14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe

      review-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.

          Highlights

          • Many countries in Europe offer breast cancer screening programmes.

          • Our work identified 13 studies from 7 different European countries.

          • Women from more deprived areas where less likely to attend breast cancer screening.

          • Future screening strategies should consider developing strategies to account for this.

          Abstract

          Breast cancer rates are lower amongst women from more socio-economically deprived areas. However, their mortality rates are higher. One explanation of this breast cancer paradox is that women from more deprived areas are less likely to attend breast cancer screening programmes. This systematic review is the first to examine this issue in Europe. A systematic review of Embase, Medline and PsychINFO (from 2008 to 2019) was undertaken (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018083703). Observational studies were included if they were based in Europe, measured breast cancer screening uptake, compared at least two areas, included an area-level measure of socio-economic deprivation and were published in the English language. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Thirteen studies from seven different European countries met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. In ten of the thirteen studies, there was a significant negative association between screening uptake and area-level socio-economic deprivation – with women living in more socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods less likely to attend breast cancer screening. Although universal screening programmes were provided in most studies, there were still strong negative associations between screening uptake and area-level socio-economic deprivation. Future breast cancer screening strategies should acknowledge these challenges, and consider developing targeted interventions in more deprived areas to increase screening participation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

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

          Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

          This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening. To determine the effectiveness of mammography screening in decreasing breast cancer mortality among average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years and 70 years or older, the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, and the harms of screening. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data. Randomized, controlled trials with breast cancer mortality outcomes for screening effectiveness, and studies of various designs and multiple data sources for harms. Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria. Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% for women aged 39 to 49 years (relative risk, 0.85 [95% credible interval, 0.75 to 0.96]; 8 trials). Data are lacking for women aged 70 years or older. Radiation exposure from mammography is low. Patient adverse experiences are common and transient and do not affect screening practices. Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%. Younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies than older women. Trials of clinical breast examination are ongoing; trials for breast self-examination showed no reductions in mortality but increases in benign biopsy results. Studies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are lacking. Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality for women aged 39 to 69 years; data are insufficient for older women. False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common. No benefit has been shown for clinical breast examination or breast self-examination.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies.

            BACKGROUND The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on the relation between breast cancer risk and use of hormonal contraceptives. METHODS Individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 studies conducted in 25 countries were collected, checked, and analysed centrally. Estimates of the relative risk for breast cancer were obtained by a modification of the Mantel-Haenszel method. All analyses were stratified by study, age at diagnosis, parity, and, where appropriate, the age a woman was when her first child was born, and the age she was when her risk of conception ceased. FINDINGS The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed (relative risk [95 percent CI] in current users 1.24 [1.15-1.33], 2p<0.00001; 1-4 years after stopping 1.16 [1.08-1.23], 2p=0.00001; 5-9 years after stopping 1.07 [1.02-1.13], 2p=0.009). Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use (relative risk 1.01 [0.96-1.05], NS). The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives for ever-users compared with never-users, the relative risk for tumours that had spread beyond the breast compared with localised tumours was 0.88 (0.81-0.95; 2p=0.002). There was no pronounced variation in the results for recency of use between women with different background risks of breast cancer, including women from different countries and ethnic groups, women with different reproductive histories, and those with or without a family history of breast cancer. The studies included in this collaboration represent about 90 percent of the epidemiological information on the topic, and what is known about the other studies suggests that their omission has not materially affected the main conclusions. Other features of hormonal contraceptive use such as duration of use, age at first use, and the dose and type of hormone within the contraceptives had little additional effect on breast cancer risk, once recency of use had been taken into account. Women who began use before age 20 had higher relative risks of having breast cancer diagnosed while they were using combined oral contraceptives and in the 5 years after stopping than women who began use at older ages, but the higher relative risks apply at ages when breast cancer is rare and, for a given duration of use, earlier use does not result in more cancers being diagnosed than use beginning at older ages. Because breast cancer incidence rises steeply with age, the estimated excess number of cancers diagnosed in the period between starting use and 10 years after stopping increases with age at last use: for example, among 10 000 women from Europe or North America who used oral contraceptives from age 16 to 19, from age 20 to 24, and from age 25 to 29, respectively, the estimated excess number of cancers diagnosed up to 10 years after stopping use is 0.5 (95 percent CI 0.3-0.7), 1.5 (0.7-2.3), and 4.7 (2.7-6.7). Up to 20 years after cessation of use the difference between ever-users and never-users is not so much in the total number of cancers diagnosed, but in their clinical presentation, with the breast cancers diagnosed in ever-users being less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in never-users. The relation observed between breast cancer risk and hormone exposure is unusual, and it is not possible to infer from these data whether it is due to an earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in ever-users, the biological effects of hormonal contraceptives, or a combination of reasons...
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association of area socioeconomic status and breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

              Although numerous studies have examined the association of area socioeconomic status (SES) and cancer screening after controlling for individual SES, findings have been inconsistent. A systematic review of existing studies is timely to identify conceptual and methodologic limitations and to provide a basis for future research directions and policy. The objectives were to (a) describe the study designs, constructs, methods, and measures; (b) describe the independent association of area SES and cancer screening; and (c) identify neglected areas of research. We searched six electronic databases and manually searched cited and citing articles. Eligible studies were published before 2008 in peer-reviewed journals in English, represented primary data on individuals ages > or = 18 years from developed countries, and measured the association of area and individual SES with breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Of 19 eligible studies, most measured breast cancer screening. Studies varied widely in research design, definitions, and measures of SES, cancer screening behaviors, and covariates. Eight employed multilevel logistic regression, whereas the remainder analyzed data with standard single-level logistic regression. The majority measured one or two indicators of area and individual SES; common indicators at both levels were poverty, income, and education. There was no consistent pattern in the association between area SES and cancer screening. The gaps and conceptual and methodologic heterogeneity in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about an underlying association between area SES and cancer screening. We identify five areas of research deserving greater attention in the literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Cancer Epidemiol
                Cancer Epidemiol
                Cancer Epidemiology
                Elsevier
                1877-7821
                1877-783X
                1 June 2019
                June 2019
                : 60
                : 77-85
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, King George VI Building, Newcastle 14 upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
                [b ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. adam.todd@ 123456newcastle.ac.uk
                Article
                S1877-7821(18)30469-7
                10.1016/j.canep.2019.03.008
                6547165
                30927689
                f0c7b4e2-9b38-4640-a34c-6fb1297488a9
                © 2019 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 31 August 2018
                : 5 March 2019
                : 11 March 2019
                Categories
                Article

                breast cancer,screening,health inequalities,deprivation,systematic review,neighbourhood effects,europe,prevention,public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article