD for total cancer decreased between the two periods (Table 3). The decrease was particularly pronounced for lung and UADT cancers. The total number of deaths avoided if the MR were similar in all educational groups to that among higher educated men (estimated with the AD) would have decreased or remained stable for almost all cancer sites but colorectal cancer. The decrease was more pronounced for AD than for the RD. Among women, the RD between the two periods slightly increased for total cancer, lung, UADT and colorectal cancers but the AD largely increased.


Discussion

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality have been observed in different European countries and the US until the end of the 1990s, with contrasted situations between countries and changes over time in the magnitude of these inequalities. To our knowledge, this is the first study documenting socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality during the 2000s. It showed substantial relative inequalities in France both for total cancer and specific cancers mortality. When compared to the previous decade, these inequalities tended to remain stable. Important changes were observed for absolute inequalities. In particular, absolute inequalities decreased among men for the most frequent cancers whereas they increased among women for all cancers combined, lung cancer, and especially for colorectal cancer, when assessed with the number of deaths that would be avoided if all women had the same MR as higher educated.

Many measures of inequalities have been defined in the literature [16]. The measures are complementary and allow getting a comprehensive picture of educational inequalities in cancer mortality. Methodological aspects related to the definition of each indicator may partly explain our results. First, the RII quantifies the mean increase in mortality by increasing educational rank. It is therefore less appropriate when there is no gradient between education and mortality, as observed in our data among women for most cancers where the mortality was lowest among highest educated women and similar in most other educational groups. Second, HR or RD only compares two groups whereas RII or AD takes into account the whole population and the relative size and health of each educational group. In particular, when comparing the two periods, the AD and the RD yielded to different results, highlighting the importance of the situation among middle educated people. Among men, the decrease was more pronounced for the AD than for the RD, showing both an improvement of the health among middle educated men combined with a global increase in education. On the contrary, among women, the increase in inequalities was more pronounced for the AD than for the RD for all cancers combined, UADT and colorectal cancers, showing that not only the least educated women but all women experienced a worsening of cancer mortality when compared with the most educated.

Finally, it has been argued that the PAF, and hence AD, may be less appropriate to make comparisons because the size of the reference category may impact the results if it differs between the two populations compared. However, the PAF can be interpreted as the proportional reduction in mortality rates that would occur in the hypothetical and ideal situation where everyone experiences the rate of the highest educated (i.e. the lowest mortality rate) and therefore quantifies the potential for reduction in socioeconomic inequalities. Therefore it provides relevant information from a public health point of view when a major goal of public health policies is to tackle health inequalities.

As we are describing educational inequalities in the French population in two periods, there is an overlap between the two samples analyzed, and the large majority of the 1999 population was included in the 1990 population. Therefore the dramatic change in educational attainment between 1990 and 1999, especially among women, represents a lower qualified older age group being replaced by a higher qualified younger age group. This change, however, does not explain our findings. Indeed, analyses conducted among the younger women in the first period, or excluding the women that entered the sample in the second period lead to similar results (results not shown).

During the 2000s, the largest relative educational differences were reported for lung, UADT, oesophagus, pancreas, and bladder cancer, all these cancers being associated with smoking [19]. Inequalities were particularly large for respiratory cancers both in men and women. When compared with the previous decade, these inequalities increased among women and tended to be stable among men. However, both in men and women, they are likely to increase in future years. Indeed, socioeconomic inequalities in smoking have increased during the last decades both among women and men in France [20,21]. Moreover, an increase in educational differences in lung cancer mortality has been reported in the younger generations during the 2000s [22]. On the contrary, diverging trends between men and women are observed with regards to absolute inequalities. Among men indeed, absolute inequalities in smoking and/or alcohol related cancers, namely lung, UADT and oesophagus [19,23], decreased during the 2000s whereas the available evidence suggested an increase until the end of the 1990s [24]. Among women on the other hand, absolute inequalities as measured with RD or AD have increased during the last decade and are expected to increase further, due to the large increase in smoking rates [25]. Smoking is still and will remain a large contributor to socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality. Studies have consistently pointed to the difficulty to implement efficient policies aiming at reducing social inequalities in smoking [26]. However, even if we manage to reduce both smoking and socioeconomic inequalities in smoking, it will take decades for relative inequalities in smoking related cancers mortality, especially lung cancer mortality, to decrease [27].

