Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2011

01-07-2011 | Epidemiology

Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands—associations with stage at diagnosis and survival

Authors: M. J. Aarts, A. C. Voogd, L. E. M. Duijm, J. W. W. Coebergh, W. J. Louwman

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The associations of socioeconomic status (SES) and participation in the breast cancer screening program, as well as consequences for stage of disease and prognosis were studied in the Netherlands, where no financial barriers for participating or health care use exist. From 1998 to 2005, 1,067,952 invitations for biennial mammography were sent to women aged 50–75 in the region covered by the Eindhoven Cancer Registry. Screening attendance rates according to SES were calculated. Tumor stage and survival were studied according to SES group for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2006, whether screen-detected, interval carcinoma or not attended screening at all. Attendance rates were rather high: 79, 85 and 87% in women with low, intermediate and high SES (p < 0.001), respectively. Compared to the low SES group, odds ratios for attendance were 1.5 (95%CI:1.5–1.6) for the intermediate SES group and 1.8 (95%CI:1.7–1.8) for the high SES group. Moreover, women with low SES had an unfavorable tumor-node-metastasis stage compared to those with high SES. This was seen in non-attendees, among women with interval cancers and with screen-detected cancers. Among non-attendees and interval cancers, the socioeconomic survival disparities were largely explained by stage distribution (48 and 35%) and to a lesser degree by therapy (16 and 16%). Comorbidity explained most survival inequalities among screen-detected patients (23%). Despite the absence of financial barriers for participation in the Dutch mass-screening program, socioeconomic inequalities in attendance rates exist, and women with low SES had a significantly worse tumor stage and lower survival rate.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kim J, Jang SN (2008) Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer screening among US women: trends from 2000 to 2005. J Prev Med Public Health 41:186–194PubMedCrossRef Kim J, Jang SN (2008) Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer screening among US women: trends from 2000 to 2005. J Prev Med Public Health 41:186–194PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V (2009) Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. BMJ 338:2025CrossRef Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V (2009) Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. BMJ 338:2025CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Peek ME, Han JH (2004) Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications. J Gen Intern Med 19:184–194PubMed Peek ME, Han JH (2004) Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications. J Gen Intern Med 19:184–194PubMed
4.
go back to reference Zackrisson S, Lindstrom M, Moghaddassi M, Andersson I, Janzon L (2007) Social predictors of non-attendance in an urban mammographic screening programme: a multilevel analysis. Scand J Public Health 35:548–554PubMedCrossRef Zackrisson S, Lindstrom M, Moghaddassi M, Andersson I, Janzon L (2007) Social predictors of non-attendance in an urban mammographic screening programme: a multilevel analysis. Scand J Public Health 35:548–554PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Dalton SO, During M, Ross L, Carlsen K, Mortensen PB, Lynch J, Johansen C (2006) The relation between socioeconomic and demographic factors and tumour stage in women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark, 1983–1999. Br J Cancer 95:653–659PubMedCrossRef Dalton SO, During M, Ross L, Carlsen K, Mortensen PB, Lynch J, Johansen C (2006) The relation between socioeconomic and demographic factors and tumour stage in women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark, 1983–1999. Br J Cancer 95:653–659PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Macleod U, Ross S, Gillis C, McConnachie A, Twelves C, Watt GC (2000) Socio-economic deprivation and stage of disease at presentation in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 11:105–107PubMedCrossRef Macleod U, Ross S, Gillis C, McConnachie A, Twelves C, Watt GC (2000) Socio-economic deprivation and stage of disease at presentation in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 11:105–107PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP, Lutz JM, Quinn MJ, Coleman MP (1995) Deprivation, stage at diagnosis and cancer survival. Int J Cancer 63:324–329PubMedCrossRef Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP, Lutz JM, Quinn MJ, Coleman MP (1995) Deprivation, stage at diagnosis and cancer survival. Int J Cancer 63:324–329PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Schrijvers CT, Coebergh JW, van der Heijden LH, Mackenbach JP (1995) Socioeconomic variation in cancer survival in the southeastern Netherlands, 1980–1989. Cancer 75:2946–2953PubMedCrossRef Schrijvers CT, Coebergh JW, van der Heijden LH, Mackenbach JP (1995) Socioeconomic variation in cancer survival in the southeastern Netherlands, 1980–1989. Cancer 75:2946–2953PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dalton SO, Ross L, During M, Carlsen K, Mortensen PB, Lynch J, Johansen C (2007) Influence of socioeconomic factors on survival after breast cancer—a nationwide cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark 1983–1999. Int J Cancer 121:2524–2531PubMedCrossRef Dalton SO, Ross L, During M, Carlsen K, Mortensen PB, Lynch J, Johansen C (2007) Influence of socioeconomic factors on survival after breast cancer—a nationwide cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer in Denmark 1983–1999. Int J Cancer 121:2524–2531PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Louwman WJ, van de Poll-Franse LV, Fracheboud J, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW (2007) Impact of a programme of mass mammography screening for breast cancer on socio-economic variation in survival: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105:369–375PubMedCrossRef Louwman WJ, van de Poll-Franse LV, Fracheboud J, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW (2007) Impact of a programme of mass mammography screening for breast cancer on socio-economic variation in survival: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105:369–375PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gentil-Brevet J, Colonna M, Danzon A, Grosclaude P, Chaplain G, Velten M, Bonnetain F, Arveux P (2008) The influence of socio-economic and surveillance characteristics on breast cancer survival: a French population-based study. Br J Cancer 98:217–224PubMedCrossRef Gentil-Brevet J, Colonna M, Danzon A, Grosclaude P, Chaplain G, Velten M, Bonnetain F, Arveux P (2008) The influence of socio-economic and surveillance characteristics on breast cancer survival: a French population-based study. Br J Cancer 98:217–224PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bastiaannet E, de Craen AJ, Kuppen PJ, Aarts MJ, van der Geest LG, van de Velde CJ, Westendorp RG, Liefers GJ (2010) Socioeconomic differences in survival among breast cancer patients in the Netherlands not explained by tumor size. Breast Cancer Res Treat PMID: 21076863 [Epub ahead of print] Bastiaannet E, de Craen AJ, Kuppen PJ, Aarts MJ, van der Geest LG, van de Velde CJ, Westendorp RG, Liefers GJ (2010) Socioeconomic differences in survival among breast cancer patients in the Netherlands not explained by tumor size. Breast Cancer Res Treat PMID: 21076863 [Epub ahead of print]
13.
go back to reference Kaffashian F, Godward S, Davies T, Solomon L, McCann J, Duffy SW (2003) Socioeconomic effects on breast cancer survival: proportion attributable to stage and morphology. Br J Cancer 89:1693–1696PubMedCrossRef Kaffashian F, Godward S, Davies T, Solomon L, McCann J, Duffy SW (2003) Socioeconomic effects on breast cancer survival: proportion attributable to stage and morphology. Br J Cancer 89:1693–1696PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Carnon AG, Ssemwogerere A, Lamont DW, Hole DJ, Mallon EA, George WD, Gillis GR (1994) Relation between socioeconomic deprivation and pathological prognostic factors in women with breast cancer. BMJ 309:1054–1057PubMed Carnon AG, Ssemwogerere A, Lamont DW, Hole DJ, Mallon EA, George WD, Gillis GR (1994) Relation between socioeconomic deprivation and pathological prognostic factors in women with breast cancer. BMJ 309:1054–1057PubMed
15.
go back to reference Louwman WJ, Aarts MJ, Houterman S, van Lenthe FJ, Coebergh JW, Janssen-Heijnen ML (2010) A 50% higher prevalence of life-shortening chronic conditions among cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Br J Cancer 103:1742–1748PubMedCrossRef Louwman WJ, Aarts MJ, Houterman S, van Lenthe FJ, Coebergh JW, Janssen-Heijnen ML (2010) A 50% higher prevalence of life-shortening chronic conditions among cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Br J Cancer 103:1742–1748PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
go back to reference Sobin L, Wittekind C (1997) UICC International Union against cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th edn. Wiley-Liss, Geneva, Switzerland Sobin L, Wittekind C (1997) UICC International Union against cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th edn. Wiley-Liss, Geneva, Switzerland
18.
