Multilevel determinants of breast cancer survival: association with geographic remoteness and area-level socioeconomic disadvantage

被引:58
作者
Dasgupta, Paramita [1 ]
Baade, Peter D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Aitken, Joanne F. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Turrell, Gavin [2 ]
机构
[1] Canc Council Queensland, Viertel Ctr Res Canc Control, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Publ Hlth, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
[3] Griffith Univ, Griffith Hlth Inst, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Sch Populat Hlth, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Breast cancer; Survival inequalities; Multilevel modeling; Socio-economic; Epidemiology; NEW-SOUTH-WALES; TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS; UNITED-STATES; WOMEN; MORTALITY; AUSTRALIA; DISPARITIES; DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH; STAGE;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-011-1899-y
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
A major priority for cancer control agencies is to reduce geographical inequalities in cancer outcomes. While the poorer breast cancer survival among socioeconomically disadvantaged women is well established, few studies have looked at the independent contribution that area- and individual-level factors make to breast cancer survival. Here, we examine relationships between geographic remoteness, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and breast cancer survival after adjustment for patients' socio-demographic characteristics and stage at diagnosis. Multilevel logistic regression and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation were used to analyze 18,568 breast cancer cases extracted from the Queensland Cancer Registry for women aged 30-70 years diagnosed between 1997 and 2006 from 478 Statistical Local Areas in Queensland, Australia. Independent of individual-level factors, area-level disadvantage was associated with breast cancer survival (P = 0.032). Compared to women in the least disadvantaged quintile (quintile 5), women diagnosed while resident in one of the remaining four quintiles had significantly worse survival (OR 1.23, 1.27, 1.30, 1.37 for quintiles 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively). Geographic remoteness was not related to lower survival after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence that the impact of area-level disadvantage varied by geographic remoteness. At the individual-level, Indigenous status, blue collar occupations and advanced disease were important predictors of poorer survival. A woman's survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer depends on the socio-economic characteristics of the area where she lives, independently of her individual-level characteristics. It is crucial that the underlying reasons for these inequalities be identified to appropriately target policies, resources and effective intervention strategies.
引用
收藏
页码:701 / 710
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]   Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands-associations with stage at diagnosis and survival [J].
Aarts, M. J. ;
Voogd, A. C. ;
Duijm, L. E. M. ;
Coebergh, J. W. W. ;
Louwman, W. J. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2011, 128 (02) :517-525
[2]   Patient and tumour characteristics, management, and age-specific survival in women with breast cancer in the East of England [J].
Ali, A. M. G. ;
Greenberg, D. ;
Wishart, G. C. ;
Pharoah, P. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2011, 104 (04) :564-570
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, GLOBOCAN 2008 CANC I
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2009, USERS GUIDE MLWIN V2
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2004, BANKING ROYAL
[6]  
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008, CENS POP HOUS SOC IN
[7]  
Australian Government Department Health & Ageing, 2010, DEL BETT CANC CAR
[8]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009, AUSTR I HLTH WELF SC
[9]   Geographic remoteness, area-level socio-economic disadvantage and advanced breast cancer: a cross-sectional, multilevel study [J].
Baade, Peter D. ;
Turrell, Gavin ;
Aitken, Joanne F. .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2011, 65 (11) :1037-1043
[10]   Frailty modeling for spatially correlated survival data, with application to infant mortality in Minnesota [J].
Banerjee, S ;
Wall, MM ;
Carlin, BP .
BIOSTATISTICS, 2003, 4 (01) :123-142