Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences›Epidemiological results

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences · Epidemiological results

Epidemiological results

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 7 min read

Some text in this chapter has been reproduced with permission from Lüchtenborg et al.42 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text.

Cohort study of cancer incidence

The prison population increased in size during the 20-year period, with the number of men in prison increasing from 60,252 in 1998 to 77,825 in 2017. The number of women in prison is much lower overall but also increased from 3139 to 4007 (a 28% increase) during the same period. The proportion of male and female prisoners over 50 years of age doubled from 17% and 17% in 1998 to 34% and 35% in 2017, respectively. The number of malignant and pre-malignant tumours diagnosed in prison increased sixfold from 19 in 1998 to 171 in 2017. We identified 2015 tumours in 1964 adult persons in prison during the 20-year period, of which 1556 were diagnosed in men and 459 were diagnosed in women. More than half of cancers in men are made up of prostate (19%), lung (15%), colon and rectal (9%), testis (7%) and bladder (4%) cancer. Most diagnoses in women are cervical cancer in situ (76%), whereas cervix and breast cancer account for 5% of all diagnoses each and 20% and 22% of invasive tumours, respectively.

The age-standardised incidence rate of cancer for men in prison was lower than that for men in the general population during the early study period but increased towards the end of the study period to a level similar to the general population (Figure 1). Poisson regression showed that during the study period the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased [incidence rate ratio per year 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, during 1999–2017 compared with 1998].

FIGURE 1 Age-standardised incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) for cancer in men in the general and prison populations in England by diagnosis year. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

The incidence rate ratios in Figure 2 show that over the 20-year period the cancer incidence was lower in both women and men in prison, although not statistically significantly so for women. Incidence rate ratios for the most common male cancers showed statistically significantly lower rates of colon, rectal, prostate and testis cancer in the prison population, but no differences in bladder and lung cancer incidence. Invasive cancers are relatively rare in women in prison, but it is striking that cervical cancer in situ is diagnosed around twice as often in prison as in the general population.

FIGURE 2 Age-standardised incidence rate ratios for common cancer and for all cancers combined in English prisons compared with the general population by gender between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2017. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Matched cohort study of treatment and survival

Table 1 gives an overview of the prison cohort and matched general population cohort. It shows that the matching on age, gender, tumour stage and diagnosis year worked well. There were differences in ethnicity, with fewer individuals with an Asian ethnicity and more with a black, mixed or other ethnic background in the prison cohort than in the general population controls. No significant difference in levels of comorbidity was found. Individuals diagnosed with cancer in prison were far less frequently diagnosed via screening than were matched general population cases. In an analysis where we randomly matched prison cases to cases from the general population on age, gender, tumour site and diagnosis year, but not tumour stage, we found no significant difference between the frequency of stage IV tumours among people diagnosed in prison and that among the general population (28% vs. 26%; p = 0.067).

TABLE 1 Characteristics of patients diagnosed with cancer in English prisons compared with matched patients in the general population, 2012–7
Patients with cancer in the general population, n (%) (N = 4165)Patients with cancer in prison, n (%) (N = 847)p-value
Gender 0.94a
Male3931 (94.4)800 (94.5)
Female234 (5.6)47 (5.5)
Age in years, median (IQR) 58 (48–68)58 (47–67)0.15b
Ethnicity < 0.0001a
White3588 (86.1)672 (79.3)
Mixed19 (0.5)14 (1.7)
Asian and Chinese132 (3.2)13 (1.5)
Black96 (2.3)39 (4.6)
Other63 (1.5)26 (3.1)
Missing267 (6.4)83 (9.8)
Cancer stage at diagnosis 1.0a
I994 (23.9)201 (23.7)
II524 (12.6)106 (12.5)
III660 (15.8)135 (15.9)
IV1172 (28.1)235 (27.7)
Missing815 (19.6)170 (20.1)
Diagnosis year 1.0a
2012500 (12)101 (11.9)
2013617 (14.8)126 (14.9)
2014677 (16.3)138 (16.3)
2015719 (17.3)146 (17.2)
2016842 (20.2)171 (20.2)
2017810 (19.4)165 (19.5)
Treatment with curative intent < 0.0001a
No2437 (58.5)573 (67.7)
Yes1728 (41.5)274 (32.3)
Charlson comorbidity score 0.086a
03489 (83.8)684 (80.8)
1–2499 (12)117 (13.8)
≥ 3177 (4.2)46 (5.4)
Route to diagnosis < 0.0001a
Two-week wait1536 (36.9)228 (26.9)
Emergency presentation712 (17.1)179 (21.1)
GP or outpatient referral1131 (27.2)210 (24.8)
Inpatient elective109 (2.6)25 (3)
Other outpatient444 (10.7)103 (12.2)
Screen detected65 (1.6)4 (0.5)
Unknown168 (4)98 (11.6)

