1452P - Cancer screening in underserved, vulnerable population. Results from the edifice survey

Date 30 September 2012
Event ESMO Congress 2012
Session Poster presentation II
Topics Cancer Aetiology, Epidemiology, Prevention
Presenter François Eisinger
Authors F. Eisinger1, J. Viguier2, C. Touboul3, Y. Coscas4, X. Pivot5, J. Blay6, C. Lhomel4, J. Morère7
  • 1IPC Inserm UMR 599, 13009 - Marseille/FR
  • 2Centre De Coordination Des Dépistages Des Cancers, CHRU Trousseau, 37044 - Tours/FR
  • 3Oncology, Kantar Health, 92120 - Montrouge/FR
  • 4Oncology, Clinique de la Porte de Saint Cloud, 92100 - Boulogne Billancourt/FR
  • 5Service Oncologie Medicale, C.H.U. Jean Minjoz, FR-25030 - Besancon/FR
  • 6Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, 69008 - Lyon/FR
  • 7Oncology, Hôpital Avicenne, 93009 - Bobigny/FR

Abstract

Background

Reducing cancer inequalities is one of the most critical goals of the current National Cancer Plan. The French health system allows fair access to care for all affected persons. In contrast, exposure to risk factors is far worse for underserved populations. The issue of cancer screening attendance distribution according to social factors, deserves to be assessed and regularly monitored.

Methods

Accurate data on cancer screening in the population is available; however it is difficult to assess who belongs to an underserved/vulnerable subgroup. Many indicators could be used, such as the validated questionnaire “EPICES” with eleven yes/no questions.

We analysed a sample of the general population (N = 1603) to assess if screening attendance is correlated with this validated synthetic score or by any of its components.

Results

Breast 40–74 Breast 50–74 Official program CRC 40–74 CRC 50–74 Official program Prostate
Contact with social workers ns ns ns ns ns
Additional health insurance ns ns ns ns ns
Living alone ns ns p < 0.05 ns p < 0.05
Home ownership p < 0.05 ns p < 0.01 p < 0.05 ns
Financial difficulties p < 0.05 ns p < 0.01 ns ns
Practicing sport p < 0.01 ns ns ns ns
Performance attendance p < 0.01 ns ns ns ns
Taking vacations ns ns p < 0.05 ns p < 0.05
Family ties ns ns ns ns p < 0.05
Housing support ns ns p < 0.01 ns ns
Social support ns ns p < 0.01 ns ns
EPICES Synthetic score ns ns ns ns ns

Conclusions

It appears that social determinants of vulnerability are not key determinants for screening behaviour. However, there is still an impact on cancer screening attendance outside the official target age group. Under these circumstances, vulnerable populations use less health screening resources. Social support and home ownership are the most powerful predictors for screening attendance.

Our data support the dramatic impact of organised programs which reduce or even remove inequities in access to cancer screening.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.