Alcohol consumption accounts for a part of cancer mortality including head and neck, oesophagus and liver. A large decrease (approximately 30%) in alcohol consumption has been observed from 1960 to 2001 [28]. Literature on socioeconomic differences in alcohol consumption is sparse, and to our knowledge, there is no study on time trends in these differences. However one study reported that around 1990 in France inequalities were found in excessive alcohol consumption [29].

We observed modest and stable over time relative inequalities in colorectal cancer mortality. A similar pattern was reported in Barcelona [11,30] but it contrasted with the large inequalities found in the US [6]. Educational differences in the prevalence of overweight or obesity, one of the main risk factor for colorectal cancer [31], may explain these international differences. In France, both rates and educational differences in obesity have increased between 1991 and 2003, especially among women [32]. As a consequence, educational differences in colorectal cancer incidence rates are likely to increase in future years. We already observed an increase in several inequality measures between the 1990s and the 2000s. First, colorectal cancer is the only frequent cancer where the PAF increased between the 1990s and the 2000s, especially among women. In addition, the MR decreased between the two periods, but absolute inequalities as measured by RD or AD increased, especially among women. Moreover, a nationwide screening is being implemented in France. The screening rate is still low, around 40% [33], but higher among people with higher socioeconomic position (SEP) [34]. In order not to increase social inequalities in colorectal cancer survival, public health policies should devote special efforts to increase screening rates in all social groups. Although this had not been observed until now, colorectal cancer may become a large contributor to social inequalities in cancer mortality in the coming years in France.

In France, educational differences in breast cancer mortality have disappeared during the 1990s [12]. This trend was also observed in Finland [13] and in other European countries among younger women [14]. Our results show that the lack of association between education and breast cancer mortality seems to remain during the 2000s both on the relative and absolute scale. Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer mortality are difficult to assess, in particular because these inequalities combine inequalities in incidence that favour women with a lower SEP [35] and inequalities in survival that favour women with a higher SEP [36]. Breast cancer is a multifactorial disease, however age at first birth is suggested to be the main risk factor explaining social differences in breast cancer incidence [37-39]. Literature suggests diminishing differences in age at first birth between educational groups over time, with a postponement of age at first birth among lower educated women [40]. A nationwide screening for breast cancer has been implemented in France at the beginning of the 2000s and is likely to impact socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival. Socioeconomic inequalities in screening uptake are still reported in France [41]. However, a recent study showed an increase in screening rates in all socioeconomic groups between 2000 and 2005, and as a consequence, a decrease in absolute difference in screening rates between women with the highest and the lowest SEP [42]. Therefore, inequalities in breast cancer mortality are not expected to largely change in the coming years.

Some methodological issues should be discussed. Our analysis was based on a large sample representative of the French population born in mainland France. The population born in French overseas territories was excluded because the causes of death were not adequately recorded over the follow-up period for this population. In addition, we limited our analyses to people aged below 75 due to the less accurate certification of causes of death among older subjects. A few limits in the codification of causes of death should be mentioned. For uterine cancers, tumours of the endometrium or cervix could not be distinguished because 45% of uterine deaths were coded ‘Malignant neoplasm of uterus, part unspecified’. However, the educational differences observed in uterine cancer mortality are mostly driven by cervical cancer [43]. Misclassification of some secondary cancers as primary liver cancers is also likely to have occurred. The percentage of missing values on education was extremely low in 1990 due to some internal procedures performed by Insee on the 1990 census dataset. This could have slightly altered the results; however we expect the influence, if any, to be small. Conversely, 5.8% of our population had missing education in 1999. Additional analyses showed that this group displayed mortality similar to that found among men and women with primary education.


Conclusion

Cancer remains a major contributor to socioeconomic inequalities in mortality in France. The reduction of social inequalities in cancer is one of the main public health policy targets of the French Cancer Plan 2009–2013. In this regard, this study provides important results, documenting areas of improvement during the last decade and those where progress is still needed. Relative inequalities remained globally stable among men and women, but the situation regarding absolute inequalities differed by gender. Among men, an important decrease was observed during the 2000s, especially for several frequent cancers (lung, UADT and oesophagus), whereas inequalities seemed to increase for colorectal cancer. In contrast, among women, although the lack of inequalities for breast cancer persisted during the 2000s, the situation regarding social inequalities is less favourable, especially for colorectal cancer, mainly due to a health improvement limited to higher educated women.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Authors’ contributions

GM, GR, EJ and DL participated in the design of the study. GM carried out the analyses and drafted the manuscript. GR helped in the statistical analyses. All authors discussed the analysis and the results, helped to draft the manuscript, read an approved the final manuscript.


Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/823/prepub


Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jean-François Chastang for his help in preparing the dataset.

This study is funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa).


References
Karim-Kos HE,De Vries E,Soerjomataram I,Lemmens V,Siesling S,Coebergh JW,Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990sEur J CancerYear: 200813101345138910.1016/j.ejca.2007.12.01518280139
Menvielle G,Chastang JF,Luce D,Leclerc A,Temporal trends in socioeconomic inequality in mortality in France between 1968 and 1996. Study of educational differences by cause of deathRev Epidemiol Sante PubliqueYear: 200713e1e8
Mackenbach JP,Stirbu I,Roskam AJ,Schaap MM,Menvielle G,Leinsalu M,Kunst AE,Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countriesN Engl J MedYear: 200813232468248110.1056/NEJMsa070751918525043
Rosvall M,Chaix B,Lynch J,Lindstrom M,Merlo J,Contribution of main causes of death to social inequalities in mortality in the whole population of Scania, SwedenBMC Public HealthYear: 2006137910.1186/1471-2458-6-7916569222
Fawcett J,Blakely T,Cancer is overtaking cardiovascular disease as the main driver of socioeconomic inequalities in mortality: New Zealand (1981–99)J Epidemiol Community HealthYear: 2007131596610.1136/jech.2005.04401617183017
Albano JD,Ward E,Jemal A,Anderson R,Cokkinides VE,Murray T,Henley J,Liff J,Thun MJ,Cancer mortality in the United States by education level and raceJ Natl Cancer InstYear: 200713181384139410.1093/jnci/djm12717848670
Kinsey T,Jemal A,Liff J,Ward E,Thun M,Secular trends in mortality from common cancers in the United States by educational attainment, 1993–2001J Natl Cancer InstYear: 200813141003101210.1093/jnci/djn20718612132
Singh GK,Miller BA,Hankey BF,Changing area socioeconomic patterns in U.S. cancer mortality, 1950–1998: Part II--Lung and colorectal cancersJ Natl Cancer InstYear: 2002131291692510.1093/jnci/94.12.91612072545
Singh GK,Miller BA,Hankey BF,Feuer EJ,Pickle LW,Changing area socioeconomic patterns in U.S. cancer mortality, 1950–1998: Part I--All cancers among menJ Natl Cancer InstYear: 2002131290491510.1093/jnci/94.12.90412072544
Strand BH,Groholt EK,Steingrimsdottir OA,Blakely T,Graff-Iversen S,Naess O,Educational inequalities in mortality over four decades in Norway: prospective study of middle aged men and women followed for cause specific mortality, 1960–2000BMJYear: 201013c65410.1136/bmj.c65420179132
Puigpinos R,Borrell C,Antunes JL,Azlor E,Pasarin MI,Serral G,Pons-Vigues M,Rodriguez-Sanz M,Fernandez E,Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality in Barcelona: 1992–2003BMC Public HealthYear: 2009133510.1186/1471-2458-9-3519166582
Menvielle G,Leclerc A,Chastang JF,Luce D,Edisc groupSocial inequalities in breast cancer mortality among French women: disappearing educational disparities from 1968 to 1996Br J CancerYear: 200613115215510.1038/sj.bjc.660290716404368
Martikainen P,Valkonen T,Diminishing educational differences in breast cancer mortality among Finnish women: a register-based 25-year follow-upAm J Public HealthYear: 200013227728010667192
Strand BH,Kunst A,Huisman M,Menvielle G,Glickman M,Bopp M,Borell C,Borgan JK,Costa G,Deboosere P,Regidor E,Valkonen T,Mackenbach JP,The reversed social gradient: higher breast cancer mortality in the higher educated compared to lower educated. A comparison of 11 European populations during the 1990sEur J CancerYear: 20071371200120710.1016/j.ejca.2007.01.02117331712
