1. Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal cancer 2013/7/16 吳晉嘉

2. Topic Literature Review Coding sheet of literature Introduction Result Limitation

3. Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in esophageal cancer

4. Literature Review Combined effect of individual and neighborhood SES in gastric cancer patients  Literature. Pubmed: “socioeconomic status” AND “esophageal cancer”

5. Coding Sheet NoJournalYearTitleAuthorsMain conclusion 1NEJM2003Esophageal cancerEnzingerReview of esophageal cancer 2BMC cancer2012 incidence and survival of esophageal and gastric cancer Coupland incidence and survival.Primary prevention 3 Indian journal of cancer 2012 Risk factors and survival analysis of the esophageal cancer in the population of Jammu, India Sehgal snuff, salt tea, smoking and sundried food are the most powerful risk factor of esophageal cancer. improve economic status 4 Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention 2011 Epidemiologic risk factors fir esiohageal cacer development Mao Rsik factors and EC development Nitrosamine, tabacco abd alcohol, BE and GERDm nutrition, HPV 5BJC2006 Role of SES in decision making on dx and tx of esophageal cancer in Netherlands Vliet individual SES related to histology. Higher SES related to resection. Lower SES: stent. High SES: more C/T but not significant 6BJC2004 Trends and SES inequality in cancer survival Coleman Deprived patients not benefitial from earlier diagnosis and treatment Ref: Dixon, High SES more resources

6. 7JCGE2012 SES, staging and treat decisions in EC BUS SES related to tx choice.Netherlan. Related to patient and physician?? Curative treatment==> similar survival. Neighborhood. High ==> curative resection, or CCRT ==> better survival 8 international journal of epidemiolog y 2009 SES, population based case control study in high risk area,Iran Islamihigh SES, low risk. Individual. Multiple SES measures. Occupation, area, education 9 Journal of epidemiol Coomunity health 2001 Neighborhood SES and health outcomes Pickett Neighborhood SES rekated to health outcom 10 Cancer epidemiolog y 2005 SES and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Sweden Jansson individual SES related EAC and ESC, high ==> low. Especially without partner. 11 health and quality of life outcomes 2009 Quality of life as prognostic factor in cancer survival. MontazeriFatigue, physical function 12PLOS one2013 Sociodemographic and geographical factor in EC and GC mortality in Sweden Ljung neighborhood : density high ==> poorer outcome. Single: poorer. High education: better outcome

7. 13EJC2008 Sociol inequality, incidence and survival of EC and GC and PC in Denmark Baastrup high SES, low risk. Disadvantaged group ==> lower survival but not significant 14JCO1999 Community income and cancer survival Boyd Canada remove SES inequality more than US 15BJC2006 Impact if SES ib death rate after surgery for UGI cancer Leigh After surgery, social deprivation significant associated mortality 16 CA: cancer J clin 2011Global cancer statisticsJemalStatistics 17 international journal of epidemiolog y 2007 SES, risk of GC and EC in European Nagel GC related to SES, others no specific. 18 Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Outcome of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis. Chen age, sex, and curative treatment were significant predictors of lifetime survival in patients with esophageal cancer.

8. SES related to esophageal cancer incidence. In developed country  EAC and ESCC related to high SES ( Denmark ) In developing countries  ESCC related to low SES SES related to treatment choice of esophageal cancer Surgery improved outcome Low Neighborhood SES related higher post- esophagectomy mortality.

9. Plos one 2013 : neighborhood and individual SES, but no combination. Limited literature about combined effect of neighborhood and individual SES

10. Study Design Taiwan’s NHIRD for the years 2002 to 2006. 6557 Esophageal cancer patient Combined Individual SES and neighborhood SES survival Individual: occupation and insurance income Neighborhood: average household income

11. 台灣不分性別 每 10 萬人口標準化發生率 (2000 年世界標準人口 ) ， 2002-2006 年 年度 食道 個案數平均年齡年齡中位數標準化率癌症百分比 20021,31061 5.472.08% 20031,35661 5.422.14% 20041,53460595.992.16% 20051,52759585.762.13% 20061,76459576.442.34% 7,491 國健局網站 癌登系統

13. <65 years old 食道 年度個案數平均年齡年齡中位數標準化率癌症百分比 200278752 3.652.34% 200381052 3.612.41% 200496352 4.172.56% 200598351 4.072.58% 20061,17552 4.742.95

14. >65years old 食道 年度個案數平均年齡年齡中位數標準化率癌症百分比 2002523747325.781.77% 200354674 25.691.84% 2004571747326.41.72% 2005544747324.611.62% 2006589757425.471.66%

20. Limitation No staging ( If limited to curative resection, may overcome this bias )  previous review showed that the most important factor is “curative resection” No histopathological report ( more than 90% in Asian is SCC )