Social Inequalities and Cancer Edited by M. Kogevinas, N. Pearce, M. Susser and I? Boffetta
IARC Scientific Publications No. 138
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1997
Published by the lnternational Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, F-69372 Lyon cedex 08, France
43 lnternational Agency for Research on Cancer, 1997 Distributed by Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford, UK OX2 6DP (Fax: +44 1865 267782) and in the USA by Oxford University Press, 2001 Evans Road, Carey, NC 27513, USA (Fax: +1 919 677 1303). All IARC publications can also be ordered directly from IARCPress (Fax: +33 4 72 73 83 02; E-mail:
[email protected]). Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. The designations used and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication. The lnternational Agency for Research on Cancer welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. Applications and enquiries should be addressed to.the Editorial & Publications Service, lnternational Agency for Research on Cancer, which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available. IARC Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Social Inequalities and Cancer/ editors, Manolis Kogevinas ... [et al.] (IARC Scientific Publication; 138) 1. Neoplasms - epidemiology 2. Socioecomonic factors I. Kogevinas, Manolis II. Title Ill. Series
ISBN 92 832 2138 9 ISSN 0300-5085
(NLM Classification: W1)
Foreword Differences in morbidity and mortality across socioeconomic groups have been documented since the beginning of this century. IARC has previously published an overview of the data from England and Wales up to the early 1980s (Cancer Mortality by Occupation and Social Class 1851-1 971, IARC Scientific Publications No. 36). This new publication brings together data on socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence and survival from many countries. In addition, detailed information on the social distribution of the most important causes of cancer is presented.This book shows that in both industrialized and less-developed countries, cancer incidence and cancer survival are related to socioeconomic status. Lower classes tend to have higher cancer incidence and poorer cancer survival than higher social classes, although this pattern differs for specific cancers. It is shown that social class differences in cancer incidence can, in part, be explained by known risk factors, particularly tobacco smoking, occupational exposures, reproductive behaviour, diet and chronic infections. This book is intended to stimulate research in understanding the causes of socioeconomic differences in cancer and will help in developing appropriate effective measures for the prevention of social inequalities in cancer control.
P. Kleihues Director, IARC
Acknowledgements We are grateful to all our colleagues who contributed to this book by providing published or unpublished data, or who helped in other ways: B.C. Balram (Health and Community Services, New Brunswick, Canada); L. Barlow (National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden); R. Bourbonnais (Laval University, Quebec, Canada); M. Dosemeci (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC, USA); S. Fincham (Alberta Cancer Board, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada); M.A. Fingerhut (National lnstitute of Occupational Health and Safety, Cincinnati, USA); J. Fox (Office of Population Censuses & Surveys, London, UK); M. Giraldez (National School of Public Health, Lisbon, Portugal); P. Jozan (Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Budapest, Hungary); H. Kromhout (National lnstitute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands); A. Leclerc (INSERM, Paris, France); E. Lynge (Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark); H. Malker (National lnstitute of Occupational Health and Safety, Stockholm, Sweden); A. Mielck (Institute for Medical Informatics and Systems Research, Neuherberg, Germany); C.E. Minder (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Bern, Switzerland); I. Plesko (Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic); E. Pukkala (Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland); M. Rahu (Estonian lnstitute of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Tallinn, Estonia); E. Regidor (Ministry of Health and Consumption, Madrid, Spain); J. Siemiatycki (University of Quebec, Quebec, Canada); M. Susser (Columbia University, NewYork, USA); M.Thun (American Cancer Society, Atlanta, USA), R. Wilkins (Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada); and W. Zatonski (The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and lnstitute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland). We also thank Montse Ginesta, Barcelona, for the painting used on the cover of the book.
