Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32495000›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2020

Stage-specific survival has improved for young breast cancer patients since 2000: but not equally.

Cassia Bree Trewin, Anna Louise Viktoria Johansson, Kirsti Vik Hjerkind, Bjørn Heine Strand, Cecilie Essholt Kiserud, Giske Ursin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effectiveness of increasing the scalp cooling duration to prevent alopecia during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized pilot study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Response to Zahl.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cassia Bree TrewinNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. cassie.trewin@kreftregisteret.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8236-9423
Anna Louise Viktoria JohanssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kirsti Vik HjerkindDepartment of Registration, Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O. Box 5313, Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway.
Bjørn Heine StrandDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Cecilie Essholt KiserudNational Resource Center for Late Effects After Cancer Treatment, Oslo University Hospital, Radiumhospitalet, P.O. Box 4953, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Giske UrsinCancer Registry of Norway, P.O. Box 5313, Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Kreftforeningen 161326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe stage-specific survival of young breast cancer patients has improved, likely due to diagnostic and treatment advances. We addressed whether survival improvements have reached all socioeconomic groups in a country with universal health care and national treatment guidelines.

methodsUsing Norwegian registry data, we assessed stage-specific breast cancer survival by education and income level of 7501 patients (2317 localized, 4457 regional, 233 distant and 494 unknown stage) aged 30-48 years at diagnosis during 2000-2015. Using flexible parametric models and national life tables, we compared excess mortality up to 12 years from diagnosis and 5-year relative survival trends, by education and income as measures of socioeconomic status (SES).

resultsThroughout 2000-2015, regional and distant stage 5-year relative survival improved steadily for patients with high education and high income (high SES), but not for patients with low education and low income (low SES). Regional stage 5-year relative survival improved from 85 to 94% for high SES patients (9% change; 95% confidence interval: 6, 13%), but remained at 84% for low SES patients (0% change; - 12, 12%). Distant stage 5-year relative survival improved from 22 to 58% for high SES patients (36% change; 24, 49%), but remained at 11% for low SES patients (0% change; - 19, 19%).

conclusionsRegional and distant stage breast cancer survival has improved markedly for high SES patients, but there has been little survival gain for low SES patients. Socioeconomic status matters for the stage-specific survival of young breast cancer patients, even with universal health care.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesSocial ClassAdultBreast NeoplasmsEducational StatusFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncomeMiddle AgedMortalityNeoplasm StagingNorwayRegistriesSurvival AnalysisUniversal Health CareBreast neoplasmsExcess mortalityRelative survivalSocioeconomic factorsStage at diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID32495000
PMCPMC7297859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.