Katherine C Brewer1, Caryn E Peterson2, Faith G Davis3, Kent Hoskins4, Heather Pauls5, Charlotte E Joslin6. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MC 923), School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. 2. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MC 923), School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago; Cancer Control and Population Science Research Program, University of Illinois at Chicago Cancer Center, Chicago. 3. Cancer Control and Population Science Research Program, University of Illinois at Chicago Cancer Center, Chicago; Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 3-317 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Alberta, Canada. 4. Cancer Control and Population Science Research Program, University of Illinois at Chicago Cancer Center, Chicago; Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. 5. Institute for Health Research and Policy (IHRP), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. 6. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MC 923), School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago; Cancer Control and Population Science Research Program, University of Illinois at Chicago Cancer Center, Chicago; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. Electronic address: charjosl@uic.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite significant improvements in treatment for ovarian cancer, survival is poorer for non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) has been implicated in racial disparities across a variety of health outcomes and may similarly contribute to racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the influence of neighborhood SES on NHB-NHW survival differences after accounting for differences in tumor characteristics and in treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from 2432 women (443 NHB and 1989 NHW) diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer in Cook County, Illinois between 1998 and 2007. Neighborhood (i.e., census tract) SES at the time of diagnosis was calculated for each woman using two well-established composite measures of affluence and disadvantage. Cox proportional hazard models measured the association between NHB race and survival after adjusting for age, tumor characteristics, treatment, year of diagnosis, and neighborhood SES. RESULTS: There was a strong association between ovarian cancer survival and both measures of neighborhood SES (P < .0001 for both affluence and disadvantage). After adjusting for age, tumor characteristics, treatment, and year of diagnosis, NHB were more likely than NHW to die of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.68). The inclusion of neighborhood affluence and disadvantage into models separately and together attenuated this risk (HRaffluence = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.58; HRdisadvantage = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.52; and HRaffluence + disadvantage = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.52. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood SES, as measured by composite measures of affluence and disadvantage, is a predictor of survival in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Cook County, Illinois and may contribute to the racial disparity in survival.
PURPOSE: Despite significant improvements in treatment for ovarian cancer, survival is poorer for non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) has been implicated in racial disparities across a variety of health outcomes and may similarly contribute to racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the influence of neighborhood SES on NHB-NHW survival differences after accounting for differences in tumor characteristics and in treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from 2432 women (443 NHB and 1989 NHW) diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer in Cook County, Illinois between 1998 and 2007. Neighborhood (i.e., census tract) SES at the time of diagnosis was calculated for each woman using two well-established composite measures of affluence and disadvantage. Cox proportional hazard models measured the association between NHB race and survival after adjusting for age, tumor characteristics, treatment, year of diagnosis, and neighborhood SES. RESULTS: There was a strong association between ovarian cancer survival and both measures of neighborhood SES (P < .0001 for both affluence and disadvantage). After adjusting for age, tumor characteristics, treatment, and year of diagnosis, NHB were more likely than NHW to die of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.68). The inclusion of neighborhood affluence and disadvantage into models separately and together attenuated this risk (HRaffluence = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.58; HRdisadvantage = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.52; and HRaffluence + disadvantage = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.52. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood SES, as measured by composite measures of affluence and disadvantage, is a predictor of survival in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Cook County, Illinois and may contribute to the racial disparity in survival.
Authors: Therese A Dolecek; Bridget J McCarthy; Charlotte E Joslin; Caryn E Peterson; Seijeoung Kim; Sally A Freels; Faith G Davis Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2010-03
Authors: Justin F Klamerus; Suanna S Bruinooge; Xiaobu Ye; Mandi L Klamerus; Dorothy Damron; Dina Lansey; John C Lowery; Luis A Diaz; Jean G Ford; Norma Kanarek; Charles M Rudin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Warren B Sateren; Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey Abrams; Otis Brawley; Nancy Breen; Leslie Ford; Mary McCabe; Richard Kaplan; Malcolm Smith; Richard Ungerleider; Michaele C Christian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William R Robinson; Joyce Ritter; April S Rogers; Sean Tedjarati; Christy Lieberenz Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jaana I Halonen; Jussi Vahtera; Tuula Oksanen; Jaana Pentti; Marianna Virtanen; Markus Jokela; Ana V Diez-Roux; Mika Kivimäki Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tomi F Akinyemiju; Gurudatta Naik; Kemi Ogunsina; Daniel T Dibaba; Neomi Vin-Raviv Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Verónica M Vieira; Carolina Villanueva; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Robert E Bristow Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Holly R Harris; Kristin A Guertin; Tareq F Camacho; Courtney E Johnson; Anna H Wu; Patricia G Moorman; Evan Myers; Traci N Bethea; Elisa V Bandera; Charlotte E Joslin; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Lauren C Peres; Will T Rosenow; Veronica W Setiawan; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Lauren F Dempsey; Lynn Rosenberg; Joellen M Schildkraut Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Nefertiti C duPont; Danielle Enserro; Mark F Brady; Katherine Moxley; Joan L Walker; Casey Cosgrove; Kristin Bixel; Krishnansu S Tewari; Premal Thaker; Andrea E Wahner Hendrickson; Stephen Rubin; Keiichi Fujiwara; A Catherine Casey; John Soper; Robert A Burger; Bradley J Monk Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Zhixin Wang; Sarah Dilley; HyounKyoung G Park; Alfred A Bartolucci; Chenguang Wang; Warner K Huh; Sejong Bae Journal: Cancer Health Disparities Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Milda R Saunders; Ana C Ricardo; Jinsong Chen; Amanda H Anderson; Esteban A Cedillo-Couvert; Michael J Fischer; Jesus Hernandez-Rivera; Margaret T Hicken; Jesse Y Hsu; Xiaoming Zhang; Denise Hynes; Bernard Jaar; John W Kusek; Panduranga Rao; Harold I Feldman; Alan S Go; James P Lash Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 1.817