The Editors
Contributors 0.Andersen Center for Research in Health and Social Statistics The Danish National Research Foundation Sejer~gade11 2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark A. Auvinen Finnish Cancer Registry Lisankatu 21 B 00170 Helsinki. Finland
V. Beral Cancer Epidemiology Unit Imperial Cancer Research Fund Gibson Building Radcliffe Infirmary Oxford OX2 6HE, UK L.F. Berkman Department of Health and Social Behaviour and Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115, USA P. Boffetta Unit of Environmental Cancer Epidemiology IARC 150 cours Albert Thomas 69372 Lyon cedex 08, France F.X. Bosch Servei d'Epidemiologia Hospital Duran i Reynals Autovia de Castelldefels, Km 2.7 08907- Hospitalet de Llobregat Barcelona, Spain C. Boschi-Pinto Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115, USA
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health 1-1 9 Torrington Place London WCI E 6BT, UK
Department of Medicine Wellington School of Medicine PO. Box 7343 Wellington South, New Zealand
S.D. Stellman American Health Foundation, 320 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017, USA
S. Karjalainen Medical Research Council Academy of Finland P.O. Box 57 00551 Helsinki, Finland
M. Porta lnstitut Municipal d'lnvestigacio Medica (IMIM) 80 Doctor Aiguader Rd Barcelona 08003, Spain
M. Kogevinas Department of Epidemiology and Public Health lnstitut Municipal d'lnvestigacio Medica (IMIM) 80 Doctor Aiguader Rd Barcelona 08003, Spain
J.D. Potter
S.O. Stuver Center for Cancer Prevention and Department of Epidemiology Haward School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115, USA
E. Lynge Danish Cancer Society Strandboulevarden49, Box 839 2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark
K. Resnicow Emory University Rollins School of Public Health 1518 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
Cancer Prevention Research Program Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1124 Columbia Street MP 702 Seattle, WA 98104, USA
S. Macintyre MRC Medical Sociology Unit 6 Lilybank Gardens Glasgow G I 2 8R2, UK
M. Marmot University College London Medical School Department of Epidemiology and Public Health 1-1 9 Torrington Place London WCl E 6BT, UK
K.V. Shah The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health Baltimore, MD 21205, USA S. de Sanjose Servei d'Epidemiologia Hospital Duran i Reynals Autovia de Castelldefels, Km 2.7 08907- Hospitalet de Llobregat Barcelona, Spain
H. Mailer Center for Research in Health and Social Statistics The Danish National Research Foundation Sejer~gade11 2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark
N. Muiioz Unit of Field and Intervention Studies, IARC 150 cours Albert Thomas 69372 Lyon cedex 08, France
F. Faggiano Department of Hygiene and Community Medicine University of Torino Via Santena 5bis 10126 Torino, ltaly
T. Partanen Institute of Occupational Health Topeliuksenkatu 41aA 00250 Helsinki, Finland
A. Feeney University College London Medical School
N. Pearce Wellington Asthma Research Group
I. dos Santos Silva Epidemiology Monitoring Unit Department of Epidemiology and Population Sciences London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel Street London WC1E 7HT, UK
I. Susser Department of Anthropology Hunter College City Universityof New York 695 Park Avenue New York, NY, USA M. Susser Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center Columbia University P&S Box 16 630 West 168th Street New York, NY 10032, USA
L. Tornatis Scientific Director lstituto dell' infanzia 63 via dell'lstria 34137 Trieste, ltaly H. Tonnesen Department of Surgery Copenhagen County Hospital Herlev Ringvej 75 2730 Herlev, Denmark D. Trichopoulos Center for Cancer Prevention and Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115, USA
R. Saracci lstituto Fisiologia Clinica CNR Epidemiology Section Via Trieste 56100 Pisa, ltaly
P. Westerholm National Institute of Occupational Health Solna, Sweden
N. Segnan Unit of Cancer Epidemiology Department of Oncology S. Giovanni Hospital Via S. Francesco da Paola 31 10123 Torino, ltaly
A. Woodward Department of Public Health Wellington School of Medicine University of Otago PO Box 7343 Wellington South, New Zealand
Contents Social inequalities and cancer The Editors: M. Kogevinas, N. Pearce, M. Susser and I? Boffetta
General Considerations Chapter 1:
Why study socioeconomic factors and cancer? N. Pearce
Chapter 2:
Poverty and cancer L. Tomatis
Chapter 3:
Social theory and social class I. Susser
Chapter 4:
The measurement of social class in health studies: old measures and new formulations L.E Berkman and S. Macintyre
Evidence of Social hequalities in Cancer Chapter 5:
Socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence and mortality E Faggiano, T: Partanen, M. Kogevinas and f? Boffetta
Chapter 6:
Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival: a review of the evidence M. Kogevinas and M. Porta
Chapter 7:
General explanations for social inequalities in health M. Marmot and A. Feeney
Chapter 8:
Tobacco smoking, cancer and social class S.D. Stellman and K. Resnicow
Chapter 9:
Alcohol drinking, social class and cancer H. Mgller and H. Tgnnesen
Chapter 10:
Diet and cancer: possible explanations for the higher risk of cancer in the poor J.D. Potter
Chapter 11:
Sociseconomic differences in reproductive behaviour I. Dos Santos Silva and 1/I Beral
Chapter 12:
Social differences in sexual behaviour and cervical cancer S. de Sanjose, EX. Bosch, N. Mufioz and K. Shah
Explanations for Social Inequalities in Cancer
Chapter 13:
lnfection with hepatitis B and C viruses, social class and cancer S.O. Stuver, C. Boschi-Pinto and D. Trichopoulos
Chapter 14:
Infection with Helicobacter pylori and parasites, social class and cancer I? Boffetta
325
Chapter 15:
Exposure to occupational carcinogens and social class differences in cancer occurrence I? Boffetta, I? Westerholm, M. Kogevinas and R. Saracci
331
Chapter 16:
Unemployment and cancer: a literature review E, Lynge
Chapter 17:
Unemployment and cancer in Denmark 1970-1975 and
1986-1 990
353
E. Lynge and 0.Andersen
Chapter 18:
Environmental exposure, social class and cancer risk A. Woodward and I? Boffetta
361
Socioeconomic Differences in Health Care Chapter 19:
Socioeconomic status and cancer screening N. Segnan
Chapter 20:
Possible explanations for social class differences in cancer patient survival A. Auvinen and S. Katjalainen
-
vii
Social Inequalities and Cancer (IARC Scientific Publications No. 138)
Errata
In the right column of page 66, paragraph 4, beginning with line 1, the paragraph should read: "For the United Kingdom, comparable historical data were available since 191 1. They consist of the results of surveillance system statistics (Decennial supplements) that are used to establish time trends." In the left column of page 7 1, first paragraph, lines 12-20 inclusive should read: "A comparison was possible for Decennial Supplement data for 1911, 193 1, 1971 and 1981, regarding mortality from all cancers and stomach and colon cancers in both sexes, as well as from lung cancer for men and breast and cervix cancers for women."
Social Inequalities and Cancer Kogevinas, M., Pearce, N., Susser, M. and Boffetta, P., eds IARC Scientific Publications No. 138 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1997
Social inequalities and cancer A summary by the Editors Why study socioeconomic factors and cancers?
Inequalities in health reflect social inequalities in society; they provide perhaps the most convincing index of inequality (Chapter 2). Despite attempts to change the social structure and to arrive at a more egalitarian society, social inequalities have not disappeared and seem even to be increasing worldwide. At the global level, socioeconomic differences in health are stark. They are apparent in the worse sanitary conditions, higher mortality, lower life expectancy and lower cancer survival rates of the populations of developing countries compared with those of industrialized countries. Differences in cancer risk are also seen within industrialized countries between the socioeconomically less and more favoured population groups. In certain areas of industrialized countries, social and environmental conditions comparable with those existing in the poorest countries of the world have been recreated. However, social inequalities in health are not limited to those of lowest socioeconomic status but operate across the whole of society. The occurrence of cancer within a population can be studied at many different levels, including forms of social entities, 'the individual', a particular organ system, or a particular molecule (Chapter 1). The causes of cancer can also be studied at these different levels, including socioeconomic factors, lifestyle, and genetic alterations in a clone of cells. Clearly, there are advantages in understanding disease causation at all of the different levels at which it can be analysed. Although cancer risk factors such as tobacco smoke may appear to operate mainly at the individual level, exposure may occur due t o a wide range of political, economic and social factors; conversely, tobacco smoke ultimately has effects at the cellular and molecular levels, including the production of mutations in crucial genes. Of course, it is important to gain information, and take action, at all possible levels, but the history of public health shows that changes at the population level are usually more fundamental and effective than
changes at the individual level, even when a single risk factor accounts for most cases of disease. In this sense, a risk factor such as smoking can be regarded as a secondary symptom of deeper underlying features of the social and economic structure of society. Thus, just as a variety of health effects in various organ systems (for example, various types of cancer) may have a common contributing cause (for example, tobacco smoking) at the level of the individual, a variety of individual exposures (for example, smoking and diet) may have common socioeconomic causes at the population level. This volume
This volume is organized in four parts and 20 chapters. The first part, 'General considerations', contains four chapters presenting an overview of issues of poverty and health, and also discussing theoretical and methodological issues o n the definition and measurement of social class in epidemiological studies. (Regional, gender or ethnic differences in health, important in their own right, are beyond the scope of this book.) The second part, 'Evidence of social inequalities in cancer', includes two chapters summarizing international data on social class differences in cancer incidence and mortality, and in cancer survival. The third part, 'Explanations for social inequalities in cancer', contains 12 chapters. It starts with a discussion of general explanations for social inequalities and cancer, and then international data on the prevalence of major cancer risk factors in different social strata are presented, particularly for tobacco, alcohol, diet, reproductive patterns, sexual behaviour, infectious agents, environmental and occupational exposures, and the effects of unemployment. The extent to which these risk factors explain socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence is discussed. The fourth part comprises two chapters on socioeconomic differences in health care, which present and discuss differences in access to and use of health services, particularly in relation to the early diagnosis of cancer.
