* Women from socioeconomically deprived areas have significantly poorer survival from breast cancer than women from affluent areas * In this population based study we investigated the relation between socioeconomic deprivation and the prognostic factors tumour size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade, and oestrogen receptor concentration * Socioeconomic deprivation was not significantly related to tumour stage or biology * Other possible explanations for survival differences, such as differences in breast cancer treatment or in host response, should be investigated * If the reasons for socioeconomic differences in survival could be identified and eliminated a greater number of lives could be saved than that expected from the national breast screening programme prognostic factors we examined cannot explain the differences in survival, other possibilities must be considered. Other biological prognostic factors might differ. Women from deprived areas might be less likely to receive, or to accept, optimal treatment for breast cancer. For example, they might be more likely to withdraw from prolonged chemotherapy regimens. Altematively, women from deprived areas might have reduced ability to slow down the distant spread of breast cancer because of a differential immune response. This could be due to many possible causes, such as diet, smoking, intercurrent disease, or environmental factors.These alternative explanations should be investigated since the potential benefit in reducing the inequality in survival between deprivation categories is great. For example, it could result in a greater number of lives saved than that expected from the national breast screening programme. Of the sample of 7537 women from the West of Scotland in whom survival was first studied, there were 1344 deaths within five years among those aged between 50 and 64. Assuming a 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancer, as expected from the national breast screening programme,22 336 of those women could be expected to survive. Theoretically, if the survival gradient by deprivation category could be eliminated so that all women had the five year survival rate of the most affluent group, 475 more women in the West of Scotland could be expected to survive for five years. This would also benefit women outside the age group currently invited for screening. Socioeconomic differences in survival from breast cancer therefore have important implications for public health.
As the foliage being continually exposed to the atmosphere, absorb, collect and integrate pollutants impinging on their foliar surface, continually they show visible or stubble changes depending on their sensitivity level. Trees remove air pollutants by three means: assimilation by the leaves, deposition of particulates and aerosols over leaf surface, and
This study reports dust fall deposition on foliar surfaces of plant species i.e., Toona ciliata, Ficus palmata and Grewia optiva. In relation with its impact on biochemical constituents and surfaces morphology of the foliar. Order of selected plant species according to the dust accumulation was Toona ciliata (31.17 mg m -2 ) > Ficus palmata (19.00 mg m -2 ) > Grewia optiva (11.50 mg m -2 ). The concentration of heavy metals namely cadmium, copper, iron, lead and zinc in the leaf dust was in the range of 0.015 to 0.016, 0.018 to 0.023, 8.747 to 10.093, 0.031 to 0.035 and 0.780 to 0.862 mg g -1 , respectively. The heavy metals content decreased with increasing distance from the edge of the selected state highways. The leaf dust contained higher concentration of all the heavy metals during post monsoon as compared to the pre monsoon months. However, Toona ciliata have shown its adaptability to the stress caused by the pollution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.