Rouault D,The Echantillon Démograhique Permanent: a French equivalent to the Longitudinal Study. Update - News from the LS User GroupYear: 199413513
Mackenbach JP,Kunst AE,Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from EuropeSoc Sci MedYear: 199713675777110.1016/S0277-9536(96)00073-19080560
Ahmad O,Boschi-Pinto C,Murray C,Lozano R,Inoue M,Age standardization of rates: a new WHO world standardYear: 2001In GPE Discussion Paper Series: World Health Organization
Steenland K,Armstrong B,An overview of methods for calculating the burden of disease due to specific risk factorsEpidemiologyYear: 200613551251910.1097/01.ede.0000229155.05644.4316804473
Gandini S,Botteri E,Iodice S,Boniol M,Lowenfels AB,Maisonneuve P,Boyle P,Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysisInt J CancerYear: 200813115516410.1002/ijc.2303317893872
Cavelaars AE,Kunst AE,Geurts JJ,Crialesi R,Grotvedt L,Helmert U,Lahelma E,Lundberg O,Matheson J,Mielck A,Rasmussen NK,Regidor E,do Rosario-Giraldes M,Spuhler T,Mackenbach JP,Educational differences in smoking: international comparisonBMJYear: 20001372421102110710.1136/bmj.320.7242.110210775217
Legleye S,Khlat M,Beck F,Peretti-Watel P,Widening inequalities in smoking initiation and cessation patterns: a cohort and gender analysis in FranceDrug Alcohol DependYear: 2011132–323324121420251
Wagenaar KP,de Boer MR,Luce D,Menvielle G,Time trends in educational differences in lung and upper aero digestive tract cancer mortality in France between 1990 and 2007Cancer EpidemiolYear: 201213432933410.1016/j.canep.2012.03.00322503315
Boffetta P,Hashibe M,La Vecchia C,Zatonski W,Rehm J,The burden of cancer attributable to alcohol drinkingInt J CancerYear: 200613488488710.1002/ijc.2190316557583
Menvielle G,Leclerc A,Chastang JF,Melchior M,Luce D,Group E,Changes in social inequalities in cancer mortality rates among french Men between 1968 and 1996Am J Public HealthYear: 200713112082208710.2105/AJPH.2005.07342917395842
Bosetti C,Levi F,Lucchini F,Negri E,La Vecchia C,Lung cancer mortality in European women: recent trends and perspectivesAnn OncolYear: 200513101597160410.1093/annonc/mdi31316014639
Thomas S,Fayter D,Misso K,Ogilvie D,Petticrew M,Sowden A,Whitehead M,Worthy G,Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic reviewTob ControlYear: 200813423023710.1136/tc.2007.02391118426867
Menvielle G,Soerjomataram I,de Vries E,Engholm G,Barendregt JJ,Coebergh JW,Kunst AE,Scenarios of future lung cancer incidence by educational level: modelling study in DenmarkEur J CancerYear: 201013142625263210.1016/j.ejca.2010.07.02720843491
Besson D,Boissons alcoolisées: 40 ans de baisse de consommationInsee PremièreYear: 20041314
Cavelaars AE,Kunst AE,Mackenbach JP,Socioeconomic differences in risk factors for morbidity and mortality in the European Community: an international comparisonJ Health PsycholYear: 19971335337210.1177/13591053970020030622013027
Borrell C,Azlor E,Rodriguez-Sanz M,Puigpinos R,Cano-Serral G,Pasarin MI,Martinez JM,Benach J,Muntaner C,Trends in socioeconomic mortality inequalities in a southern European urban setting at the turn of the 21st centuryJ Epidemiol Community HealthYear: 200813325826610.1136/jech.2006.05716618272742
Danaei G,Vander Hoorn S,Lopez AD,Murray CJ,Ezzati M,Causes of cancer in the world: comparative risk assessment of nine behavioural and environmental risk factorsLancetYear: 20051394991784179310.1016/S0140-6736(05)67725-216298215
Singh-Manoux A,Gourmelen J,Lajnef M,Sabia S,Sitta R,Menvielle G,Melchior M,Nabi H,Lanoe JL,Gueguen A,Lert F,Prevalence of educational inequalities in obesity between 1970 and 2003 in FranceObes RevYear: 200913551151810.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00596.x19460112
Goulard H,Boussac-Zarebska M,Bloch J,Evaluation épidemiologique du programme pilote de dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal FranceBEHYear: 20071323
Goulard H,Boussac-Zarebska M,Duport N,Bloch J,Facteurs d’adhésion au dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal: étude FADO-colorectal, France, décembre 2006-acril 2007BEHYear: 2009132529
Villeneuve S,Fevotte J,Anger A,Truong T,Lamkarkach F,Gaye O,Kerbrat P,Arveux P,Miglianico L,Imbernon E,Guenel P,Breast cancer risk by occupation and industry: analysis of the CECILE study, a population-based case–control study in FranceAm J Ind MedYear: 201113749950910.1002/ajim.2095221472744
Gentil-Brevet J,Colonna M,Danzon A,Grosclaude P,Chaplain G,Velten M,Bonnetain F,Arveux P,The influence of socio-economic and surveillance characteristics on breast cancer survival: a French population-based studyBr J CancerYear: 200813121722410.1038/sj.bjc.660416318182980
Strand BH,Tverdal A,Claussen B,Zahl PH,Is birth history the key to highly educated women’s higher breast cancer mortality? A follow-up study of 500,000 women aged 35–54Int J CancerYear: 20051361002100610.1002/ijc.2123915986427
Dano H,Hansen KD,Jensen P,Petersen JH,Jacobsen R,Ewertz M,Lynge E,Fertility pattern does not explain social gradient in breast cancer in denmarkInt J CancerYear: 200413345145610.1002/ijc.2020315221976
Menvielle G,Kunst AE,van Gils CH,Peeters PH,Boshuizen H,Overvad K,Olsen A,Tjonneland A,Hermann S,Kaaks R,Bergmann MM,Illner AK,Lagiou P,Trichopoulos D,Trichopoulou A,Palli D,Berrino F,Mattiello A,Tumino R,Sacerdote C,May A,Monninkhof E,Braaten T,Lund E,Quiros JR,Duell EJ,Sanchez MJ,Navarro C,Ardanaz E,Borgquist S,et al. The contribution of risk factors to the higher incidence of invasive and in situ breast cancers in women with higher levels of education in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutritionAm J EpidemiolYear: 2011131263710.1093/aje/kwq31921084553
Rendall M,Couet C,Lappegard T,Robert-Bobee I,Ronsen M,Smallwood S,First births by age and education in Britain, France and NorwayPopul TrendsYear: 200513273416250301
Duport N,Ancelle-Park R,Boussac-Zarebska M,Uhry Z,Bloch J,Are breast cancer screening practices associated with sociodemographic status and healthcare access? Analysis of a French cross-sectional studyEur J Cancer PrevYear: 200813321822410.1097/CEJ.0b013e3282b6fde518414192
Baudier F,Michaud C,Gautier A,Guilbert P,Le dépistage du cancer du sein en France : pratiques et évolution des habitudes dans la population des femmes de 18 à 75 ans, Baromètre santé 2004–2005BEHYear: 200713142144
Faggiano F,Partanen T,Kogevinas M,Boffetta P,Socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence and mortalityIARC Sci PublYear: 199713651769353664

Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1 

Distribution of the population and hazard ratios by education for total cancer mortality during the period 1990–1998 and 1999–2007 among men and women


  N % N deaths MR1 HR2 95% CI
MEN
 
 
 
 
 
 
1999 - 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
No diploma
20321
15.9
917
442
2.40
2.10-2.73
Primary
19051
14.9
895
345
1.84
1.61-2.10
Lower secondary and vocational upper secondary
52222
40.8
1283
310
1.72
1.52-1.95
General upper secondary
13887
10.9
270
235
1.30
1.10-1.53
Tertiary
22362
17.5
299
186
1
 
1990 - 1998
 
 
 
 
 
 
No diploma
26611
22.1
1443
478
2.49
2.15-2.89
Primary
26899
22.4
1332
387
2.02
1.74-2.34
Lower secondary and vocational upper secondary
38051
31.6
972
372
1.95
1.68-2.27
General upper secondary
13453
11.2
328
295
1.54
1.30-1.84
Tertiary
15293
12.7
206
196
1
 
WOMEN
 
 
 
 
 
 
1999 - 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
No diploma
22741
16.5
425
170
1.41
1.18-1.69
Primary
29020
21.1
621
162
1.36
1.14-1.61
Lower secondary and vocational upper secondary
46108
33.5
633
162
1.40
1.19-1.65
General upper secondary
16618
12.1
195
157
1.33
1.09-1.63
Tertiary
23346
16.9
180
121
1
 
1990 - 1998
 
 
 
 
 
 
No diploma
32359
24.7
750
190
1.30
1.07-1.59
Primary
37449
28.6
716
150
1.05
0.86-1.28
Lower secondary and vocational upper secondary
33988
25.9
425
155
1.08
0.88-1.33
General upper secondary
14043
10.7
142
134
0.92
0.72-1.18
Tertiary 13141 10.0 118 146 1  

1Age standardized mortality rate, per 100000 person years; 2hazard ratio.


[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2 

Various measures of educational differences in mortality for total cancer and cancer specific mortality during the period 1990–1998 and 1999–2007 among men aged 30-74


  Ndeaths MR1 RD2 PAF3 AD4 RII5 95% CI p for trend6
1999 - 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All cancers
3664
312
256
0.40
126
2.42
2.13-2.74
 
Lung
1015
86
69
0.38
32
2.45
1.93-3.12
 
UADT7
427
37
55
0.79
29
5.74
3.91-8.44
 
Colorectal
289
24
9
0.15
4
1.52
0.98-2.35
 
Liver
212
18
18
0.65
12
3.24
1.89-5.57
 
Lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue
209
18
2
0.07
1
1.07
0.65-1.77
 
Oesophagus
197
17
26
0.72
12
6.04
3.38-10.8
 
Pancreas
174
15
4
0.04
1
1.90
1.07-3.36
 
Prostate
189
15
10
0.31
5
1.21
0.71-2.06
 
Stomach
102
9
12
0.58
5
3.68
1.69-8.02
 
Bladder
111
9
−2
−0.04
0
3.57
1.68-7.57
 
Kidney
105
9
10
0.57
5
0.75
0.37-1.50
 
Brain and central nervous system
83
8
4
0.19
1
0.95
0.42-2.11
 
Other
551
47
39
0.37
17
2.47
1.79-3.42
 
1990 - 1998
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All cancers
4281
375
282
0.48
180
2.16
1.92-2.43
0.11
Lung
1136
100
83
0.53
52
2.05
1.64-2.57
0.28
UADT7
628
58
75
0.82
47
4.79
3.49-6.58
0.34
Colorectal
317
27
5
0.05
1
1.49
0.98-2.27
0.71
Liver
298
25
22
0.56
14
2.32
1.48-3.64
0.31
Lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue
231
20
4
0.14
3
1.31
0.80-2.13
0.75
Oesophagus
248
22
27
0.66
15
4.96
2.96-8.31
0.48
Pancreas
177
15
6
0.39
6
1.19
0.68-2.07
0.22
Prostate
194
16
8
0.46
7
1.23
0.72-2.10
0.70
Stomach
141
12
8
0.45
6
3.36
1.71-6.60
0.98
Bladder
130
11
6
0.55
6
2.04
1.03-4.02
0.39
Kidney
103
9
14
0.83
7
1.37
0.65-2.85
0.16
Brain and central nervous system
96
9
3
−0.11
−1
2.20
1.02-4.74
0.08
Other 582 51 22 0.30 15 1.55 1.14-2.11 0.03

1Age standardized mortality rate, per 100000 person years; 2Rate difference; 3Population attributable fraction; 4Number of deaths attributable to differences in education, computed as the product of PAF by MR; 5relative index of inequality; 6comparison of the RII for the two periods; 7UADT = upper aerodigestive tract (lip, oral cavity, pharynx and larynx).

ICD codes: total cancer (140–239 in ICD-9; C00-D47 in ICD-10), and the following cancer sites: UADT (140–149, 161; C00-14, C32), oesophagus (150; C15), stomach (151; C16), colorectal (153–154; C18-C21), liver (155; C22), pancreas (157; C25), lung (162; C33-34), prostate (185; C61), kidney (189; C64-C66, C68), bladder (188;C67), brain and central nervous system (191–192; C70-C72), lymphatic and haemaopoietic tissue (200–208; C81-C96), and other cancers (the rest of 140–239; the rest of C00-D47).


