No abstract

Participation in screening was associated with a breast-cancer mortality reduction of between 30 and 41%, depending on assumptions about screening self-selection bias. A downward mortality risk by recency of last screen prior to cancer diagnosis, and frequency of recent screening, is consistent with a screening effect.

Background Women and their health care providers need a reliable answer to this important question: If a woman chooses to participate in regular mammography screening, then how much will this choice improve her chances of avoiding a death from breast cancer compared with women who choose not to participate? Methods To answer this question, we used comprehensive registries for population, screening history, breast cancer incidence, and disease‐specific death data in a defined population in Dalarna County, Sweden. The annual incidence of breast cancer was calculated along with the annual incidence of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 and within 11 to 20 years of diagnosis among women aged 40 to 69 years who either did or did not participate in mammography screening during a 39‐year period (1977‐2015). For an additional comparison, corresponding data are presented from 19 years of the prescreening period (1958‐1976). All patients received stage‐specific therapy according to the latest national guidelines, irrespective of the mode of detection. Results The benefit for women who chose to participate in an organized breast cancer screening program was a 60% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 10 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.34‐0.48) and a 47% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 20 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.44‐0.63) compared with the corresponding risks for nonparticipants. Conclusions Although all patients with breast cancer stand to benefit from advances in breast cancer therapy, the current results demonstrate that women who have participated in mammography screening obtain a significantly greater benefit from the therapy available at the time of diagnosis than do those who have not participated.

The aim of this study was to provide a current assessment of Australian secondary students' self-reported dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviour. This study also examined the relationship between television viewing and students' dietary behaviour. Data are from a cross-sectional survey of 18 486 secondary students in 2005 from all Australian states except Western Australia. Participants reported their usual daily consumption (number of serves) of vegetables and fruit; their weekly consumption of unhealthy/non-core foods including fast food meals, snack foods and high-energy drinks; their engagement in moderate-vigorous physical activity over the previous week; and hours spent using electronic media for entertainment and doing homework on school days. The study found that 20% of students were meeting the daily requirement of four serves of vegetables, whereas 39% were eating the recommended three daily serves of fruit. Consumption of unhealthy/non-core foods was high, with 46% of students having fast food meals at least twice a week, 51% eating snack foods four or more times per week and 44% having high-energy drinks four or more times per week. Fourteen per cent of students engaged in recommended levels of physical activity and 29% engaged in recommended levels of sedentary behaviour. Age and gender differences occurred for most measures, and there were some socio-economic status differences. Heavier television use was associated with lower consumption of fruit and higher consumption of unhealthy/non-core foods. On the basis of the results of this study, it appears that a significant proportion of Australian secondary students fall short of current, national dietary and physical activity recommendations for teenagers. Continual monitoring of these behaviours is essential to help inform research and policy and identify where future efforts should be directed.

The study examines the management and outcomes of women with early invasive breast cancer treated in rural and metropolitan centres over a nine-year observation period. A prospective audit of the treatment and outcomes of 2081 women with early breast cancer who underwent potentially curative surgery between 1997 and 2006 in metropolitan Canberra or in the surrounding rural region was completed. Overall, there was good agreement between published guidelines and the treatment received by the women in the study. However, women treated in rural centres were less likely to receive postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery, or to undergo axillary lymph node surgery or sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with women treated in metropolitan centres. Surgery in a rural centre was associated with increased breast cancer recurrence (HR = 1.54, p < 0.001) and increased breast cancer mortality (HR = 1.84, p < 0.001), after adjustment for age and tumour characteristics. Non-cancer related mortality was increased in women treated in rural centres compared with women travelling to a metropolitan centre for surgery (HR = 2.08; p = 0.005). There were differences in both the care provided and treatment outcomes between women treated in rural centres and women treated in metropolitan centres. However, the increased non-cancer related mortality in women treated in rural centres suggests an increased medical comorbidity in this group. Initiatives supporting rural-based surgeons to adopt new procedures such as sentinel node biopsy may help to optimise rural breast cancer treatment.

Our results confirm international findings indicating worse outcomes from bilateral compared with unilateral breast cancer.

BackgroundInequalities in survival from colorectal cancer (CRC) across socioeconomic groups and by area of residence have been described in various health care settings. Few population-wide datasets which include clinical and treatment information are available in Australia to investigate disparities. This study examines socio-demographic differences in survival for CRC patients in South Australia (SA), using a population-wide database derived via linkage of administrative and surveillance datasets. MethodsThe study population comprised all cases of CRC diagnosed in 2003-2008 among SA residents aged 50-79 yrs in the SA Central Cancer Registry. Measures of socioeconomic status (area level), geographical remoteness, clinical characteristics, comorbid conditions, treatments and outcomes were derived through record linkage of central cancer registry, hospital-based clinical registries, hospital separations, and radiotherapy services data sources. Socio-demographic disparities in CRC survival were examined using competing risk regression analysis.ResultsFour thousand six hundred and forty one eligible cases were followed for an average of 4.7 yrs, during which time 1525 died from CRC and 416 died from other causes. Results of competing risk regression indicated higher risk of CRC death with higher grade (HR high v low =2.25, 95 % CI 1.32-3.84), later stage (HR C v A = 7.74, 95 % CI 5.75-10.4), severe comorbidity (HR severe v none =1.21, 95 % CI 1.02-1.44) and receiving radiotherapy (HR = 1.41, 95 % CI 1.18-1.68). Patients from the most socioeconomically advantaged areas had significantly better outcomes than those from the least advantaged areas (HR =0.75, 95 % 0.62-0.91). Patients residing in remote locations had significantly worse outcomes than metropolitan residents, though this was only evident for stages A-C (HR = 1.35, 95 % CI 1.01-1.80). These disparities were not explained by differences in stage at diagnosis between socioeconomic groups or area of residence. Nor were they explained by differences in patient factors, other tumour characteristics, comorbidity, or treatment modalities.ConclusionsSocio-economic and regional disparities in survival following CRC are evident in SA, despite having a universal health care system. Of particular concern is the poorer survival for patients from remote areas with potentially curable CRC. Reasons for these disparities require further exploration to identify factors that can be addressed to improve outcomes.

Greater emphasis should be given to ensure CRC patients who may benefit from neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies have access to these treatments.