43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognostic significance of marital status in breast cancer survival: A population-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research shows that married cancer patients have lower mortality than unmarried patients but few data exist for breast cancer. We assessed total mortality associated with marital status, with attention to differences by race/ethnicity, tumor subtype, and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES). We included, from the population-based California Cancer Registry, women ages 18 and older with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with follow-up through December 2013. We estimated mortality rate ratios (MRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total mortality by nSES, race/ethnicity, and tumor subtype. Among 145,564 breast cancer cases, 42.7% were unmarried at the time of diagnosis. In multivariable-adjusted models, the MRR (95% CI) for unmarried compared to married women was 1.28 (1.24–1.32) for total mortality. Significant interactions were observed by race/ethnicity ( P<0.001), tumor subtype ( P<0.001), and nSES ( P = 0.009). Higher MRRs were observed for non-Hispanic whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders than for blacks or Hispanics, and for HR+/HER2+ tumors than other subtypes. Assessment of interactive effect between marital status and nSES showed that unmarried women living in low SES neighborhoods had a higher risk of dying compared with married women in high SES neighborhoods (MRR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.53–1.67). Unmarried breast cancer patients have higher total mortality than married patients; the association varies by race/ethnicity, tumor subtype, and nSES. Unmarried status should be further evaluated as a breast cancer prognostic factor. Identification of underlying causes of the marital status associations is needed to design interventions that could improve survival for unmarried breast cancer patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Marital status and survival in patients with cancer.

          To examine the impact of marital status on stage at diagnosis, use of definitive therapy, and cancer-specific mortality among each of the 10 leading causes of cancer-related death in the United States.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups.

            The majority of research on breast cancer risk and socioeconomic status (SES) has been conducted for blacks and whites. This study evaluates the relationship between SES and breast cancer incidence in California for four race/ethnic groups. Principal component analysis was used to create an SES index using 1990 Census data. Untracted cases were randomly allocated to census block groups within their county of residence. A total of 97,227 female breast cancer cases diagnosed in California between 1988 and 1992 were evaluated. Incidence rates and rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and a chi2 test for trend across SES levels was performed. SES was positively related to breast cancer incidence, and this effect was stronger for Hispanics and Asian/others than for whites and blacks. Adjusting by SES did not eliminate the differences in breast cancer rates among race/ethnic groups. RR differences between the race/ethnic groups were greatest in the lowest SES category and attenuated with increasing SES. An increasing trend over SES was statistically significant for all race/ethnic groups. Including randomly allocated cases affected RR estimates for white women only. Our results are consistent with similar findings for the Los Angeles area but differ from previous results for the San Francisco Bay area.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: a meta-analysis.

              This meta-analysis integrates results of 87 studies on the associations of perceived social support, network size, and marital status with cancer survival. In controlled studies, having high levels of perceived social support, larger social network, and being married were associated with decreases in relative risk for mortality of 25%, 20%, and 12%, respectively. Moderator analyses revealed that never married patients had higher mortality rates than widowed and divorced/separated patients. Associations of social network with mortality were stronger in younger patients, and associations of marital status with mortality were stronger in studies with shorter time intervals, and in early-stage cancer. Relationships varied by cancer site, with stronger associations of social support observed in studies of patients with leukemia and lymphomas and stronger associations of network size observed in studies of breast cancer. Further randomized intervention studies are needed to test causal hypotheses about the role of social support and social network for cancer mortality. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                5 May 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 5
                : e0175515
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America
                [2 ]Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America
                [4 ]Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, United States of America
                [5 ]Kaiser Permanente, Division of Research, Oakland, CA, United States of America
                [6 ]Maricopa Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Phoenix, AZ, United States of America
                [7 ]Stanford Cancer Institute, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America
                Sudbury Regional Hospital, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceptualization: MEM SG.

                • Data curation: LT.

                • Formal analysis: LT.

                • Funding acquisition: SG MEM.

                • Investigation: MEM SG.

                • Methodology: MEM SG LT.

                • Project administration: MEM.

                • Resources: MEM LT.

                • Software: SG.

                • Supervision: MEM.

                • Validation: MEM SG.

                • Visualization: MEM SG LT.

                • Writing – original draft: MEM SG JTU.

                • Writing – review & editing: JTU RS CHK IK.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6728-1834
                Article
                PONE-D-16-50513
                10.1371/journal.pone.0175515
                5419505
                28475579
                0cd4c296-c1b6-42c3-9656-f3b49a9642b3
                © 2017 Martínez et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 21 December 2016
                : 27 March 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: CA023100-29
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: HHSN261201000140C
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: HHSN261201000035C
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: HHSN261201000034C
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000030, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
                Award ID: U58DP003862-01
                This work was supported by the Specialized Cancer Center Support Grant to the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center (CA023100-29) and the Stanford Cancer Institute. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement U58DP003862-01 awarded to the California Department of Public Health. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Breast Tumors
                Breast Cancer
                People and Places
                Demography
                Death Rates
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Cancer Detection and Diagnosis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Detection and Diagnosis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Treatment
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Ethnicities
                Hispanic People
                Engineering and Technology
                Management Engineering
                Risk Management
                Insurance
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Treatment
                Surgical Oncology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Oncology
                Surgical Oncology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Clinical Oncology
                Surgical Oncology
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article