-
Social Inequalities and Cancer
Theories of social class and measurement of social inequality (Chapters 3 and 4)
Concepts of class theory developed with the emergence of industrial society in the nineteenth century (Chapter 3). For an understanding of current divisions, however, theories must reflect the advances of capitalism and the global economy that characterize the late-twentieth century. In industrialized societies, reductions in the industrial workforce and the growth of finance, investment and real-estate industries worldwide have added a new service workforce that is largely female. Large sectors of industry have departed in search of cheaper labour in poorer countries. As a result, in those areas too, a new industrial workforce has emerged. Concomitantly, accumulation of land used for cultivation for the world market in less developed agricultural regions has led to an increase in mobile agricultural labour and a shift of landless labourers to the cities of less developed countries. In addition, both upward and downward mobility have occurred for individuals and groups in specific populations as well as for particular diseases in developed and less developed countries. All these changes have precipitated fundamental changes in class, gender and family relationships and transformed the living conditions of populations in both developed and less developed societies. These changes have major implications for the patterns of health and disease in the world today, The measurement of socioeconomic status requires that we think more precisely about both conceptual issues and issues more traditionally thought of as measurement issues (Chapter 4). Progress in this area rests on our ability to identify those aspects of socioeconomic status that are most closely related to health, human development, and life expectancy. Measures of socioeconomic status have been based on characteristics of the individual as well as o n characteristics of the environment or more ecologically based measures. Each of these types of socioeconomic status measures has strengths and weaknesses and in all likelihood taps somewhat different aspects of class.. In measuring socioeconomic status across diverse populations, it is also crucial to be sensitive to the ways in which measurement varies across different cultures, ethnic and demographic groups. It is likely that more refined research in this area will clarify more fully why socioeconomic status is so profoundly related to health
status. In order to understand this relationship, efforts will have to be focused o n identifying not only those psychosocial or biological processes that occur 'downstream' as a result of socioeconomic status (for example, occupational exposures as a mediator of the higher cancer risk of manual social classes) but also the nature of the social experience itself and those 'upstream' forces that place so many individuals at risk (for example, the reasons why at this time manual social classes take up smolng more frequently than non-manual classes, although the cigarette smoking habit originated in the high classes). Socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence and mortality (Chapter 5)
Data o n the presence, magnitude and consistency of socioeconomic differentials in mortality and incidence of all malignant neoplasms and 24 individual types of neoplasms in 35 populations from 20 countries are reviewed in Chapter 5. Reasonably consistent excess risks in men in lower social strata were observed for all respiratory cancers (nose, larynx and lung) and cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, and, with a number of exceptions, liver, as well as for all malignancies taken together. For women, low-class excesses were consistently encountered for cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, cervix uteri and, less consistently, liver. Men in higher social strata displayed excesses of colon and brain cancers and skin melanoma. In the two Latin American populations for which data were available, lung cancer was more frequent in higher social strata. Excesses in high socioeconomic strata were seen in women in most populations for cancers of the colon, breast, ovary, and skin melanoma. Data for the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy and New Zealand are shown in Figure 1 for men and Figure 2 for women. Longitudinal data from England and Wales suggest widening over time of social class differences in men for all cancers combined (Figure 3) and for cancers of the lung, larynx and stomach, and in women for all cancers combined and for cervical cancer. Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival (Chapter 6)
In the discussion of social inequalities in health there has been much debate on the role of medical
Figure 1. (a) Cancer mortality in men (aged 20-64) in social class V versus class I, in Great Britain during the years 1979-1980 and 1982-1983 (OPCS, 1986). (b) Cancer incidence in unskilled men versus employees group I (all ages), in Denmark during the years 1979-1980 (Lynge & Thygesen, 1990). (c) Cancer mortality in illiterate men versus men with university education (men aged 18-74), in Italy during the years 1981-1 982 (Faggiano eta/., 1994). (d) Cancer mortality of men (aged 15-64) in social class V versus class I, in New Zealand during the years 1984-1 987 (Pearce & Bethwaite, in press).
