Literature DB >> 21290176

Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands--associations with stage at diagnosis and survival.

M J Aarts1, A C Voogd, L E M Duijm, J W W Coebergh, W J Louwman.   

Abstract

The associations of socioeconomic status (SES) and participation in the breast cancer screening program, as well as consequences for stage of disease and prognosis were studied in the Netherlands, where no financial barriers for participating or health care use exist. From 1998 to 2005, 1,067,952 invitations for biennial mammography were sent to women aged 50-75 in the region covered by the Eindhoven Cancer Registry. Screening attendance rates according to SES were calculated. Tumor stage and survival were studied according to SES group for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2006, whether screen-detected, interval carcinoma or not attended screening at all. Attendance rates were rather high: 79, 85 and 87% in women with low, intermediate and high SES (p < 0.001), respectively. Compared to the low SES group, odds ratios for attendance were 1.5 (95%CI:1.5-1.6) for the intermediate SES group and 1.8 (95%CI:1.7-1.8) for the high SES group. Moreover, women with low SES had an unfavorable tumor-node-metastasis stage compared to those with high SES. This was seen in non-attendees, among women with interval cancers and with screen-detected cancers. Among non-attendees and interval cancers, the socioeconomic survival disparities were largely explained by stage distribution (48 and 35%) and to a lesser degree by therapy (16 and 16%). Comorbidity explained most survival inequalities among screen-detected patients (23%). Despite the absence of financial barriers for participation in the Dutch mass-screening program, socioeconomic inequalities in attendance rates exist, and women with low SES had a significantly worse tumor stage and lower survival rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21290176     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1363-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  27 in total

1.  Single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) with technetium-99m sestamibi in the diagnosis of small breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement.

Authors:  Alessandro DeCesare; Alessandro de Cesare; Giuseppe De Vincentis; De Vincentis Giuseppe; Stefano Gervasi; Gervasi Stefano; Giacomo Crescentini; Crescentini Giacomo; Enrico Fiori; Fiori Enrico; Marco Bonomi; Bonomi Marco; Alessandro Crocetti; Alessandro Crocetti; Antonio V Sterpetti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Breast cancer screening: evidence of benefit depends on the method used.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 8.775

3.  Multilevel factors associated with long-term adherence to screening mammography in older women in the U.S.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Dejana Braithwaite; Jennifer S Haas; Christoph I Lee; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Tracy Onega
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Hongyuan Gao; Susan Brandzel; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Factors Explaining Socio-Economic Inequalities in Cancer Survival: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nina Afshar; Dallas R English; Roger L Milne
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.302

6.  Small but significant socioeconomic inequalities in axillary staging and treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands.

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

7.  Non-attendance in mammography screening and women's social network: a cohort study on the influence of family composition, social support, attitudes and cancer in close relations.

Authors:  Åsa Ritenius Manjer; Ulla Melin Emilsson; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-06-28       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 8.  The impact of comorbidity on cancer survival: a review.

Authors:  Mette Søgaard; Reimar Wernich Thomsen; Kristine Skovgaard Bossen; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Mette Nørgaard
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 4.790

9.  Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Rapid Relapse in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Multi-Institution Study.

Authors:  Sarah Asad; Carlos H Barcenas; Richard J Bleicher; Adam L Cohen; Sara H Javid; Ellis G Levine; Nancy U Lin; Beverly Moy; Joyce Niland; Antonio C Wolff; Michael J Hassett; Daniel G Stover
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 11.908

10.  Mammographic screening in Sami speaking municipalities and a control group. Are early outcome measures influenced by ethnicity?

Authors:  Jan Norum; Solveig Hofvind; Carsten Nieder; Edrun Andrea Schnell; Ann Ragnhild Broderstad
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 1.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.