4.3 Article

Socioeconomic status and non-melanoma skin cancer: A nationwide cohort study of incidence and survival in Denmark

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 689-695

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.06.011

关键词

Non-melanoma skin cancer; Socioeconomic status; Incidence; Survival; Denmark

资金

  1. Danish Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The two main types of non-melanoma skin cancer differ with the pattern of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR): basal cell carcinoma (BCC) appears to be more closely related to intermittent solar exposure and sunburn, while the risk for sguamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a result of lifetime cumulated exposure to UVR. As these exposures may differ by social position, we investigated its role in the risk for and survival after BCC and SCC diagnosed in Denmark in 1994-2006 with follow-up through 2006. Methods: The analyses were based on 52,166 cases of BCC and 5033 cases of SCC in a cohort of 3.7 million people born between 1925 and 1976 and residing in Denmark in 1992-2006. Information on cancer cases and socioeconomic indicators were obtained from population-based registries. We used log-linear Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios and cumulative relative survival to estimate survival up to 10 years after the first incident cases of BCC and SCC. Results: High socioeconomic status, measured by both education and disposable income, was strongly associated with a higher risk for BCC, whereas there was no association between SCC and educational level and only a weak association with income. In general, relative survival after BCC was better than after SCC; the pattern of survival was not affected by socioeconomic indicators. Conclusions: The observed pattern of social status and risk for non-melanoma skin cancer differed substantially for the two cancer types, supporting the hypothesis that they may have different aetiologies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据