care. To understand the potential importance of socioeconomic differences in prompt detection and treatment of cancer, data on cancer survival are essential. These have been examined less extensively than differences in cancer incidence. Forty-two studies on social class differences in cancer survival,
covering 12 cancer sites in 14 different countries, are reviewed in Chapter 6. Social class differences in cancer survival appear remarkably general (Figure 4). Patients in low social classes had consistently poorer survival than those in high social classes. The magnitude of the differences for most cancer
Social Inequalities and Cancer
sites is fairly narrow, with most relative risks falling between a range of 1and 1.5. The widest differences were observed for cancers of good prognosis and specifically cancers of the female breast, corpus uteri, bladder and colon. Social differences in cancer survival were present in both genders and in most countries and were found consistently whichever socioeconomic indicator was used.
General explanations for social inequalities in health (Chapter 7)
Life expectancy has always differed according to status in society, with a higher mortality among those of lower social status. Although cancer and cardiovascular diseases are proportionally more common as causes of death in rich societies, in industrialized countries the major causes of death
Figure 2. (a) Cancer mortality in women (aged 18-74) of social class V versus class I, in Great Britain during the years 1979-1 980 and 1982-1983 (OPCS, 1986). (b) Cancer incidence in unskilled women versus employees group I (all ages), in Denmark during the years 1970-1 980 (Lynge & Thygesen, 1990). (c) Cancer mortality in illiterate women versus women with university education (women aged 18-74), in Italy during the years 1981-1982 (Faggiano et al., 1994).
Social inequalities and cancer
are more common in those of lower social status. Much of the discussion about social inequalities in health has been focused on the health disadvantage of those of lowest socioeconomic status. Data from the Whitehall studies show that the social gradient in morbidity and mortality exists across employment grades in British civil servants, none of whom is poor by comparison with people in developing countries, suggesting that there are factors that operate across the whole of society. The magnitude of socioeconomic differences in health varies between societies, and over time within societies. This suggests that identification of factors that influence socioeconomic status and health, and the pathways by which they operate, is an important public health task that could lay the basis for a reduction in inequalities in health. Tobacco smoking (Chapter 8)
Consumption of tobacco products is causally connected with many types of cancer - mainly lung, larynx, mouth and pharynx, oesophagus and bladder cancers. Tobacco is the main specific contributor to total mortality in many developed countries and has become a major contributor in developing countries as well. In most industrialized countries, prevalence of cigarette smoking is currently higher in low than in high social classes, the differences being more pronounced in men than in women. The pattern shown in Table 1 for Spain is characteristic of the pattern observed in industrialized countries in the last decades. This pattern of tobacco consumption may not be typical for developing countries. In some industrialized countries, smoking was more frequent in high social classes during the first half of this century. Trends in prevalence of smoking in the United States of America (Figure 5) and many other countries indicate that the proportion of current smokers has fallen more rapidly in high than in low social classes. To formulate and carry out effective tobacco control activities it is important to assess the relative incidence of tobacco-related cancers in different social strata and the prevalence of tobacco use across strata. Despite many years of data gathering, the information base is far from complete, especially in developing countries where tobacco use is increasing rapidly and where aggressive marketing by the transnational tobacco industry is occurring. A key question is the extent to which tobacco usage can 'explain' the ob-
0
0 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981
Calendar year Social class
-v --m-. IV
--.-. -G-
Ill-M
Ill-NM
--A- 11 -F-
I
Figure 3. Time trends in mortality for men from all malignant neoplasms, by social class in England and Wales during the period 1911-1 981. SMR, standardized mortality ratio.
