Aliki Taylor1, K K Cheng. 1. Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT. A.J.Taylor@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study was carried out in a population-based setting in Worcestershire to investigate the relationship between social deprivation and other potential prognostic factors. METHODS: A total of 762 female patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1999 were selected. Breast cancer included all new cases of primary invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. A total of 753 patients were matched by their postcode of residence to enumeration district Townsend score and then divided into three groups based on Townsend quintiles (affluent n = 478; middle n = 157; deprived n = 118). Main outcome measures were relationships between social deprivation and tumour type, stage at presentation, oestrogen receptor status, tumour grade and treatment type. RESULTS: Compared with the most deprived women, affluent women were less likely to present with invasive ductal tumours (70.8 per cent versus 85.9 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 6.757, p = 0.009), tumours of higher grade (36.0 per cent versus 44.7 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 4.201, p = 0.040), and oestrogen receptor negative tumours (22.4 per cent versus 33.3 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 3.501, p = 0.061). There was no significant difference in stage or tumour size at presentation between deprivation groups. More deprived women with invasive tumours of less than 20 mm maximum diameter were significantly more likely to have mastectomies than affluent women (47.8 per cent versus 32.1 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 4.091, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that level of social deprivation is associated with tumour type, grade and oestrogen receptor status. There was also a suggestion that increased level of deprivation was associated with increased risk of potentially unnecessary mastectomies.
BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study was carried out in a population-based setting in Worcestershire to investigate the relationship between social deprivation and other potential prognostic factors. METHODS: A total of 762 female patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1999 were selected. Breast cancer included all new cases of primary invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. A total of 753 patients were matched by their postcode of residence to enumeration district Townsend score and then divided into three groups based on Townsend quintiles (affluent n = 478; middle n = 157; deprived n = 118). Main outcome measures were relationships between social deprivation and tumour type, stage at presentation, oestrogen receptor status, tumour grade and treatment type. RESULTS: Compared with the most deprived women, affluent women were less likely to present with invasive ductal tumours (70.8 per cent versus 85.9 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 6.757, p = 0.009), tumours of higher grade (36.0 per cent versus 44.7 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 4.201, p = 0.040), and oestrogen receptor negative tumours (22.4 per cent versus 33.3 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 3.501, p = 0.061). There was no significant difference in stage or tumour size at presentation between deprivation groups. More deprived women with invasive tumours of less than 20 mm maximum diameter were significantly more likely to have mastectomies than affluent women (47.8 per cent versus 32.1 per cent, chi2 linear trend = 4.091, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that level of social deprivation is associated with tumour type, grade and oestrogen receptor status. There was also a suggestion that increased level of deprivation was associated with increased risk of potentially unnecessary mastectomies.
Authors: Katherine I Morley; Roger L Milne; Graham G Giles; Melissa C Southey; Carmel Apicella; John L Hopper; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Akihiro Nishi; Danny A Milner; Edward L Giovannucci; Reiko Nishihara; Andy S Tan; Ichiro Kawachi; Shuji Ogino Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: M J Aarts; V C Hamelinck; E Bastiaannet; J W W Coebergh; G J Liefers; A C Voogd; M van der Sangen; W J Louwman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Simon L Bacon; Kim L Lavoie; Jean Bourbeau; Pierre Ernst; Karim Maghni; Denyse Gautrin; Manon Labrecque; Veronique Pepin; Bente Klarlund Pedersen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Simon L Bacon; Kim L Lavoie; André Arsenault; Jocelyn Dupuis; Louise Pilote; Catherine Laurin; Jennifer Gordon; Denyse Gautrin; Alain Vadeboncoeur Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: L Baker; P R Quinlan; N Patten; A Ashfield; L-J Birse-Stewart-Bell; C McCowan; J-C Bourdon; C A Purdie; L B Jordan; J A Dewar; L Wu; A M Thompson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640