Michael J Hassett1, A James O'Malley, Nancy L Keating. 1. Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. mhassett@partners.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although studies have demonstrated that women are less likely to work after they are diagnosed with breast cancer, the influence of cancer treatments on employment is less clear. The authors of this report assessed whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy was associated with a disruption in employment during the year after a breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Using a database of health insurance claims that covered 5.6 million US residents, 3,233 women aged <or=63 years were identified who were working full time or part time when they were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2002. All changes in employment during the year after a breast cancer diagnosis were identified. Using a Cox proportional hazards model that incorporated time-varying treatment variables, the authors evaluated the impact of chemotherapy and radiation therapy on the likelihood of experiencing an employment disruption. RESULTS: Although most women (93%) continued to work, chemotherapy recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to go on long-term disability, stop working, or retire (hazards ratio, 1.8; P < .01). Women aged >or=54 years were more likely to experience a change in employment than women aged <or=44 years (P < .01). Radiation therapy did not influence employment (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of employed, insured women, chemotherapy had a negative impact on employment. This finding may aid treatment decision making and could foster the development of interventions that support a patient's ability to continue working after treatment. It also reinforces the need to assess the impact of treatments, especially new treatments, on patient-centered outcomes such as employment. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Although studies have demonstrated that women are less likely to work after they are diagnosed with breast cancer, the influence of cancer treatments on employment is less clear. The authors of this report assessed whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy was associated with a disruption in employment during the year after a breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Using a database of health insurance claims that covered 5.6 million US residents, 3,233 women aged <or=63 years were identified who were working full time or part time when they were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2002. All changes in employment during the year after a breast cancer diagnosis were identified. Using a Cox proportional hazards model that incorporated time-varying treatment variables, the authors evaluated the impact of chemotherapy and radiation therapy on the likelihood of experiencing an employment disruption. RESULTS: Although most women (93%) continued to work, chemotherapy recipients were more likely than nonrecipients to go on long-term disability, stop working, or retire (hazards ratio, 1.8; P < .01). Women aged >or=54 years were more likely to experience a change in employment than women aged <or=44 years (P < .01). Radiation therapy did not influence employment (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of employed, insured women, chemotherapy had a negative impact on employment. This finding may aid treatment decision making and could foster the development of interventions that support a patient's ability to continue working after treatment. It also reinforces the need to assess the impact of treatments, especially new treatments, on patient-centered outcomes such as employment. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Katherine A Desmond; Beth Leedham; Julia H Rowland; Beth E Meyerowitz; Thomas R Belin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-01-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephanie R Land; Jacek A Kopec; Greg Yothers; Stewart Anderson; Richard Day; Gong Tang; Patricia A Ganz; Bernard Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E R Spelten; J H A M Verbeek; A L J Uitterhoeve; A C Ansink; J van der Lelie; T M de Reijke; M Kammeijer; J C J M de Haes; M A G Sprangers Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian; Madeleine Jones; Patrick Edwards; Timothy Flanigan; Yevgeniya Kaganova; Kevin W Smith; Cheryll C Thomas; Nikki A Hawkins; Juan Rodriguez; Temeika Fairley; Gery P Guy Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Ines Vaz-Luis; Jingyi Gong; Padma Sheila Rajagopal; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Lidia Schapira; Steven Come; Virginia Borges; Janet S de Moor; Ann H Partridge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Paul Abrahamse; Yun Li; Nancy K Janz; Jennifer J Griggs; Cathy Bradley; John J Graff; Ann Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Li Wang; Brian Y Hong; Sean A Kennedy; Yaping Chang; Chris J Hong; Samantha Craigie; Henry Y Kwon; Beatriz Romerosa; Rachel J Couban; Susan Reid; James S Khan; Michael McGillion; Victoria Blinder; Jason W Busse Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J Tevaarwerk; J W Lee; M E Sesto; K A Buhr; C S Cleeland; J Manola; L I Wagner; V T S Chang; M J Fisch Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 4.442