2000Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Requires access

The geography of survival from colo-rectal cancer.

Yo-Eun Kim, Anthony C. Gatrell, Brian Francis

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This study investigates variations in survival following surgery for colo-rectal cancer in the Wessex region (part of southern England), using 5147 cases diagnosed between 1 September 1991 and 31 August 1995. Survival curve estimation by life tables and Cox's proportional hazards model were used to examine geographical variation in cancer survival, with a specific focus on distance between place of residence and treatment centre, and district of treatment. We also consider whether area deprivation has an impact on survival. In seeking to answer these questions we control for possible confounders, including: age, gender, site of tumour, stage of disease at operation, hospital size and surgery type (whether elective or non-elective). District of treatment, distance and deprivation all show a relationship to outcome using survival curves, but when adjusting for other covariates using the Cox model, and considering deaths from all causes, only district of treatment was a very significant covariate (p<0.0001). Distance, deprivation, and gender were only weakly significant (p<0.10). Considering only deaths related to operation (within 30 days) district of treatment remained significant, but while distance had some effect on outcome, deprivation and gender ceased to be significant covariates. There is some evidence that those who live furthest from centres of treatment have the worst outcomes but the ‘geography of survival’ manifests itself more through where patients are treated than through area (deprivation) effects or relative location. The results have important policy implications, as they show variations among treatment centres having controlled for potentially confounding factors.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study investigates variations in survival following surgery for colo-rectal cancer in the Wessex region (part of southern England), using 5147 cases diagnosed between 1 September 1991 and 31 August 1995. Survival curve estimation by life tables and Cox's proportional hazards model were used to examine geographical variation in cancer survival, with a specific focus on distance between place of residence and treatment centre, and district of treatment. We also consider whether area deprivation has an impact on survival. In seeking to answer these questions we control for possible confounders, including: age, gender, site of tumour, stage of disease at operation, hospital size and surgery type (whether elective or non-elective). District of treatment, distance and deprivation all show a relationship to outcome using survival curves, but when adjusting for other covariates using the Cox model, and considering deaths from all causes, only district of treatment was a very significant covariate (p<0.0001). Distance, deprivation, and gender were only weakly significant (p<0.10). Considering only deaths related to operation (within 30 days) district of treatment remained significant, but while distance had some effect on outcome, deprivation and gender ceased to be significant covariates. There is some evidence that those who live furthest from centres of treatment have the worst outcomes but the ‘geography of survival’ manifests itself more through where patients are treated than through area (deprivation) effects or relative location. The results have important policy implications, as they show variations among treatment centres having controlled for potentially confounding factors.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study investigates variations in survival following surgery for colo-rectal cancer in the Wessex region (part of southern England), using 5147 cases diagnosed between 1 September 1991 and 31 August 1995. Survival curve estimation by life tables and Cox's proportional hazards model were used to examine geographical variation in cancer survival, with a specific focus on distance between place of residence and treatment centre, and district of treatment. We also consider whether area deprivation has an impact on survival. In seeking to answer these questions we control for possible confounders, including: age, gender, site of tumour, stage of disease at operation, hospital size and surgery type (whether elective or non-elective). District of treatment, distance and deprivation all show a relationship to outcome using survival curves, but when adjusting for other covariates using the Cox model, and considering deaths from all causes, only district of treatment was a very significant covariate (p<0.0001). Distance, deprivation, and gender were only weakly significant (p<0.10). Considering only deaths related to operation (within 30 days) district of treatment remained significant, but while distance had some effect on outcome, deprivation and gender ceased to be significant covariates. There is some evidence that those who live furthest from centres of treatment have the worst outcomes but the ‘geography of survival’ manifests itself more through where patients are treated than through area (deprivation) effects or relative location. The results have important policy implications, as they show variations among treatment centres having controlled for potentially confounding factors.

Key concepts: Covariate, Confounding, Demography, Proportional hazards model, Residence, Relative survival, Medicine, Survival analysis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The geography of survival from colo-rectal cancer. — Research Paper | ScholarLens