ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Ethnic disparities in lung cancer incidence and differences in diagnostic characteristics: a population-based cohort study in England.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical and cost-effectiveness of paravertebral blockade versus thoracic epidural blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: TOPIC2 RCT synopsis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Diagnostic intervals and imaging use in lung cancer: a national real-world study in England.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Supporting nurses to improve clinical trial discussions with patients with lung cancer using the Lung I-ACT tool: a mixed methods pilot study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening in Switzerland: A Comparative Analysis of Three Data Sources From Lausanne and the Canton of Vaud.International journal of public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality, yet disparities in lung cancer across different sociodemographic groups in the UK remain unclear. This study investigates ethnicity and sociodemographic disparities and differences in lung cancer in a nationally representative English cohort, aiming to highlight inequalities and promote equitable access to diagnostic advancements. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study using health care records from QResearch, a large primary care database in England. The study included adults aged 25 and over, spanning the period of 2005-2019. Lung cancer incidence rates were calculated using age-standardized methods. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to assess associations between ethnicity/sociodemographic factors and diagnostic characteristics (histological type, stage, and cancer grade), adjusting for confounders. Findings: From a cohort of over 17.5 million people, we identified disparities in incidence rates across ethnic groups from 2005 to 2019. Analysis of 84,253 lung cancer cases revealed that younger woman and Individuals of Indian, other Asian, Black African, Caribbean and Chinese backgrounds had a significantly higher risks of adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma than their White counterparts (relative risk ratios [RRR] spanning from 1.52 (95% CI 1.18-1.94) to 2.69 (95% CI 1.43-5.05). Men and current smokers were more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage than women and never smokers (RRR: 1.72 [95% CI 1.56-1.90]-2.45 [95% CI 2.16-2.78]). Socioeconomic deprivation was associated with higher risks of moderate or poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma compared with well differentiated (RRRs between 1.35 [CI: 1.02-1.79] and 1.37 [1.05-1.80]). Interpretation: Our study highlights significant differences in lung cancer incidence and in lung cancer diagnostic characteristics related to ethnicity, deprivation and other demographic factors. These findings have important implications for the provision of equitable screening and prevention programmes to mitigate health inequalities. Funding: DART (The Integration and Analysis of Data using Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient Outcomes with Thoracic Diseases) project, Innovate UK (UK Research and Innovation), QResearch® and grants from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (Oxford), John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, and the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.