Candyce H Kroenke1, Yvonne L Michael2, Elizabeth M Poole3, Marilyn L Kwan1, Sarah Nechuta4, Eric Leas5, Bette J Caan1, John Pierce5, Xiao-Ou Shu4, Ying Zheng6, Wendy Y Chen3,7. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. San Diego Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 6. Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large social networks have been associated with better overall survival, though not consistently with breast cancer (BC)-specific outcomes. This study evaluated associations of postdiagnosis social networks and BC outcomes in a large cohort. METHODS: Women from the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project (n = 9267) provided data on social networks within approximately 2 years of their diagnosis. A social network index was derived from information about the presence of a spouse/partner, religious ties, community ties, friendship ties, and numbers of living first-degree relatives. Cox models were used to evaluate associations, and a meta-analysis was used to determine whether effect estimates differed by cohort. Stratification by demographic, social, tumor, and treatment factors was performed. RESULTS: There were 1448 recurrences and 1521 deaths (990 due to BC). Associations were similar in 3 of 4 cohorts. After covariate adjustments, socially isolated women (small networks) had higher risks of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.77), BC-specific mortality (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03), and total mortality (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.43-1.99) than socially integrated women; associations were stronger in those with stage I/II cancer. In the fourth cohort, there were no significant associations with BC-specific outcomes. A lack of a spouse/partner (P = .02) and community ties (P = .04) predicted higher BC-specific mortality in older white women but not in other women. However, a lack of relatives (P = .02) and friendship ties (P = .01) predicted higher BC-specific mortality in nonwhite women only. CONCLUSIONS: In a large pooled cohort, larger social networks were associated with better BC-specific and overall survival. Clinicians should assess social network information as a marker of prognosis because critical supports may differ with sociodemographic factors. Cancer 2017;123:1228-1237.
BACKGROUND: Large social networks have been associated with better overall survival, though not consistently with breast cancer (BC)-specific outcomes. This study evaluated associations of postdiagnosis social networks and BC outcomes in a large cohort. METHODS:Women from the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project (n = 9267) provided data on social networks within approximately 2 years of their diagnosis. A social network index was derived from information about the presence of a spouse/partner, religious ties, community ties, friendship ties, and numbers of living first-degree relatives. Cox models were used to evaluate associations, and a meta-analysis was used to determine whether effect estimates differed by cohort. Stratification by demographic, social, tumor, and treatment factors was performed. RESULTS: There were 1448 recurrences and 1521 deaths (990 due to BC). Associations were similar in 3 of 4 cohorts. After covariate adjustments, socially isolated women (small networks) had higher risks of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.77), BC-specific mortality (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03), and total mortality (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.43-1.99) than socially integrated women; associations were stronger in those with stage I/II cancer. In the fourth cohort, there were no significant associations with BC-specific outcomes. A lack of a spouse/partner (P = .02) and community ties (P = .04) predicted higher BC-specific mortality in older white women but not in other women. However, a lack of relatives (P = .02) and friendship ties (P = .01) predicted higher BC-specific mortality in nonwhite women only. CONCLUSIONS: In a large pooled cohort, larger social networks were associated with better BC-specific and overall survival. Clinicians should assess social network information as a marker of prognosis because critical supports may differ with sociodemographic factors. Cancer 2017;123:1228-1237.
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Marilyn L Kwan; Alfred I Neugut; Isaac J Ergas; Jaime D Wright; Bette J Caan; Dawn Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Laura D Kubzansky; Eva S Schernhammer; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Wendy Y Chen; Shirley W Flatt; Erin K Weltzien; Sarah J Nechuta; Elizabeth M Poole; Michelle D Holmes; Ruth E Patterson; Xiao Ou Shu; John P Pierce; Bette J Caan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Yvonne L Michael; Xiao-Ou Shu; Elizabeth M Poole; Marilyn L Kwan; Sarah Nechuta; Bette J Caan; John P Pierce; Wendy Y Chen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: P Reynolds; P T Boyd; R S Blacklow; J S Jackson; R S Greenberg; D F Austin; V W Chen; B K Edwards Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1994 Apr-May Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: John P Pierce; Susan Faerber; Fred A Wright; Cheryl L Rock; Vicky Newman; Shirley W Flatt; Sheila Kealey; Vicky E Jones; Bette J Caan; Ellen B Gold; Mary Haan; Kathryn A Hollenbach; Lovell Jones; James R Marshall; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Marcia L Stefanick; Cynthia Thomson; Linda Wasserman; Loki Natarajan; Ronald G Thomas; Elizabeth A Gilpin Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2002-12
Authors: Balazs I Bodai; Therese E Nakata; William T Wong; Dawn R Clark; Steven Lawenda; Christine Tsou; Raymond Liu; Linda Shiue; Neil Cooper; Michael Rehbein; Benjamin P Ha; Anne Mckeirnan; Rajiv Misquitta; Pankaj Vij; Andrew Klonecke; Carmelo S Mejia; Emil Dionysian; Sean Hashmi; Michael Greger; Scott Stoll; Thomas M Campbell Journal: Perm J Date: 2018
Authors: Devika R Jutagir; Bonnie B Blomberg; Charles S Carver; Suzanne C Lechner; Kiara R Timpano; Laura C Bouchard; Lisa M Gudenkauf; Jamie M Jacobs; Alain Diaz; Susan K Lutgendorf; Steve W Cole; Aaron S Heller; Michael H Antoni Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elizabeth A Sarma; Ichiro Kawachi; Elizabeth M Poole; Shelley S Tworoger; Edward L Giovannucci; Charles S Fuchs; Ying Bao Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; Frank Penedo; Michael J Goodheart; Laila Dahmoush; Jesusa M G Arevalo; Premal H Thaker; George M Slavich; Anil K Sood; Steve W Cole Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Electra D Paskett; Crystal W Cené; Bette J Caan; Juhua Luo; Aladdin H Shadyab; Jamaica R M Robinson; Rami Nassir; Dorothy S Lane; Garnet L Anderson Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 6.860