Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36818237›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2023

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality between and within countries in Europe: a population-based study.

Salvatore Vaccarella, Damien Georges, Freddie Bray, Ophira Ginsburg, Hadrien Charvat, Pekka Martikainen, Henrik Brønnum-Hansen, Patrick Deboosere, Matthias Bopp, Mall Leinsalu and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Inequities in enrollment across clinical trial phases and the need for a Spanish perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Salvatore VaccarellaCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Damien GeorgesEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Freddie BrayCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Ophira GinsburgCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Hadrien CharvatCancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Pekka MartikainenPopulation Research Unit, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Henrik Brønnum-HansenSection for Social Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Patrick DeboosereDepartment of Sociology, Interface Demography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Matthias BoppEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mall LeinsaluStockholm Centre for Health and Social Change, Södertörn University, 141 89, Huddinge, Sweden.
Barbara ArtnikChair of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Valentina LorenzoniInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Esther De VriesDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Bogota, Bogota, Colombia.
Michael MarmotDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Institute of Health Equity, London, England.
Paolo VineisSchool of Public Health, Imperial College, St Mary's Campus, London, England.
Johan MackenbachDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Wilma NusselderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S019669/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer is a priority for the public health agenda. A systematic assessment and benchmarking of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer across many countries and over time in Europe is not yet available. Methods: Census-linked, whole-of-population cancer-specific mortality data by socioeconomic position, as measured by education level, and sex were collected, harmonized, analysed, and compared across 18 countries during 1990-2015, in adults aged 40-79. We computed absolute and relative educational inequalities; temporal trends using estimated-annual-percentage-changes; the share of cancer mortality linked to educational inequalities. Findings: Everywhere in Europe, lower-educated individuals have higher mortality rates for nearly all cancer-types relative to their more highly-educated counterparts, particularly for tobacco/infection-related cancers [relative risk of lung cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated = 2.4 (95% confidence intervals: 2.1-2.8) among men; = 1.8 (95% confidence intervals: 1.5-2.1) among women]. However, the magnitude of inequalities varies greatly by country and over time, predominantly due to differences in cancer mortality among lower-educated groups, as for many cancer-types higher-educated have more similar (and lower) rates, irrespective of the country. Inequalities were generally greater in Baltic/Central/East-Europe and smaller in South-Europe, although among women large and rising inequalities were found in North-Europe (relative risk of all cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated ≥1.4 in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the England/Wales). Among men, rate differences (per 100,000 person-years) in total-cancer mortality for lower-vs-higher-educated groups ranged from 110 (Sweden) to 559 (Czech Republic); among women from approximately null (Slovenia, Italy, Spain) to 176 (Denmark). Lung cancer was the largest contributor to inequalities in total-cancer mortality (between-country range: men, 29-61%; women, 10-56%). 32% of cancer deaths in men and 16% in women (but up to 46% and 24%, respectively in Baltic/Central/East-Europe) were associated with educational inequalities. Interpretation: Cancer mortality in Europe is largely driven by levels and trends of cancer mortality rates in lower-education groups. Even Nordic-countries, with a long-established tradition of equitable welfare and social justice policies, witness increases in cancer inequalities among women. These results call for a systematic measurement, monitoring and action upon the remarkable socioeconomic inequalities in cancer existing in Europe. Funding: This study was done as part of the LIFEPATH project, which has received financial support from the European Commission (Horizon 2020 grant number 633666), and the DEMETRIQ project, which received support from the European Commission (grant numbers FP7-CP-FP and 278511). SV and WN were supported by the French Institut National du Cancer (INCa) (Grant number 2018-116). PM was supported by the Academy of Finland (#308247, # 345219) and the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 101019329). The work by Mall Leinsalu was supported by the Estonian Research Council (grant PRG722).

Indexed as

Between- and within countries cancer inequalitiesCancer disparitiesCancer mortalitySocial gradientSocioeconomic inequalities

Identifiers

PMID36818237
PMCPMC9929598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.