served social class differences in cancer risk. Class differences in lung cancer are likely to be mostly related to the unequal distribution of tobacco smoking between social classes, and in some fairly simple situations this has been satisfactorily demonstrated. Nevertheless, there are many unresolved issues, especially with regard to the role of collateral exposures, such as hazardous occupations, poor diet, and limited access to health care. Alcoholic-beverage drinking (Chapter 9)
Alcohol drinking causes cancers of the upper gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and liver cancer. Patterns of alcohol drinking by socioeconomic status are not consistent between countries and between genders. A role of alcohol drinking in the observed negative social class gradients for alcoholrelated cancers is very likely in men in France, Italy and New Zealand. Evidence that is less strong but suggestive of a role of alcohol drinking is seen for men in Brazil, Switzerland, the United Kingdom
Social Inequalities and Cancer
and Denmark. Although a role of alcohol drinking in cancer causation is likely or possible in certain populations, other factors may contribute as well, most notably tobacco smoking and dietary habits. Diet (Chapter 10)
There are a variety of ways in which diet may influence the development of human cancers. In Chapter 10, a theoretical framework is proposed in which a main feature is a dietary pattern to which humans are well adapted - an 'original diet'. This original dietary pattern had specific features, which included regular exposure to a variety of substances on which human metabolism is dependent but that are not usually explicitly labelled as 'essential nutrients'. The theory suggests that the higher risk of cancer in the low social classes at this time, in both the developed and developing world, is related, to an as yet unknown degree, to the fact that the amount of variation from the diet to which we are well adapted is greater in that portion of the population who have less access to the world's goods
and services. This is particularly true regarding the intake of fresh vegetables and fruit, which are almost universally consumed in smaller quantities among the poor in most parts of the world. Some diet-related cancers, particularly breast cancer, run counter to the general trend towards higher risks in poorer people; it is probable that social class differences in other risk factors, particularly reproductive history, explain this discrepancy a t least in part. Reproductive factors (Chapter 11)
Socioeconomic variations in the risk of female reproductive cancers are marked. Data from the World Fertility Surveys, the Demographic and Health Surveys, and other national surveys are examined in Chapter 11to assess whether these variations in cancer risk might be explained, at least in part, by socioeconomic variations in reproductive behaviour. Marked socioeconomic differentials in reproductive pattern were present in almost all settings: countries with low and high levels of modernization,
0 Stomach Oesophagus n Colorecturn
A Pancreas
0 Lung
+ Prostate A Bladder Y
+ +
.L
(I)
a,
.->
a
2-
(d a,
0
K
a
1.5-
m 0 0
1-
on
0
am
o0
a3
m
AA
m
mm a
n
':='*.
a
n
Oo
n
A
n
A A
0 A A
0:
a 0
Ir Ovary
0
a
w #m
A Breast Cervix uteri V Endometrium
008
o
A A A
A A A A A
A
+
+
A A
A
0
VvV v
A~
A
r 4
Figure 4. Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival: relative risks for patients in low versus high socioeconomic status in 33 studies.
Social ineaualities and cancer
Males
Females
Education
16-24 years
65+ years
16-24 years
65+ years
Less than primary school Primary school High school
67% 62% 51%
34% 32% 39%
43% 46% 48%
1% 4% 6%
and countries with low and high levels of fertility (Table 2). In general, women of higher socioeconomic status and with more education had lower fertility and later age at first birth, a greater prevalence of childlessness, shorter duration of breast feeding and later age at menopause. The direction and size of these differences varied markedly from country to country according to level of economic development and, within each country, from generation to generation of women. In Western countries, some of these socioeconomic differences may possibly be narrowing in recent generations. There was little evidence of socioeconomic variations in age at menarche. The observed socioeconomic differentials in most aspects of reproductive behaviour account for some of the socioeconomic variation in risk of female reproductive cancers. However, this relationship could not be assessed directly because such analysis would require unavailable birth-cohort-specific data on socioeconomic variations in reproductive behaviour and in cancer risks.
multiple sexual partners and early age at first sexual intercourse. Both incidence and mortality are reduced by screening. The human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to be the main biological agent causing cervical cancer. The extent to which infection with HPV and other sexually transmitted diseases relates to the occurrence of socioeconomic differences in cervical cancer incidence was examined in two parallel case-control studies in Spain and Colombia. The results, presented in Chapter 12, indicate that socioeconomic differences in the incidence of cervical cancer can, in part, be explained by differences in the prevalence of HPV DNA. Male sexual behaviour, and particularly contacts with prostitutes, may be a major contributor to the higher prevalence of HPV DNA among the poor.
Sexual behaviour and infection with human papillomavirus (Chapter 12)
Information on social class differences in sexual behaviour is available only for a limited number of, mostly industrialized, countries. According to population-based surveys in industrialized countries, men of low socioeconomic status report fewer sexual partners than men of high status. There is no clear indication that the same is true of women (Table 3). Cervical cancer is the most important cancer linked with sexual behaviour. It is the most common cancer in women in developing countries and the sixth most common in developed countries. In all areas, it is more frequent among women of low socioeconomic status, and is associated with
0
0
1966
1971
1976 1981 Calendar year
1986
1991
-Less than high school - - - - - College graduate
Figure 5. Time trends in the prevalence of smoking: percentage of current smokers in the USA by education.
Social Inequalities and Cancer .
. ..
.&-~~'--am-iT-~~l~110 partners in adult lifetime
Johnson etal., 1994 (UK)
Men: 35-44 45-59 Women: 35-44 45-59
22 partners 1 year before interview
Spira et a/., 1994 (France)
Melbye & Biggar, 1992 (Denmark)
12.2
0.016
2.6
'c-i~~:~I-I~~~.~.1:i-i~-~~.~.~ii~~.5~~,iT7i~-~~~~111LL~~.~7~7IIII~77777CC~j~-~L:-;1~-;1~r.~7_I~.~A~~-~~~.~~.L,~.77'~;.-~~>-IDDD.-~~riii~~ii~.: .=, , -" --.-i~.--i-?~,99r2.=~,i;.~7.~,~z -
Study base
indicators Social scale
Switzerland 1979-1 982 age: 15-74
Social class SMR
UK - England and Wales 1910-1 912 age: 15-64
Social class SMR
UK - England and Wales 1930-1 932 age: 15-64
Social class SMR
UK - England and Wales 1949-1 953 age: 15-64
Social class SMR
UK - England Social class and Wales SMR age: 15-64 (married women)
UK - England and Wales 1971-1 975 age: 15-64
Social class SMR
UK - England and Wales 1976-1 981 age: 15-64
Social class SMR
M
Male RR
N
.,-I'~L.,,::: ;I^,7.~7.,-.:rL.---
Female Study design RR Surveillance system statistics using 1980 census as denominator. UK Registrar General's social-class classification [Minder, pers. commun.] Surveillance system statistics using 1910 census data as denominator. For social classification see Introduction [OPCS, 19191 Surveillance system statistics using 1930 census data as denominator. For social classification see Introduction. Women classified according to husband's occupation [OPCS, 19381 Surveillance system statistics using 1950 census data as denominator. For social classification see lntroduction [OPCS, 19581 Surveillance system statistics using 1970 census data as denominator. For social classification 1970-1 972 see Introduction.Women classified according to husband's occupation [OPCS, 19771 Record-linkage study (Longitudinal Study) between 1971 census and 1971-75 mortality data for a 1% sample of the total population. UK Registrar General's social class classification [OPCS, 19901 Record-linkage study (longitudinal study) between 1971 census and 1971-1 975 mortality data for a 1% sample of the total population. UK Registrar General's social class classification [OPCS, 19901
-..;
Social Inequalities and Cancer
Study base
Indicators Social scale
N
Male
WW UK - Great Social class Britain SMR 1979-1 980, 1982-1 983 age: 20-64 (married women, 20-59)
N
Female Study design
WW Surveillance system statistics using 1980 census data as denominator. For social classification see Introduction. Women classified according to husband's occupation [OPCS, 19861
UK (London) 1967-1 987
Employment Administrators Professionals grade RR Clerical Other
17 530 London civil servants, medically examined 1967-1 969, followed-up until 1987 [Davey Smith & Marmot, 19911
UK - Scotland 1949-1 953 age: 20-64
Social class I II SMR Ill IV
Surveillance system statistics using 1950 census data as denominator. UK Registrar General's social class classification [Registrar General for Scotland, 19561
v UK - Scotland Social class 1959-1 963 SMR 20-64 (married women)
Surveillance system statistics using 1960 census data as denominators. UK Registrar General's classification. Women classified according to husband's occupation [Registrar General for Scotland, 19701
USA 1960 age: 25-64 (white)
Educational College level High school SMR Elementary school US$IO 000 income level Less OR
0.82 1
Case-control study based on US Third National Cancer Survey, using deaths for other causes as controls Pharynx [Williams & Horm, 19771
aData not stratified by sex.
Female Study design RR Record-linkagestudy between 1971 census and 1971-1 981 incidence data (1% sample). UK Registrar General's social class classification Mouth [Kogevinas, 19901
~
-
~
*
7
2
Social Inequalities and Cancer
Study base
Indicators Social scale
Brazil (Sgo Paulo) 1978-1 982 age: 35-74
Years of education OR
France 1975-1 982 age: 45-54
Occupational Managers group Intermediate RR Self-employed Clerks Skilled workers Unskilled workers
A sample of about 1000000 of 1975 census population followed up until 1982.The scale shown represents a choice of the total scale [Desplanques, 19851
France 1975-1 982 55-64
Occupational Managers group Intermediate RR Self-employed Clerks Skilled workers Unskilled workers
A sample of about 1000 000 of 1975 census population age: followed up until 1982. The scale shown represents a choice of the total scale [Desplanques, 19851
Italy 1981-1 982 age: 18-74
Educational level RR
Female Study design RR
N -.