[TableWrap ID: T3] Table 3 

Various measures of educational differences in mortality for total cancer and cancer specific mortality during the period 1990–1998 and 1999–2007 among women aged 30-74


  Ndeaths MR1 RD2 PAF3 AD4 RII5 95% CI p for trend6
1999 - 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All cancers
2054
154
49
0.24
37
1.28
1.08-1.52
 
Breast
487
38
−2
0.01
1
0.85
0.60-1.20
 
Lung
246
19
11
0.40
8
1.49
0.91-2.44
 
Colorectal
184
13
10
0.56
7
1.59
0.88-2.85
 
Lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue
139
10
5
0.07
1
1.25
0.64-2.44
 
Ovary
139
10
0
0.00
0
0.92
0.48-1.77
 
Uterus
113
9
6
0.54
5
2.20
1.05-4.58
 
Pancreas
114
8
0
0.16
1
0.97
0.47-2.01
 
UADT7
69
6
6
0.52
3
2.95
1.16-7.48
 
Brain and central nervous system
78
6
−2
0.15
1
0.90
0.38-2.16
 
Oesophagus
35
3
−1
−0.41
−1
0.90
0.24-3.33
 
Stomach
41
3
0
0.36
1
1.21
0.36-4.06
 
Kidney
41
3
2
0.31
1
1.99
0.57-6.94
 
Liver
40
3
3
0.53
2
3.10
0.85-11.4
 
Bladder
20
1
0
8
8
1.90
0.30-12.1
 
Other
308
22
12
0.32
7
1.62
1.03-2.54
 
1990 - 1998
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All cancers
2151
161
44
0.09
15
1.45
1.23-1.72
0.32
Breast
537
42
−3
−0.10
−4
1.19
0.86-1.66
0.38
Lung
155
12
2
0.19
2
0.83
0.45-1.54
0.31
Colorectal
236
17
7
0.15
3
1.66
0.99-2.80
0.93
Lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue
167
12
4
0.21
2
1.32
0.71-2.44
0.83
Ovary
154
12
5
0.35
4
1.18
0.63-2.21
0.89
Uterus
121
9
8
0.58
5
2.77
1.31-5.85
0.26
Pancreas
100
7
8
0.79
6
2.20
0.97-5.02
0.17
UADT7
49
4
1
0.02
0
2.83
0.93-8.65
0.93
Brain and central nervous system
70
5
−1
−0.06
0
0.64
0.26-1.59
0.50
Oesophagus
29
2
4
0.45
1
16
2.80-90.9
0.04
Stomach
70
5
7
0.42
2
6.79
2.31-19.9
0.02
Kidney
38
3
−2
−0.66
−2
1.24
0.34-4.46
0.77
Liver
51
3
−1
−0.29
−1
1.31
0.43-4.01
0.62
Bladder
24
2
1
−0.44
−1
1.94
0.37-10.1
0.84
Other 350 26 4 −0.04 −1 1.35 0.89-2.06 0.43

1Age standardized mortality rate, per 100000 person years; 2Rate difference; 3Population attributable fraction; 4Number of deaths attributable to differences in education, computed as the product of PAF by MR; 5relative index of inequality; 6comparison of the RII for the two periods; 7UADT = upper aerodigestive tract (lip, oral cavity, pharynx and larynx); 8All RR by educational level could not be computed due to too few deaths, therefore no estimation is available.

ICD codes: total cancer (140–239 in ICD-9; C00-D47 in ICD-10), and the following cancer sites: UADT (140–149, 161; C00-14, C32), oesophagus (150; C15), stomach (151; C16), colorectal (153–154; C18-C21), liver (155; C22), pancreas (157; C25), lung (162; C33-34), breast (174; C50), uterus (179–180, 182; C53-C55), ovary (183; C56), kidney (189; C64-C66, C68), bladder (188;C67), brain and central nervous system (191–192; C70-C72), lymphatic and haemaopoietic tissue (200–208; C81-C96), and other cancers (the rest of 140–239; the rest of C00-D47).



Article Categories:
  • Research Article

Keywords: Cancer mortality, France, Men, Women, Education, Time trends.

Previous Document:  Rationale, design, and baseline features of a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of s...
Next Document:  Role of chicken astrovirus as a causative agent of gout in commercial broilers in India.