go back to reference Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRef Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Van Duin C, Keij I (2002) Sociaal-economische status indicator op postcodeniveau [in Dutch]. Maandstatistiek van de bevolking 50:32–35 Van Duin C, Keij I (2002) Sociaal-economische status indicator op postcodeniveau [in Dutch]. Maandstatistiek van de bevolking 50:32–35
20.
go back to reference Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L (2004) Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer 108:754–760PubMedCrossRef Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L (2004) Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer 108:754–760PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference The Health and Social Care Information Centre (2009) Breast screening programme. NHS, England The Health and Social Care Information Centre (2009) Breast screening programme. NHS, England
22.
go back to reference Vejborg I, Olsen AH, Jensen MB, Rank F, Tange UB, Lynge E (2002) Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991–99. J Med Screen 9:115–119PubMedCrossRef Vejborg I, Olsen AH, Jensen MB, Rank F, Tange UB, Lynge E (2002) Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991–99. J Med Screen 9:115–119PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2006) Women’s patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark. Eur J Epidemiol 21:203–209CrossRef von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2006) Women’s patterns of participation in mammography screening in Denmark. Eur J Epidemiol 21:203–209CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bare ML, Montes J, Florensa R, Sentis M, Donoso L (2003) Factors related to non-participation in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 12:487–494PubMedCrossRef Bare ML, Montes J, Florensa R, Sentis M, Donoso L (2003) Factors related to non-participation in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 12:487–494PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Duport N, Ancelle-Park R (2006) Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey. Eur J Cancer Prev 15:219–224PubMedCrossRef Duport N, Ancelle-Park R (2006) Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey. Eur J Cancer Prev 15:219–224PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Jensen A, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2008) Does educational level determine screening participation? Eur J Cancer Prev 17:273–278CrossRef von Euler-Chelpin M, Olsen AH, Njor S, Jensen A, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Lynge E (2008) Does educational level determine screening participation? Eur J Cancer Prev 17:273–278CrossRef
27.
go back to reference American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer prevention & early detection facts & figures 2009. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer prevention & early detection facts & figures 2009. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
28.
go back to reference Coughlin SS, Uhler RJ, Bobo JK, Caplan L (2004) Breast cancer screening practices among women in the United States, 2000. Cancer Causes Control 15:159–170PubMedCrossRef Coughlin SS, Uhler RJ, Bobo JK, Caplan L (2004) Breast cancer screening practices among women in the United States, 2000. Cancer Causes Control 15:159–170PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Cook NR, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA (2009) Mammographic screening and risk factors for breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 170:1422–1432PubMedCrossRef Cook NR, Rosner BA, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA (2009) Mammographic screening and risk factors for breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 170:1422–1432PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Lale N, Öry F, Detmar S (2003) Factors associated with non-participation of Turkish women to cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift Sociale Geneeskunde 81:184–188 Lale N, Öry F, Detmar S (2003) Factors associated with non-participation of Turkish women to cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift Sociale Geneeskunde 81:184–188
31.