Japan 1965-1 982 age: 40-1-
Social class SMR
12+ 9-1 1 1-8 ..-
.
c.B'L-
-
Female Study design RR Population-based case-control study. Tertiles of total family income [Bourbonnais & Siemiatycki, in press]
1 2.1 1.9
Population-based case-control study. Tertiles of years of education [Bourbonnais & Siemiatycki, in press]
High Middle Low
Population-based case-control study. Tertiles of the occupational prestige scale [Bourbonnais & Siemiatycki, in press]
1 0.65 0.75
I II Ill
Occupational Self-employed Employees: I group Employees: 11 RR Employees: 111 Employees: IV Skilled workers Unskilled workers
*
146 11 22 54 24 89 220
0.82 0.65 0.79 0.83 0.85 1.24 1.24
8 1 5 4 17 0 35
1 1.25 1.75
Data from 1973 census were used for rate denominator. Social class based on area of residence [Cuello et a/., 19821
1.56 1.05 1.36 0.59 0.97
Record-linkage study using 1970-80 incidence data and 1970 census. Employees classified according to educational level
-
1.26
[Lynge & Thygessen 19901
0.29 0.77 1.08 1.26
Record-linkage study using 1970 census and 1971-1 985 incidence data. Social class based on occupation [Pukkala, 19931
Finland 1971-1 985 birth cohort: 1906-1 945
Social class SIR
Upper white-collar Lower white-collar Skilled workers Unskilled workers
0.61 0.80 1.03 1.35
ltaly (Milano) 1983-1 988 age: ~-~..~.~;:~::~,=~,:z.-~:-.-~~~~~ .7z;..,-,-272-. ::>=-:3.,;:.rLy :-:F~-:~,"~:~~-o~~~~~~~>~--~ 4 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ; . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ - J i T ~ ~ _ i ~ - ~ ; 3 .
Study base
indicators Social scale
N
Male N RR
UK - England Social class and Wales SMR 1970-1 972 age: 15-64 (married women)
I II Ill-NM Ill-M IV
Surveillance system statistics using 1970 census data as denominators. For social classification see Introduction. Women classified according to husband's occupation [OPCS, 19771
v UK Social class Great Britain SMR 1979-1 980, 1982-1 983 age: 20-64 (married women, 20-59) UK (London) 1967-1 987
Surveillance system statistics using 1980 census data as denominator. For social classification see Introduction. Women classified according to husband's occupation [OPCS, 19861
Employment Administrators grade RR Professionals Clerical Other
UK - Scotland Social class 1959-1 963 SMR 20-64 (married women)
17 530 Londoner civil servants, medically examined 1967-69 and, followed-up until 1987 [Davey Smith & Marmot, 19911 Surveillance system statistics using 1960 census data as denominator. UK Registrar General's classification. Women classified according to husband's occupation [Registrar General for Scotland, 19701
I II Ill Iv
v
US - California Social class 1949-1 95 1 SMR age: 25-64
0.51 0.72 0.93 0.99 1.65
Surveillance system statistics using 1950 census data as denominator. Social class indicator based on occupation [Buell et a/., 4 9601
College 0.56 High school 0.97 Elementary school 1.07 .-
. .
; ? ..
US$10 000 income level Less OR
ltaly (Torino) 1985-1 987 age: 20-69
Occupational Managers Clerks group OR Self employed Manual workers
Italy (Torino) 1985-1 987 age: 20-69
Housing tenure OR
Sweden 1961-1 970 all ages
Social class SIR
aData not stratified by sex.
-
107
0.91 -
1015 0.88 1335 1.12
Record-linkage study between 1971 and 1981 censuses and 1985-1 987 incidence data [Faggiano eta/., 19941
Hospital-based case-control study. Social class indicator based on occupation [Dosemeci, 19931
0.92 0.94 1.24
Record-linkage study between 1971 census and 1971-81 incidence data (1% sample). UK Registrar General's social class classification. [Kogevinas, '1 9901
0.42 1
0.60 1
Case-control study based on US Third National Cancer Survey, using deaths from other causes as controls. [Williams & Horm, 19771
1.06 1
0.88 1
Case-control study based on US Third National Cancer Survey, using deaths from other causes as controls. [Williams, & Horm 19771
223 93 157
-,-... .
.: ;>.z,
--~~-,----~-----~-~.--.?~-.--. ---.... .
I"-37.l,:z-' : .~ J5;i.-&Ir: Iri>i ...3.2-----i-i-i-:
7-
