1 / 16

Background

Prognostic factors for breast cancer survival in affluent and deprived areas Jasmina Stefoski-Mikeljevic. Background. Survival from breast cancer is improving due to earlier diagnosis and better treatments Survival breast cancer linked to socio-economic status (SES)

neola
Download Presentation

Background

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prognostic factors for breast cancer survival in affluent and deprived areas Jasmina Stefoski-Mikeljevic

  2. Background • Survival from breast cancer is improving due to earlier diagnosis and better treatments • Survival breast cancer linked to socio-economic status (SES) • SES differences in survival consistent throughout 1980s and 1990s • Multi-factorial reasons tumour biology (ER) other tumour characteristics comorbidity adjuvant treatments type of surgery

  3. SES related survival (Yorkshire) 10-year survival for 1990-1993 (8% difference at 5 years) 5-year survival for 1994-1997 (11% difference)

  4. Study Aim • Identify prognostic factors that may be determinants of SES difference in breast cancer survival in Northern and Yorkshire • Factors examined: age, stage*, type of adjuvant treatment received (CT, RT, Hormone), type of surgery, GP and hospital delay Methods • Retrospective population-based study • Female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1998-2000 in the area covered by the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry (n=12,880) • Townsend deprivation index *9% of cases with unknown stage

  5. Age at diagnosis by SES p< 0.00001

  6. Stage at diagnosis by SES Likelihood of stage IUnadjusted Age adjusted Affluent 1 1 1 2 0.95 (0.85-1.05) 0.95 (0.84-1.07) 3 0.82 (0.74-0.91) 0.89 (0.79-1.00) Deprived 4 0.79 (0.71-0.87) 0.84 (0.75-0.95)

  7. BCS by SES p< 0.00001

  8. RT by SES p< 0.00001

  9. Mastectomy* 1 1 1 2 1.00 0.90-1.10 0.97 0.87-1.08 3 1.08 0.98-1.20 1.09 0.97-1.21 4 1.14 1.03-1.26 1.16 1.04-1.29 BCS and RT* 1 1 1 2 0.84 0.66-1.06 0.83 0.64-1.06 3 0.75 0.59-0.95 0.73 0.57-0.94 4 0.68 0.62-0.76 0.80 0.62-1.04 1 1 1 Multiple regression analyses (1)Surgery OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Unadjust. Adjusted aff dep aff dep Any Surgery* aff 2 0.89 0.77-1.02 0.82 0.66-1.02 3 0.62 0.54-0.71 0.74 0.60-0.91 dep 4 0.54 0.47-0.61 0.62 0.50-0.76 * Adjusted for age, stage, GP and hospital delay

  10. Hormone therapy 1 1 1 2 1.00 0.88-1.13 1.03 0.89-1.18 3 1.12 0.99-1.27 1.11 0.96-1.28 4 1.11 0.98-1.26 1.10 0.95-1.26 CT 1 1 1 2 0.97 0.87-1.08 1.00 0.86-1.16 3 0.95 0.85-1.06 1.07 0.92-1.25 4 0.87 0.78-0.97 0.97 0.83-1.13 1 1 1 Multiple regression analyses (2)Adjuvant therapy OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Unadjust. Adjusted* aff dep aff dep aff RT 2 0.91 0.82-1.00 0.94 0.82-1.06 3 0.74 0.67-0.81 0.86 0.75-0.98 dep 4 0.69 0.62-0.76 0.82 0.72-0.93 *Adjusted for age, stage, other adjuvant therapies, type of surgery, GP and hospital delay

  11. GP delay (Referral to 1st hosp appoint. >14 days) 1 1 1 2 1.12 0.99-1.26 1.12 0.98-1.26 3 1.05 0.93-1.19 1.06 0.93-1.20 4 1.19 1.05-1.34 1.20 1.07-1.36 Hospital delay (Diagn to 1st treatment >14 days) 1 1 1 2 1.09 0.99-1.21 1.09 0.98-1.20 3 1.08 0.98-1.20 1.12 1.01-1.24 4 1.12 1.00-1.24 1.16 1.05-1.29 Multiple regression analyses (3)GP and hospital delay(>14 days) OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Unadjust. Adjusted* aff dep aff dep * Adjusted for age, stage

  12. Conclusions • Differences between affluent and poor breast cancer patients in -age -stage -type of surgery and RT rates -waiting times for hospital appointment and start of treatment • In addition to already identified factors, poorer survival of breast cancer patients from deprived areas is also likely to be explained by a combination of the the above factors ie. older age, more advanced stage, less surgical treatment, less RT, and longer waits for hospital appointment and start of first treatment

  13. Acknowledgements K Prakash University of Leeds C Craigs NYCRIS D Forman NYCRIS & Uni of Leeds R Haward NYCRIS & Uni of Leeds

  14. The Study Population • 1, 553 patients diagnosed in Yorkshire between 1995 and 2000 • 50cases excluded (treated outside the region and rare types ) Total number of cases: 1,503

  15. Study Population by Age and Stage Age No. % <40 512 34.1 40-59 520 34.6 60-74 259 17.2 75+ 212 14.1 • Median age 46 years • 25.4% 64+ years old (~40% of all deaths) Stage No. % I 852 56.7 II 302 20.1 III 190 12.6 IV 77 5.1 Unknown 82 5.5

  16. Conclusions • Stage at diagnosis is related to patients’ age and socio-economic profile • Treatment pattern of cervical cancer patients during the study period (1995-2000) was in line with what is now considered good management practice recommended in the national guidelines published in 1999 • Survival is influenced by patients’ age and stage, and not by their socio-economic status • Patients managed by higher workload gynaecologists have better survival

More Related