Rural and urban differences in stage at diagnosis of colorectal and lung cancers

Abstract

There is evidence that patients living in outlying areas have poorer survival from cancer. This study set out to investigate whether they have more advanced disease at diagnosis. Case notes of 1323 patients in north and northeast Scotland who were diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer in 1995 or 1996 were reviewed. Of patients with lung cancer, 42% (69/164) living 58 km or more from a cancer centre had disseminated disease at diagnosis compared to 33% (71/215) living within 5 km. For colorectal cancer the respective figures were 24% (38/161) and 16% (31/193). For both cancers combined, the adjusted odds ratio for disseminated disease at diagnosis in furthest group compared to the closest group was 1.59 (P = 0.037). Of 198 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the closest group, 56 (28%) had limited disease (stage I or II) at diagnosis compared to 23 of 165 (14%) of the furthest group (P = 0.002). The respective figures for Dukes A and B colorectal cancer were 101 of 196 (52%) and 67 of 172 (39%) (P = 0.025). These findings suggest that patients who live remote from cities and the associated cancer centres have poorer chances of survival from lung or colorectal cancer because of more advanced disease at diagnosis. This needs to be taken into account when planning investigation and treatment services.

References 12

1. 1.

   Bain N. S., Campbell N. C. Treating patients with colorectal cancer in rural and urban areas: a qualitative study of the patients' perspective. Fam Pract. 2000;17(6):475-479.

   Not in our library10.1093/fampra/17.6.475

2. 2.

   Campbell N. C., Elliott A. M., Sharp L., Ritchie L. D., Cassidy J., Little J. Rural factors and survival from cancer: analysis of Scottish cancer registrations. Br J Cancer. 2000;82(11):1863-1866.

   Not in our library10.1054/bjoc.1999.1079

3. 3.

   Campbell N. C., Ritchie L. D., Cassidy J., Little J. Systematic review of cancer treatment programmes in remote and rural areas. Br J Cancer. 1999;80(8):1275-1280.

   Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6690498

4. 4.

   Cox J. Poverty in rural areas. BMJ. 1998;316(7133):722-722.

   Not in our library10.1136/bmj.316.7133.722

5. 5.

   Ionescu M. V., Carey F., Tait I. S., Steele R. J. Socioeconomic status and stage at presentation of colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1998;352(9138):1439-1439.

   Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(98)00052-x

6. 6.

   Launoy G., Le Coutour X., Gignoux M., Pottier D., Dugleux G. Influence of rural environment on diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46(4):365-367.

   Not in our library10.1136/jech.46.4.365

7. 7.

   Liff J. M., Chow W. H., Greenberg R. S. Rural-urban differences in stage at diagnosis. Possible relationship to cancer screening. Cancer. 1991;67(5):1454-1459.

   Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19910301)67:5<1454::aid-cncr2820670533>3.0.co;2-k

8. 8.

   Merrill R. M., Henson D. E., Barnes M. Conditional survival among patients with carcinoma of the lung. Chest. 1999;116(3):697-703.

   Not in our library10.1378/chest.116.3.697

9. 9.

   Parry J. M., Collins S., Mathers J., Scott N. A., Woodman C. B. Influence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1999;86(4):475-481.

   Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01064.x

10. 10.

    Reading R., Jarvis S., Openshaw S. Measurement of social inequalities in health and use of health services among children in Northumberland. Arch Dis Child. 1993;68(5):626-631.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.68.5.626

11. 11.

    Selby P., Gillis C., Haward R. Benefits from specialised cancer care. Lancet. 1996;348(9023):313-318.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(96)02482-8

12. 12.

    Weinert C., Boik R. J. MSU Rurality Index: development and evaluation. Montana State University. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(5):453-464.

    Not in our library10.1002/nur.4770180510

Cited by papers we hold 1

• Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review · 2016
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.