Hospital admissions

Excluding day cases and regular night and day attenders, we found that fewer patients among those diagnosed with cancer in prison had HES recorded hospital admissions than among those diagnosed in the community (40% vs. 46%; p < 0.001). When admitted, prison patients had slightly longer admissions using the same definitions than community controls, where the median bed-days for prison cases was 8 (interquartile range 3–17 bed-days) compared with 6 (interquartile range 3–13 bed-days) among community controls (p = 0.024).

Curative treatment

Table 2 shows the OR of the receipt of any treatment with curative intent, curative surgery, radiotherapy and systemic anti-cancer therapy of people diagnosed with cancer in prison compared with those in the general population. The prison population is less likely to undergo treatment with curative intent than the general population (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.75), but the difference is most pronounced for major resections (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78). Adjusting the analyses for route to diagnosis in the model attenuated the association (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88).

TABLE 2 Likelihood of receipt of treatment with curative intent for patients diagnosed with cancer in English prisons compared with matched patients in the general population, 2012–7
Total numberAny treatmentSurgeryRadiotherapySystemic anti-cancer treatment
Number of patients (%)Adjusted OR (95% CI)Number of patients (%)Adjusted OR (95% CI)Number of patients (%)Adjusted OR (95% CI)Number of patients (%)Adjusted OR (95% CI)
General population41651728 (41.5)1 (ref)1228 (29.5)1 (ref)486 (11.7)1 (ref)303 (7.3)1 (ref)
Prison population (model 1)847274 (32.3)0.63 (0.53 to 0.75)187 (22.1)0.64 (0.53 to 0.78)80 (9.4)0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)51 (6.0)0.79 (0.57 to 1.08)
Prison population (model 2)847274 (32.3)0.72 (0.60 to 0.85)187 (22.1)0.73 (0.60 to 0.88)80 (9.4)0.85 (0.65 to 1.10)51 (6.0)0.85 (0.62 to 1.17)

Survival

The survival of patients diagnosed with cancer in prison is lower than that of patients diagnosed with cancer in the community. One-year survival was 71% (95% CI 68% to 74%) among prison diagnoses compared with 74% (95% CI 73% to 76%) among community diagnoses. Five-year survival estimates were 54% (95% CI 50% to 58%) and 56% (95% CI 55% to 58%), respectively.

Table 3 shows the results from the Cox proportional hazards analysis. Being diagnosed with cancer in prison carries a small but significantly increased risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.30, model A]. Stratification by treatment with curative intent showed that differences in treatment explained almost half the increased risk (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.23, model B). Further adjustment for diagnosis route attenuates the association further (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18, model D).

TABLE 3 Risk of death for patients diagnosed with cancer in English prisons compared with matched patients in the general population, 2012–7
Number of deaths; person-yearsModel A: adjusted HR (95% CI)Model B: adjusted HR (95% CI)Model C: adjusted HR (95% CI)Model D: adjusted HR (95% CI)
Population
General population 1626; 10,944.21 (ref)1 (ref)1 (ref)1 (ref)
Prison population347; 2021.91.16 (1.03 to 1.30)1.09 (0.97 to 1.23)1.09 (0.97 to 1.23)1.05 (0.93 to 1.18)
Route to diagnosis
Two-week wait 1 (ref)1 (ref)
Emergency presentationN/A3.05 (2.72 to 3.43)2.76 (2.45 to 3.10)
GP or outpatient referralN/A1.03 (0.91 to 1.17)0.98 (0.86 to 1.12)
Inpatient electiveN/A1.34 (1.02 to 1.77)1.22 (0.93 to 1.61)
Other outpatientN/A1.34 (1.14 to 1.57)1.31 (1.11 to 1.54)
ScreeningN/A0.34 (0.15 to 0.77)0.38 (0.17 to 0.86)
UnknownN/A1.19 (0.95 to 1.50)1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)
← MethodologyHealth economic results →

Attribution. Elizabeth A Davies; Margreet Lüchtenborg; Rachael Maree Hunter; Renske Visser; Jennie Huynh; Ross Pow et al. (2025). Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2025 Davies et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK612288. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • Epidemiological results

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support