Socioeconomic Disparities in Six Common Cancer Survival Rates in South Korea: Population-Wide Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: In South Korea, the cancer incidence rate has increased by 56.5% from 2001 to 2021. Nevertheless, the 5-year cancer survival rate from 2017 to 2021 increased by 17.9% compared with that from 2001 to 2005. Cancer survival rates tend to decline with lower socioeconomic status, and variations exist in the survival rates among different cancer types. Analyzing socioeconomic patterns in the survival of patients with cancer can help identify high-risk groups and ensure that they benefit from interventions. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze differences in survival rates among patients diagnosed with six types of cancer-stomach, colorectal, liver, breast, cervical, and lung cancers-based on socioeconomic status using Korean nationwide data. Methods: This study used the Korea Central Cancer Registry database linked to the National Health Information Database to follow up with patients diagnosed with cancer between 2014 and 2018 until December 31, 2021. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by income status were generated, and log-rank tests were conducted for each cancer type to assess statistical significance. Hazard ratios with 95% CIs for any cause of overall survival were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models with the time since diagnosis. Results: The survival rates for the six different types of cancer were as follows: stomach cancer, 69.6% (96,404/138,462); colorectal cancer, 66.6% (83,406/125,156); liver cancer, 33.7% (23,860/70,712); lung cancer, 30.4% (33,203/109,116); breast cancer, 91.5% (90,730/99,159); and cervical cancer, 78% (12,930/16,580). When comparing the medical aid group to the highest income group, the hazard ratios were 1.72 (95% CI 1.66-1.79) for stomach cancer, 1.60 (95% CI 1.54-1.56) for colorectal cancer, 1.51 (95% CI 1.45-1.56) for liver cancer, 1.56 (95% CI 1.51-1.59) for lung cancer, 2.19 (95% CI 2.01-2.38) for breast cancer, and 1.65 (95% CI 1.46-1.87) for cervical cancer. A higher deprivation index and advanced diagnostic stage were associated with an increased risk of mortality. Conclusions: Socioeconomic status significantly mediates disparities in cancer survival in several cancer types. This effect is particularly pronounced in less fatal cancers such as breast cancer. Therefore, considering the type of cancer and socioeconomic factors, social and medical interventions such as early cancer detection and appropriate treatment are necessary for vulnerable populations.

Cost-Utility Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening According to the Initiating Age of National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), focusing on screening initiation age in Korea. METHODS: We designed Markov simulation models targeting individuals aged 40 years or older. Twelve strategies combining screening initiation ages (40, 45, or 50 years old), termination ages (80 or no limit), and intervals (1 or 2 years) were modeled, and the most cost-effective strategy was selected. The robustness of the results was confirmed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of the qualitative and quantitative FIT methods was verified using scenario analysis. RESULTS: The 2-year interval strategy with a screening age range of 45-80 years was the most cost-effective (incremental cost-utility ratio = KRW 7,281,646/quality adjusted life years). The most sensitive variables in the results were transition rate from advanced adenoma to local cancer and discount rate. The uncertainty in the model was substantially low. Moreover, strategies starting at the age of 40 years were also cost-effective but considered suboptimal. The scenario analysis showed that there was no significant difference in cost-effectiveness between strategies with various relative screening ratio of quantitative and qualitative method. CONCLUSION: The screening method for advancing the initiation age, as presented in the 2015 revised national screening recommendations, was superior regarding cost-effectiveness. This study provides a new paradigm for the development of a national cancer screening system in Korea, which can be utilized as a scientific basis for economic evaluations.

Comparative effectiveness of bisphosphonate treatments for the prevention of re-fracture in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term usage of glucocorticoids results in a loss of bone mass and a higher risk of fracture, and the most common cause of secondary osteoporosis is glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). For preventing GIOP, bisphosphonate (BP) is widely used. However, analysis on BP's effect on the prevention of re-fracture is insufficient. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the comparative treatment effect and prevention of re-fracture according to the type of BP in GIOP as the basis for a reliable clinical strategy for patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic databases of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE using a comprehensive search strategy in December 2021 with no language restriction. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled trials and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of BP to the patients with GIOP will be included in this study. The primary outcome will be the incidence of hip, vertebral and other fractures. The secondary outcome will include percentage changes on the bone mineral density and incidence of re-fracture. Assessing risk of bias for included studies is done using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Intervention tool. If quantitative synthesis is possible, a meta-analysis will be performed. A subgroup analysis will be conducted to compare re-fracture rate on the patients with GIOP who experience previous fractures. This study's result will provide evidence for the effectiveness of BP in the prevention of re-fracture on patients with GIOP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated through publishing in a peer-reviewed journal or public presentations. Ethical approval is not required as this is a systematic review of publicly available data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343787.