Search

Abstract Background Cancer incidence varies by socioeconomic group and these variations have been linked with environmental and lifestyle factors, differences in access to health care and health seeking behaviour. Socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age are less clearly understood but they are crucial for targeting prevention measures and health care commissioning. Methods Data were obtained from all eight English cancer registries for patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2003, for all invasive cases of female breast cancer (ICD-10 code C50), lung cancer (ICD-10 codes C33-C34), cervical cancer (ICD-10 code C53), and malignant melanoma of the skin (ICD-10 code C43). Socioeconomic status was assigned to each patient based on their postcode of residence at diagnosis, using the income domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. We analysed the socioeconomic variations in the incidence of breast, lung and cervical cancer and malignant melanoma of the skin for England, and regionally and by age. Results Incidence was highest for the most deprived patients for lung cancer and cervical cancer, whilst the opposite was observed for malignant melanoma and breast cancer. The difference in incidence between the most and the least deprived groups was higher for lung cancer patients aged under 65 at diagnosis than those over 65 at diagnosis, which may indicate a cohort effect. There were regional differences in the socioeconomic gradients with the gap being widest for lung and cervical cancer in the North (North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside) and for malignant melanoma in the East and South West. There were only modest variations in breast cancer incidence by region. If the incidence of lung and cervical cancer were decreased to that of the least deprived group it would prevent 36% of lung cancer cases in men, 38% of lung cancer cases in women and 28% of cervical cancer cases. Incidence of breast cancer and melanoma was highest in the least deprived group, therefore if all socioeconomic groups had incidence rates similar to the least deprived group it is estimated that the number of cases would increase by 7% for breast cancer, 27% for melanoma in men and 29% for melanoma in women. Conclusion National comparison of socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age can provide an unbiased basis for public health prevention and health commissioning. Decreasing inequalities in incidence requires the integration of information on risk factors, incidence and projected incidence but targeted public health interventions could help to reduce regional inequalities in incidence and reduce the future cancer burden.

Objectives: To quantify the use of sunbeds in young people across England, identify geographical variation, and explore patterns of use, including supervision., Design: Two random location sampling surveys., Setting: National Prevalence Study in England; Six Cities Study in Liverpool, Stoke/Stafford, Sunderland, Bath/Gloucester, Oxford/Cambridge, and Southampton., Participants: 3101 children aged 11-17 in the National Prevalence study and 6209 in the Six Cities study., Results: In the National Prevalence Study 6.0% (95% confidence interval 5.1% to 6.8%) of those aged 11-17 had used a sunbed. Use was higher in girls than in boys (8.6% (7.2% to 10.0%) v 3.5% (2.6% to 4.4%), respectively), in those aged 15-17 compared with those aged 11-14 (11.2% (9.5% to 12.9%) v 1.8% (1.2% to 2.4%), respectively), and in those from lower rather than higher social grades (7.6% (5.7% to 9.5%) v 5.4% (4.5% to 6.3%), respectively). Sunbed use was higher in the "north" (11.0%, 8.9% to 13.0%) than in the "midlands" (4.2%, 2.5% to 5.8%) and the "south" (4.2%, 3.3% to 5.2%). In the Six Cities Study, sunbed use was highest in Liverpool and Sunderland (20.0% (17.5% to 22.4%) and 18.0% (15.6% to 20.3%), respectively), with rates especially high in girls, those aged 15-17, or from lower social grades. Mean age of first use was 14, and 38.4% (34.7% to 42.1%) of children used a sunbed at least once a week. Nearly a quarter (23.0%, 19.8% to 26.1%) of children had used a sunbed at home (including home of friends/relatives), and 24.7% (21.0% to 28.4%) said they had used sunbeds unsupervised in a tanning/beauty salon or gym/leisure centre., Conclusions: Sunbed use by children is widespread in England, is often inadequately supervised, and is a health risk. National legislation is needed to control sunbed outlets.

Background: Cancer incidence varies by socioeconomic group and these variations have been linked with environmental and lifestyle factors, differences in access to health care and health seeking behaviour. Socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age are less clearly understood but they are crucial for targeting prevention measures and health care commissioning., Methods: Data were obtained from all eight English cancer registries for patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2003, for all invasive cases of female breast cancer (ICD-10 code C50), lung cancer (ICD-10 codes C33-C34), cervical cancer (ICD-10 code C53), and malignant melanoma of the skin (ICD-10 code C43). Socioeconomic status was assigned to each patient based on their postcode of residence at diagnosis, using the income domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. We analysed the socioeconomic variations in the incidence of breast, lung and cervical cancer and malignant melanoma of the skin for England, and regionally and by age., Results: Incidence was highest for the most deprived patients for lung cancer and cervical cancer, whilst the opposite was observed for malignant melanoma and breast cancer. The difference in incidence between the most and the least deprived groups was higher for lung cancer patients aged under 65 at diagnosis than those over 65 at diagnosis, which may indicate a cohort effect. There were regional differences in the socioeconomic gradients with the gap being widest for lung and cervical cancer in the North (North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside) and for malignant melanoma in the East and South West. There were only modest variations in breast cancer incidence by region. If the incidence of lung and cervical cancer were decreased to that of the least deprived group it would prevent 36% of lung cancer cases in men, 38% of lung cancer cases in women and 28% of cervical cancer cases. Incidence of breast cancer and melanoma was highest in the least deprived group, therefore if all socioeconomic groups had incidence rates similar to the least deprived group it is estimated that the number of cases would increase by 7% for breast cancer, 27% for melanoma in men and 29% for melanoma in women., Conclusion: National comparison of socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age can provide an unbiased basis for public health prevention and health commissioning. Decreasing inequalities in incidence requires the integration of information on risk factors, incidence and projected incidence but targeted public health interventions could help to reduce regional inequalities in incidence and reduce the future cancer burden.