No abstract

No abstract

Background:Not all patients have benefited equally from the advances in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survival. This study investigates several individual-level markers of socioeconomic position (SEP) in relation to NHL survival, and explores whether any social differences could be attributed to comorbidity, disease and prognostic factors, or the treatment given.Methods:This registry-based cohort study links clinical data on prognostic factors and treatment from the national Danish lymphoma database to individual socioeconomic information in Statistics Denmark including 6234 patients diagnosed with NHL in 2000–2008.Results:All-cause mortality was 40% higher in NHL patients with short vs higher education diagnosed in the period 2000–2004 (hazard ratio (HR)=1.40 (1.27–1.54)), and 63% higher in the period 2005–2008 (HR=1.63 (1.40–1.90)). Further, mortality was increased in unemployed and disability pensioners, those with low income, and singles. Clinical prognostic factors attenuated, but did not eliminate the association between education and mortality. Radiotherapy was less frequently given to those with a short education (odds ratio (OR)= 0.84 (0.77–0.92)), low income (OR=0.80 (0.70–0.91)), and less frequent to singles (OR=0.79 (0.64–0.96)). Patients living alone were less likely to receive all treatment modalities.Conclusion:Patients with low SEP have an elevated mortality rate after a NHL diagnosis, and more advanced disease at the time of diagnosis explained a part of this disparity. Thus, socioeconomic disparities in NHL survival might be reduced by improving early detection among patients of low SEP.

Objective To investigate the risk of tumours in the central nervous system among Danish mobile phone subscribers.Design Nationwide cohort study. Setting Denmark.Participants All Danes aged ≥30 and born in Denmark after 1925, subdivided into subscribers and non-subscribers of mobile phones before 1995.Main outcome measures Risk of tumours of the central nervous system, identified from the complete Danish Cancer Register. Sex specific incidence rate ratios estimated with log linear Poisson regression models adjusted for age, calendar period, education, and disposable income.Results 358 403 subscription holders accrued 3.8 million person years. In the follow-up period 1990-2007, there were 10 729 cases of tumours of the central nervous system. The risk of such tumours was close to unity for both men and women. When restricted to individuals with the longest mobile phone use-that is, ≥13 years of subscription-the incidence rate ratio was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.27) in men and 0.91 (0.41 to 2.04) in women. Among those with subscriptions of ≥10 years, ratios were 1.04 (0.85 to 1.26) in men and 1.04 (0.56 to 1.95) in women for glioma and 0.90 (0.57 to 1.42) in men and 0.93 (0.46 to 1.87) in women for meningioma. There was no indication of dose-response relation either by years since first subscription for a mobile phone or by anatomical location of the tumour-that is, in regions of the brain closest to where the handset is usually held to the head. ConclusionsIn this update of a large nationwide cohort study of mobile phone use, there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association.

To address social inequality in survival after lung cancer, it is important to consider how socioeconomic position (SEP) influences prognosis. We investigated whether SEP influenced receipt of first-line treatment and whether socioeconomic differences in survival could be explained by differences in stage, treatment and comorbidity. Material and methods. In the Danish Lung Cancer Register, we identified 13 045 patients with lung cancer diagnosed in 2004-2010, with information on stage, histology, performance status and first-line treatment. We obtained age, gender, vital status, comorbid conditions and socioeconomic information (education, income and cohabitation status) from nationwide population-based registers. Associations between SEP and receipt of first-line treatment were analysed in multivariate logistic regression models and those with overall mortality in Cox regression models with stepwise inclusion of possible mediators. results. For both low-and high-stage lung cancer, adjusted ORs for first-line treatment were reduced in patients with short education and low income, although the OR for education did not reach statistical significance in men with highstage disease. Patients with high-stage disease who lived alone were less likely to receive first-line treatment. The socioeconomic difference in overall survival was partly explained by differences in stage, treatment and comorbidity, although some differences remained after adjustment. Among patients with high-stage disease, the hazard ratio (HR) for death of those with low income was 1.12 (95% CI 1.05-1.19) in comparison with those with high income. Among patients with low-stage disease, those who lived alone had a 14% higher risk for dying (95% CI 1.05-1.25) than those who lived with a partner. The differences in risk for death by SEP were greatest in the first six months after diagnosis. conclusion. Socioeconomic differences in survival after lung cancer are partly explained by social inequality in stage, first-line treatment and comorbidity. Efforts should be made to improve early diagnosis and adherence to first-line treatment recommendations among disadvantaged lung cancer patients.