Background
Novel biological and precision therapies and their associated predictive biomarker tests offer opportunities for increased tumor response, reduced adverse effects, and improved survival. This systematic review determined if there are socio-economic inequalities in utilization of predictive biomarker tests and/or biological and precision cancer therapies.
Methods
MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies, published in English between January 1998 and December 2019. Observational studies reporting utilization data for predictive biomarker tests and/or cancer biological and precision therapies by a measure of socio-economic status (SES) were eligible. Data was extracted from eligible studies. A modified ISPOR checklist for retrospective database studies was used to assess study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken using a random-effects model, with sub-group analyses by cancer site and drug class. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for each study. Pooled utilization ORs for low versus high socio-economic groups were calculated for test and therapy receipt.
Results
Among 10,722 citations screened, 62 papers (58 studies; 8 test utilization studies, 37 therapy utilization studies, 3 studies on testing and therapy, 10 studies without denominator populations or which only reported mean socio-economic status) met the inclusion criteria. Studies reported on 7 cancers, 5 predictive biomarkers tests, and 11 biological and precision therapies. Thirty-eight studies (including 1,036,125 patients) were eligible for inclusion in meta-analyses. Low socio-economic status was associated with modestly lower predictive biomarker test utilization (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71–1.05; 10 studies) and significantly lower biological and precision therapy utilization (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75–0.91; 30 studies). Associations with therapy utilization were stronger in lung cancer (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–1.00; 6 studies), than breast cancer (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.10; 8 studies). The mean study quality score was 6.9/10.
Conclusions
These novel results indicate that there are socio-economic inequalities in predictive biomarker tests and biological and precision therapy utilization. This requires further investigation to prevent differences in outcomes due to inequalities in treatment with biological and precision therapies.
Head and neck cancers (HNC) are often late stage at diagnosis; stage is a major determinant of prognosis. The urgent cancer referral pathway (two week wait; 2WW) within England’s National Health Service aims to reduce time to diagnosis. We investigated factors associated with HNC route to diagnosis. Data were obtained from the English population-based cancer registry on 66,411 primary invasive HNCs (ICD C01-14 and C31-32) diagnosed 2006–2014. Multivariable logistic regression determined the likelihood of different diagnosis routes by patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics. Significant socio-demographic inequalities were observed. Emergency presentations declined over time and 2WW increased. Significant socio-demographic inequalities were observed. Non-white patients, aged over 65, residing in urban areas with advanced disease, were more likely to have emergency presentations. White males aged 55 and older with an oropharynx cancer were more likely to be diagnosed via 2WW. Higher levels of deprivation were associated with both emergency and 2WW routes. Dental referral was more likely in women, with oral cancers and lower stage disease. Despite the decline over time in emergency presentation and the increased use of 2WW, socio-demographic variation is evident in routes to diagnosis. Further work exploring the reasons for these inequalities, and the consequences for patients’ care and outcomes, is urgently required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.