Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2020

Open Access 01-02-2020 | Mastectomy | Epidemiology

Socioeconomic status differs between breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and breast conservation, and affects patient-reported preoperative information

Authors: A. Frisell, J. Lagergren, M. Halle, J. de Boniface

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Breast cancer treatment is reported to be influenced by socioeconomic status (SES). Few reports, however, stem from national, equality-based health care systems. The aim of this study was to analyse associations between SES, rates of breast-conserving surgery (BCS), patient-reported preoperative information and perceived involvement in Sweden.

Methods

All women operated for primary breast cancer in Sweden in 2013 were included. Tumour and treatment data as well as socioeconomic data were retrieved from national registers. Postal questionnaires regarding preoperative information about breast-conserving options and perceived involvement in the decision-making process had previously been sent to all women receiving mastectomy.

Results

Of 7735 women, 4604 (59.5%) received BCS. In addition to regional differences, independent predictors of BCS were being in the middle or higher age groups, having small tumours without clinically involved nodes, being born in Europe outside Sweden, having a higher education than primary school and an intermediate or high income per household. Women with smaller, clinically node-negative tumours felt more often involved in the surgical decision and informed about breast-conserving options (both p < 0.001). In addition, women who perceived that BCS was discussed as an alternative to mastectomy were more often in a partnership (p < 0.001), not born in Sweden (p = 0.035) and had an employment (p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Socioeconomic factors are associated with surgical treatment even in a national health care system that is expected to offer all women the same standard of care. This should be taken into account and adapted to in preoperative counselling on surgical options in breast cancer.
Literature
1.
Veronesi U et al (2002) Breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232CrossRef
2.
Fisher B et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241CrossRef
3.
de Boniface J et al (2017) Survival and axillary recurrence following sentinel node-positive breast cancer without completion axillary lymph node dissection: the randomized controlled SENOMAC trial. BMC Cancer 17(1):379CrossRef
4.
van Maaren MC et al (2016) 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1158–1170CrossRef
5.
Hofvind S, Holen A, Aas T, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Akslen LA (2015) Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(10):1417–1422CrossRef
6.
Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (2016) Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer 36(15):1938–1943CrossRef
7.
Molenaar S et al (2004) Predictors of patients’ choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: A prospective study. Br J Cancer 90(11):2123–2130CrossRef
8.
Sheehan JB, Sherman KA, Lam T, Boyages J (2007) Association of information satisfaction, psychological distress and monitoring coping style with post-decision regret following breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 16(4):342–351CrossRef
9.
Caldon LJM et al (2011) Why do hospital mastectomy rates vary Differences in the decision-making experiences of women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 104(10):1551–1557CrossRef
10.
Gu J, Groot G, Boden C, Busch A, Holtslander L, Lim H (2018) Review of factors influencing women’s choice of mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy in early stage breast cancer: a systematic review. Clin. Breast Cancer 18(4):e539–e554CrossRef
11.
Ridao-López M, García-Armesto S, Abadía-Taira B, Peiró-Moreno S, Bernal-Delgado E (2011) Income level and regional policies, underlying factors associated with unwarranted variations in conservative breast cancer surgery in Spain. BMC Cancer 11:145CrossRef
12.
Dahlbäck C, Manjer J, Rehn M, Ringberg A (2017) Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery can benefit from the opportunity to participate in choosing their surgical technique. World J Surg 41(3):734–741CrossRef
13.
Bröstcancerregistret N (2018) Rapport från nationella sammanfattning bröstcancerregistret
14.
Frisell A, Lagergren J, de Boniface J (2016) National study of the impact of patient information and involvement in decision-making on immediate breast reconstruction rates. Br J Surg 103(12):1640–1648CrossRef
15.
Frisell A, Lagergren J, Halle M, de Boniface J Socioeconomic status influences immediate breast reconstruction rates, patient information and involvement in surgical decision-making. Submitted manuscript
16.
Mac Bride MB et al (2013) Factors associated with surgical decision making in women with early-stage breast cancer: a literature review. J Women’s Health 22(3):236–242CrossRef
17.
Byers TE et al (2008) The impact of socioeconomic status on survival after cancer in the United States. American Cancer Society, pp 582–591
18.
Jacobs LK, Kelley KA, Rosson GD, Detrani ME, Chang DC (2008) Disparities in urban and rural mastectomy populations: the effects of patient- and county-level factors on likelihood of receipt of mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 15(10):2644–2652CrossRef
19.
Nattinger AB, Kneusel RT, Hoffmann RG, Gilligan MA (2001) Relationship of distance from a radiotherapy facility and initial breast cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(17):1344–1346CrossRef
20.
Trial AR et al (2004) Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery. JAMA 292(4):435–441CrossRef
21.
Brown FF, Lewis JW, Harcleroad (1969) AV instruction technology, media, and methods, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
22.
Falvo DR (1994) Effective patient education. A guide to increased compliance, 2nd edn. Aspen Publishers,
23.
Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef
24.
Årsrapport 2018 från Nationella Bröstcancerregistret. no. September, 2018
25.
26.
Projektrapport Validering av Nationellt kvalitetsregister för bröstcancer. 2015
Metadata
Title
Socioeconomic status differs between breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and breast conservation, and affects patient-reported preoperative information
Authors
A. Frisell
J. Lagergren
M. Halle
J. de Boniface
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05496-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2020 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Do multifocal or multicentric pT1a node-negative HER2+ breast cancers get benefit from systemic treatment?

Clinical trial

The influence on quality of life of intermittent scheduling in first- and second-line chemotherapy of patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

Epidemiology

Pre- and post-diagnostic intake of whole grain and dairy products and breast cancer prognosis: the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort

Preclinical study

Clinicopathological significance of lipocalin 2 nuclear expression in invasive breast cancer

Preclinical study

Tumor microenvironment and breast cancer survival: combined effects of breast fat, M2 macrophages and hyaluronan create a dismal prognosis

Correction

Correction to: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of fulvestrant in preclinical models of breast cancer to assess the importance of its estrogen receptor-α degrader activity in antitumor efficacy
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits