Elsevier

European Journal of Cancer

Volume 46, Issue 3, February 2010, Pages 588-598
European Journal of Cancer

Socioeconomic factors associated with risk of upper aerodigestive tract cancer in Europe

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.09.028Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

In the European Union, there are 180,000 new cases of upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer cases per year – more than half of whom will die of the disease. Socioeconomic inequalities in UADT cancer incidence are recognised across Europe. We aimed to assess the components of socioeconomic risk both independently and through their influence on the known behavioural risk factors of smoking, alcohol consumption and diet.

Patients and methods

A multicentre case–control study with 2198 cases of UADT cancer and 2141 controls from hospital and population sources was undertaken involving 14 centres from 10 countries. Personal interviews collected information on demographics, lifetime occupation history, smoking, alcohol consumption and diet. Socioeconomic status was measured by education, occupational social class and unemployment. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using unconditional logistic regression.

Results

When controlling for age, sex and centre significantly increased risks for UADT cancer were observed for those with low versus high educational attainment OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.67, 2.36). Similarly, for occupational socioeconomic indicators – comparing the lowest versus highest International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI) quartile for the longest occupation gave OR = 1.60 (1.28, 2.00); and for unemployment OR = 1.64 (1.24, 2.17). Statistical significance remained for low education when adjusting for smoking, alcohol and diet behaviours OR = 1.29 (1.06, 1.57) in the multivariate analysis. Inequalities were observed only among men but not among women and were greater among those in the British Isles and Eastern European countries than in Southern and Central/Northern European countries. Associations were broadly consistent for subsite and source of controls (hospital and community).

Conclusion

Socioeconomic inequalities for UADT cancers are only observed among men and are not totally explained by smoking, alcohol drinking and diet.

Introduction

Upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer includes the subsites: oral cavity, pharynx (excluding nasopharynx), larynx and oesophagus. Collectively these cancers are among the most common in the world – with the greatest burden falling upon developing countries.1 Although rarer in Europe, UADT cancers still account for 180,000 new cases per year,2 and the incidence has been increasing in our most deprived communities.2

There is little doubt that tobacco smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are the major risk factors for UADT cancer3, with diets low in fruits and vegetables,4 and human oncogenic papillomavirus infection5 also associated with increased risk. While it is recognised that low individual socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with increased risk,6 the components and pathways of this socioeconomic effect have had limited attention. Few studies examining the effect of socioeconomic factors on UADT cancer have adequately controlled for the known behavioural risk factors, and have simply adjusted for age.6 Previous studies have identified independent effects of social factors having adjusted for smoking and alcohol drinking,7, 8 while others have found that the social effects are completely lost when adjusting for alcohol drinking and smoking.9 One study found that the effects of low social class could be explained by co-existing occupational (toxic) exposures.10

It is almost unheard of to investigate the behavioural risk factors for UADT cancer without adjusting for socioeconomic status. However, for this analysis, in keeping with the classical methods in social epidemiology,11 we flip this logic on its head, and take an alternative perspective a priori – aiming to assess socioeconomic factors both independently and through their influence on behavioural risk factors. Uniquely we aim to extensively adjust for the known behavioural risk factors of smoking, alcohol drinking and diet which would confound any relationship with social factors; and we have the opportunity to utilise one of the largest case–control studies undertaken for UADT cancer aetiology.6, 12 At a time of increased focus on genetic and lifestyle factors associated with cancer – we also feel this is a timely opportunity to take a step back and view a bigger picture of UADT cancer aetiology and the role of the social and economic context of risk.

Section snippets

Material and methods

The ARCAGE (Alcohol-Related Cancers and Genetic Susceptibility in Europe) multicentre case–control study was conducted in 14 centres in 10 European countries. Full details of study design have been described elsewhere12 and will be only briefly summarised here. Following a common protocol (although slightly different in the Paris centre), cases were defined as those diagnosed with primary squamous cell tumours of the UADT between 2002 and 2005 (Paris: 1987–1992).

Diagnoses included malignant

Results

Overall the ARCAGE study participation rates were 82% (n = 2304) cases and 68% (n = 2227) for controls. In this analysis 2198 cases and 2141 controls were included – 192 subjects were excluded as they had one or more key variables missing for education, smoking, alcohol or diet. The UADT cancer subsite distribution for cases was oral/oropharyngeal (n = 1117, 51%), hypopharynx/larynx (n = 856, 39%) and oesophageal cases (n = 225, 10%). The characteristics of the case and controls are shown in Table 1.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that wide socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of UADT cancer exist across Europe and they are not fully explained by the traditional recognised lifestyle behaviours of smoking, alcohol consumption and dietary factors. The lowest levels of educational attainment confer an almost doubling of risk associated with UADT cancer, remain significant when we adjust for behavioural factors, and were consistent across the subsites of UADT cancer. Adjustment for behaviours

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Community (5th Framework Programme) [Grant Number QLK1-CT-2001-00182], and the Compagnia San Paolo and AICR (for the Turin center).

We gratefully acknowledge the study interviewers and our clinical colleagues in hospitals and primary care who supported this study. In Glasgow we are indebted to Dr. Gerry Robertson from the Beatson Oncology Center and Mr. John Devine from the Southern General Hospital. GJM and TVM partly worked on this study while at the

References (44)

  • M. Pavia et al.

    Association between fruit and vegetable consumption and oral cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies

    Am J Clin Nutr

    (2006)
  • G. D’Souza et al.

    Case–control study of human papillomavirus and oropharyngeal cancer

    New Eng J Med

    (2007)
  • D.I. Conway et al.

    Socioeconomic inequalities and oral cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control studies

    Int J Cancer

    (2008)
  • J.M. Elwood et al.

    Alcohol, smoking, social and occupational factors in the aetiology of cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx

    Int J Cancer

    (1984)
  • M. Ferraroni et al.

    Socioeconomic indicators, tobacco and alcohol in the aetiology of digestive tract neoplasms

    Int J Epidemiol

    (1989)
  • R.S. Greenberg et al.

    The relation of socio-economic status to oral and pharyngeal cancer

    Epidemiology

    (1991)
  • G. Menvielle et al.

    Smoking, alcohol drinking, occupational exposures and social inequalities in hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer

    Int J Epidemiol

    (2004)
  • C.T. Schrijvers et al.

    Explaining educational differences in mortality: the role of behavioral and material factors

    Am J Public Health

    (1999)
  • P. Lagiou et al.

    Alcohol-related cancers and genetic susceptibility in Europe: the ARCAGE project: study samples and data collection

    Eur J Cancer Prev

    (2009)
  • Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Standard occupational classification Volume 1. London: HMSO;...
  • International Labour Office. International Standard Classification of Occupations. Geneva: Bureau International du...
  • Ganzeboom H. Tools for deriving status measures from ISCO-88 and ISCO-68. Amsterdam: Department of Social Research...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text