ArticleBritish journal of cancer2012
Small but significant socioeconomic inequalities in axillary staging and treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interhospital variations in diagnostic work-up following recall at biennial screening mammography-a population-based study.European radiology · 2025Article
- The influence of socio-economic status on the fulfilment of Saint-Gallen recommendations for early-stage breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in waiting times for breast cancer surgery.Health economics · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic and geographic disparities of breast cancer incidence according to stage at diagnosis in France.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic status and its relation with breast cancer recurrence and survival in young women in the Netherlands.Cancer epidemiology · 2022Article
- Socio-economic inequality of utilization of cancer testing in Europe: A cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- The impact of sociodemographic factors on the utilization of radiation therapy in breast cancer patients in Estonia: a register-based study.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- Relation between socioeconomic variables and surgical, systemic and radiation treatment in a cohort of patients with breast cancer in an urban Canadian centreCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2019Article
- Geographical Inequalities in Surgical Treatment for Localized Female Breast Cancer, Queensland, Australia 1997-2011: Improvements over Time but Inequalities Remain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
- Social inequalities and cancer: can the European deprivation index predict patients' difficulties in health care access? a pilot study.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Research in cancer care disparities in countries with universal healthcare: mapping the field and its conceptual contours.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014Review
- Socioeconomic disparity in survival after breast cancer in ireland: observational study.PloS one · 2014Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB), lymph node dissection, breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal treatment for breast cancer was evaluated in relation to socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands, where access to care was assumed to be equal.
methodsFemale breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2008 were selected from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=176 505). Socioeconomic status was assessed based on income, employment and education at postal code level. Multivariable models included age, year of diagnosis and stage.
resultsSentinal node biopsy was less often applied in high-SES patients (multivariable analyses, ≤ 49 years: odds ratio (OR) 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.89); 50-75 years: 0.85 (0.73-0.99)). Additionally, lymph node dissection was less common in low-SES patients aged ≥ 76 years (OR 1.34 (0.95-1.89)). Socioeconomic status-related differences in treatment were only significant in the age group 50-75 years. High-SES women with stage T1-2 were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (+radiotherapy) (OR 1.15 (1.09-1.22) and OR 1.16 (1.09-1.22), respectively). Chemotherapy use among node-positive patients was higher in the high-SES group, but was not significant in multivariable analysis. Hormonal therapy was not related to SES.
conclusionSmall but significant differences were observed in the use of SNB, lymph node dissection and breast-conserving surgery according to SES in Dutch breast cancer patients despite assumed equal access to health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.