Disparities in Cancer Prevention, Screening, Diagnosis and Management

In this study, we assessed the influence of area-based socioeconomic deprivation on the incidence of invasive breast cancer (BC) in France, according to stage at diagnosis. All women from six mainland French departments, aged 15+ years, and diagnosed with a primary invasive breast carcinoma between 2008 and 2015 were included (n = 33,298). Area-based socioeconomic deprivation was determined using the French version of the European Deprivation Index. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) by socioeconomic deprivation and stage at diagnosis were compared estimating incidence rate ratios (IRRs) adjusted for age at diagnosis and rurality of residence. Compared to the most affluent areas, significantly lower IRRs were found in the most deprived areas for all-stages (0.85, 95% CI 0.81–0.89), stage I (0.77, 95% CI 0.72–0.82), and stage II (0.84, 95% CI 0.78–0.90). On the contrary, for stages III–IV, significantly higher IRRs (1.18, 95% CI 1.08–1.29) were found in the most deprived areas. These findings provide a possible explanation to similar or higher mortality rates, despite overall lower incidence rates, observed in women living in more deprived areas when compared to their affluent counterparts. Socioeconomic inequalities in access to healthcare services, including screening, could be plausible explanations for this phenomenon, underlying the need for further research. Full article

Background: Proton therapy is indicated for cancers that would be difficult to treat with conventional radiotherapy. Compulsory healthcare insurance covers the costs of this therapy in Switzerland, but this does not mean that proton therapy is cost-neutral for every cancer patient. Significant out-of-pocket (OOP) costs may arise due to expenses associated with proton therapy, and patients may experience treatment-related financial distress—an effect known as “financial toxicity.” This study investigates the financial toxicity of patients undergoing proton therapy in a high-income country with a compulsory health insurance policy. Methods: Between September 2019 and November 2021, 146 Swiss cancer patients treated with proton therapy participated in this study, of whom 90 (62%) were adults and 56 (38%) were caregivers of child cancer patients. Financial toxicity was assessed using the FACIT Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST). OOP costs during proton therapy were recorded weekly, and financial coping strategies were captured at the end of treatment. Findings: The median COST score, indicating financial toxicity, was 29.9 (IQR 21.0; 36.0) for all patients, 30.0 (IQR 21.3; 37.9) for adults, and 28.0 (IQR 20.5; 34.0) for children’s caregivers. Higher income (estimate 8.1, 95% CI 3.7 to 12.4, p ≤ 0.001) was significantly associated with higher COST scores, indicating less financial toxicity. Further distance from home to the treatment centre per 100 km (estimate −3.7, 95% CI −5.7 to −1.9, p ≤ 0.001) was significantly associated with lower COST scores, indicating increased financial toxicity. Married adult patients had substantially lower COST scores than single patients (estimate: −9.1, 95% CI −14.8 to −3.4, p ≤ 0.001). The median OOP cost was 2050 Swiss francs (CHF) and was spent mainly on travel, accommodation, and eating out. Sixty-three (43%) patients used their savings; 54 (37%) cut spending on leisure activities; 21 (14.4%) cut living expenses; 14 (9.6%) borrowed money; nine (6.2%) worked more; and four (2.7%) sold property. Patients with high COST scores used significantly fewer coping strategies such as saving on leisure activities (estimate −9.5, 95% CI −12.4 to −6.6, p ≤ 0.001), spending savings (estimate −3.9, 95% CI −6.3 to −1.4, p = 0.002), borrowing money (estimate −6.3, 95% CI −10.4 to −2.2, p = 0.003), and increasing workload (estimate −5.5, 95% CI −10.5 to −0.4, p = 0.035). Interpretation: A substantial number of cancer patients treated with proton therapy experience financial toxicity in Switzerland. Long travel distances to the proton therapy centre and low income negatively affect the financial well-being of these patients during proton therapy. Full article