OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between measures of socio-economic status (SES) and breast cancer (BC) survival for young, urban Australian women. METHODS: We used a population-based sample of 1,029 women followed prospectively for a median of 7.9 years. SES was defined by education and area of residence. Hazard ratios (HRs) associated with SES measures were estimated for (i) distant recurrence (DR) and (ii) all-cause mortality as end-points. RESULTS: HRs for area of residence were not significantly different from unity, with or without adjustment for age at diagnosis and education level. The univariable HR estimate of DR for women with university education compared with women with incomplete high school education was 1.51 (95% CI = 1.08 - 2.13, p = 0.02), which reduced to 1.20 (95% CI = 0.85 - 1.72, p = 0.3) after adjusting for age at diagnosis and area of residence. Adjusting for prognostic factors differentially distributed across SES groups did not substantially alter the association between survival and SES. CONCLUSIONS: Among young, urban Australian women there is no association between SES and BC survival. IMPLICATIONS: This lack of estimates of association may be partly attributed to universal access to adequate breast cancer care in urban areas.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between measures of socio-economic status (SES) and breast cancer (BC) survival for young, urban Australian women. METHODS: We used a population-based sample of 1,029 women followed prospectively for a median of 7.9 years. SES was defined by education and area of residence. Hazard ratios (HRs) associated with SES measures were estimated for (i) distant recurrence (DR) and (ii) all-cause mortality as end-points. RESULTS: HRs for area of residence were not significantly different from unity, with or without adjustment for age at diagnosis and education level. The univariable HR estimate of DR for women with university education compared with women with incomplete high school education was 1.51 (95% CI = 1.08 - 2.13, p = 0.02), which reduced to 1.20 (95% CI = 0.85 - 1.72, p = 0.3) after adjusting for age at diagnosis and area of residence. Adjusting for prognostic factors differentially distributed across SES groups did not substantially alter the association between survival and SES. CONCLUSIONS: Among young, urban Australian women there is no association between SES and BC survival. IMPLICATIONS: This lack of estimates of association may be partly attributed to universal access to adequate breast cancer care in urban areas.
Authors: Gillian S Dite; Mark A Jenkins; Melissa C Southey; Jane S Hocking; Graham G Giles; Margaret R E McCredie; Deon J Venter; John L Hopper Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-03-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Katharine E Jong; David P Smith; Xue Q Yu; Dianne L O'Connell; David Goldstein; Bruce K Armstrong Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2004-06-21 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Kelly-Anne Phillips; Roger L Milne; Michael L Friedlander; Mark A Jenkins; Margaret R E McCredie; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Esther M John; John L Hopper; Jeanne C Beck; Julia A Knight; Susan L Neuhausen; Ruby T Senie; Argyrios Ziogas; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Norman Boyd; Saundra S Buys; Mary B Daly; Frances P O'Malley; Regina M Santella; Melissa C Southey; Vickie L Venne; Deon J Venter; Dee W West; Alice S Whittemore; Daniela Seminara Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Majid Taheri; Mohammad Tavakol; Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari; Amir Almasi-Hashiani; Mahmoud Abbasi Journal: Iran J Public Health Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.429