go back to reference Stein K, Zhao L, Crammer C, Gansler T (2007) Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of beliefs regarding cancer risks. Cancer 110:1139–1148PubMedCrossRef Stein K, Zhao L, Crammer C, Gansler T (2007) Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of beliefs regarding cancer risks. Cancer 110:1139–1148PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Wardle J, Steptoe A (2003) Socioeconomic differences in attitudes and beliefs about healthy lifestyles. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:440–443PubMedCrossRef Wardle J, Steptoe A (2003) Socioeconomic differences in attitudes and beliefs about healthy lifestyles. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:440–443PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Visser O, van Peppen AM, Ory FG, van Leeuwen FE (2005) Results of breast cancer screening in first generation migrants in Northwest Netherlands. Eur J Cancer Prev 14:251–255PubMedCrossRef Visser O, van Peppen AM, Ory FG, van Leeuwen FE (2005) Results of breast cancer screening in first generation migrants in Northwest Netherlands. Eur J Cancer Prev 14:251–255PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Jensen A, Olsen AH, von Euler-Chelpin M, Helle Njor S, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2005) Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere? Int J Cancer 113:464–470PubMedCrossRef Jensen A, Olsen AH, von Euler-Chelpin M, Helle Njor S, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2005) Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere? Int J Cancer 113:464–470PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Adams J, White M, Forman D (2004) Are there socioeconomic gradients in stage and grade of breast cancer at diagnosis? Cross sectional analysis of UK cancer registry data. BMJ 329:142PubMedCrossRef Adams J, White M, Forman D (2004) Are there socioeconomic gradients in stage and grade of breast cancer at diagnosis? Cross sectional analysis of UK cancer registry data. BMJ 329:142PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Jemelin C, Arzel B, Fioretta G, Levi F (2009) Effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography screening. Ann Oncol 20:1199–1202PubMedCrossRef Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Jemelin C, Arzel B, Fioretta G, Levi F (2009) Effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography screening. Ann Oncol 20:1199–1202PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Cortesi L, Chiuri VE, Ruscelli S, Bellelli V, Negri R, Rashid I, Cirilli C, Fracca A, Gallo E, Federico M (2006) Prognosis of screen-detected breast cancers: results of a population based study. BMC Cancer 6:17PubMedCrossRef Cortesi L, Chiuri VE, Ruscelli S, Bellelli V, Negri R, Rashid I, Cirilli C, Fracca A, Gallo E, Federico M (2006) Prognosis of screen-detected breast cancers: results of a population based study. BMC Cancer 6:17PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
go back to reference Symonds P, Bolger B, Hole D, Mao JH, Cooke T (2000) Advanced-stage cervix cancer: rapid tumour growth rather than late diagnosis. Br J Cancer 83:566–568PubMedCrossRef Symonds P, Bolger B, Hole D, Mao JH, Cooke T (2000) Advanced-stage cervix cancer: rapid tumour growth rather than late diagnosis. Br J Cancer 83:566–568PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP (1994) Cancer patient survival by socioeconomic status in seven countries: a review for six common cancer sites [corrected]. J Epidemiol Community Health 48:441–446PubMedCrossRef Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP (1994) Cancer patient survival by socioeconomic status in seven countries: a review for six common cancer sites [corrected]. J Epidemiol Community Health 48:441–446PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Kaufman JS, Maclehose RF, Kaufman S (2004) A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 1:4PubMedCrossRef Kaufman JS, Maclehose RF, Kaufman S (2004) A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 1:4PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ (2009) Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol 10:693–699PubMedCrossRef Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ (2009) Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol 10:693–699PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Bos V, Kunst AE, Mackenbach J (2000) Nationale gegevens over sociaal-economische sterfteverschillen op basis van informatie over kleine geografische eenheden [in Dutch]. In: Verslag aan de programmacommissie sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen II. Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam Bos V, Kunst AE, Mackenbach J (2000) Nationale gegevens over sociaal-economische sterfteverschillen op basis van informatie over kleine geografische eenheden [in Dutch]. In: Verslag aan de programmacommissie sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen II. Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam
44.
go back to reference Bos V, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP (2001) De omvang van sociaal-economische verschillen gemeten op buurtniveau: vergelijking met schattingen op basis van informatie op individueel niveau [in Dutch]. In: Stronks K (ed) Sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen: van verklaren naar verkleinen. Zon/MW, Den Haag, pp 8–20 Bos V, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP (2001) De omvang van sociaal-economische verschillen gemeten op buurtniveau: vergelijking met schattingen op basis van informatie op individueel niveau [in Dutch]. In: Stronks K (ed) Sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen: van verklaren naar verkleinen. Zon/MW, Den Haag, pp 8–20
45.
go back to reference Smits J, Keij I, Westert GP (2001) Effecten van sociaal-economische status van kleine, middelgrote en grote geografische eenheden op de sterfte [in Dutch]. Maandstatistiek van de bevolking 11:4–10 Smits J, Keij I, Westert GP (2001) Effecten van sociaal-economische status van kleine, middelgrote en grote geografische eenheden op de sterfte [in Dutch]. Maandstatistiek van de bevolking 11:4–10
Metadata
Title
Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands—associations with stage at diagnosis and survival
Authors
M. J. Aarts
A. C. Voogd
L. E. M. Duijm
J. W. W. Coebergh
W. J. Louwman
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1363-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2011 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine