Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson1, Molly E Roseland2, Michele L Cote3, Amy Lehman4, Eric A Whitsel5, Faheemah N Mustafaa6, Jason Booza7, Michael S Simon3. 1. 1 Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University , Columbus, Ohio. 2. 2 Beaumont Hospital Oakwood Campus , Dearborn, Michigan. 3. 3 Department Oncology and Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University , Detroit, Michigan. 4. 4 Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University , Columbus, Ohio. 5. 5 Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Global Public Health , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. 6 Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley , Berkeley, California. 7. 7 Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University , Detroit, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although social exposures have complex and dynamic relationships and interactions, the existing literature on the impact of rural-urban residence on stage at breast cancer diagnosis does not examine heterogeneity of effect. We examined the joint effect of social support, social relationship strain, and rural-urban residence on stage at breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Using data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) (n = 161,808), we describe the distribution of social, behavioral, and clinical factors by rural-urban residence among postmenopausal women with incident breast cancer (n = 7,120). We used rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes to categorize baseline residential addresses as urban, large rural city/town, or small rural town, and the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results staging system to categorize breast cancer stage at diagnosis (dichotomized as early or late). We then used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the relationship between rural-urban residence and stage at breast cancer diagnosis. We included separate interaction terms between rural-urban residence and social strain and social support to test for statistical interaction. RESULTS: Of the social, behavioral, and clinical factors we examined, only younger age at WHI enrollment screening was significantly associated with late stage at breast cancer diagnosis (p = 0.003). Contrary to our hypothesis, rural-urban residence was not significantly associated with stage at breast cancer diagnosis among postmenopausal women ([adjusted OR, 95% CI] for urban compared with small town: 1.08 [0.76-1.53]; large town compared with small town: 1.16 [0.74-1.84]; and urban compared with large town: 0.93 [0.68-1.26]).The associations did not vary by social support or social strain (p for interaction between RUCA and social strain and social support, respectively: 0.99 and 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should examine other potential effect modifiers to identify novel factors predictive or protective for late stage at breast cancer diagnosis associated with rural-urban residence.
BACKGROUND: Although social exposures have complex and dynamic relationships and interactions, the existing literature on the impact of rural-urban residence on stage at breast cancer diagnosis does not examine heterogeneity of effect. We examined the joint effect of social support, social relationship strain, and rural-urban residence on stage at breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Using data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) (n = 161,808), we describe the distribution of social, behavioral, and clinical factors by rural-urban residence among postmenopausal women with incident breast cancer (n = 7,120). We used rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes to categorize baseline residential addresses as urban, large rural city/town, or small rural town, and the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results staging system to categorize breast cancer stage at diagnosis (dichotomized as early or late). We then used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the relationship between rural-urban residence and stage at breast cancer diagnosis. We included separate interaction terms between rural-urban residence and social strain and social support to test for statistical interaction. RESULTS: Of the social, behavioral, and clinical factors we examined, only younger age at WHI enrollment screening was significantly associated with late stage at breast cancer diagnosis (p = 0.003). Contrary to our hypothesis, rural-urban residence was not significantly associated with stage at breast cancer diagnosis among postmenopausal women ([adjusted OR, 95% CI] for urban compared with small town: 1.08 [0.76-1.53]; large town compared with small town: 1.16 [0.74-1.84]; and urban compared with large town: 0.93 [0.68-1.26]).The associations did not vary by social support or social strain (p for interaction between RUCA and social strain and social support, respectively: 0.99 and 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should examine other potential effect modifiers to identify novel factors predictive or protective for late stage at breast cancer diagnosis associated with rural-urban residence.
Entities:
Keywords:
postmenopausal; rural–urban; social strain and support; stage at breast cancer diagnosis
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
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: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Arthur G Cosby; Tonya T Neaves; Ronald E Cossman; Jeralynn S Cossman; Wesley L James; Neal Feierabend; David M Mirvis; Carol A Jones; Tracey Farrigan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Rachel Yung; Roberta M Ray; Joshua Roth; Lisa Johnson; Greg Warnick; Garnet L Anderson; Candyce H Kroenke; Rowan T Chlebowski; Michael S Simon; Chunkit Fung; Kathy Pan; Di Wang; Wendy E Barrington; Kerryn W Reding Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson; Molly Roseland; Michele L Cote; Amy Lehman; Eric A Whitsel; Jason Booza; Michael S Simon Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2020-09-09