Table 1.
Reference3–5,8–12 | Sampling frame |
Aggregate sample | Socio-economic measure |
Survival Measure | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canadian and US places | Cohort incidence years | Followed until | Unit | Conceptual definition | Groupsd compared | |||
Gorey et al. 1997 | Toronto vs Detroit | 1984–1988 | 1994 | 8186 | CT | Low-income Prevalence |
Tertiles | 5-year Cancer-specific |
Gorey et al. 2000 | Toronto vs Hololulu | 1986–1990 | 1996 | 7590 | CT | Low-income Prevalence |
Deciles | 5-year All-cause |
Gorey et al. 2003 | Winnipeg vs Des Moines | 1984–1992 | 1998 | 3928 | CT | Low-income Prevalence |
Quintiles | 5-year All-cause |
Boyd et al. 1999 | Ontario vs USAa | 1987–1992 | 1995 | 74 949c | CT, EA and CSD | Mdn Income | Quintiles | 2- to 5-year Cancer-specific |
Gorey et al. 2000 | Toronto vs San Francisco, Seattle, Hartford | 1986–1988 | 1994 | 9748 | CT | Low-income Prevalence |
Tertiles | 5-year All-cause |
Gorey et al. 1998 | Toronto vs Detroit | 1986–1988 | 1994 | 1789 | CT | Low-income Prevalence |
Quintiles | 5-year Cancer-specific |
Gorey et al. 2009 | Ontariob vs Californiab | 1998–2000 | 2006 | 1923 | CT and | Low-income Prevalence |
Quintiles | 5-year All-cause |
Zhang-Salomons et al., 2006 | Toronto vs Detroit | 1988–1993 | 1999 | 21 970 | CT | Low and Mdn Income |
Quintiles | 5-year Cancer-specific |
Note. CT, census tract; EA, enumeration area; CSD, census subdivision; Mdn, median. All adult samples were ≥20–25 years of age. Three studies additionally analysed younger/older groups (<65/65+).4,5,11 One study analysed staged groups (node negative/positive breast cancer).11
SEER program based.
Respectively, sampled large metropolitan areas (greater metropolitan Toronto and the San Francisco Bay area), smaller cities (Windsor and Modesto) and rural places in both Ontario and California.
Sample not reported. Estimated by secondary analysis.
Most extreme comparison used in each study.