Socioeconomic status and survival from soft-tissue sarcomas: a population-based study in northern Italy.

Ciccone, G; Magnani, Corrado; Delsedime, Luisa; Víneis, Paolo

doi:10.2105/ajph.81.6.747

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Serraino et al (1991) did not find a significant association between social class or education level and the risk for STS. Ciccone et al (1991) observed that patients with STS who were less educated had a poor survival rate compared with those with better education. Socioeconomic inequalities in sarcoma should be evaluated to identify novel risk factors and to direct preventive strategies that take into account exposures that may differ by social class.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Socioeconomic factors and the risk for sarcoma

Hampras

Moysich²,

Marimuthu

et al. 2014

European Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare malignancies arising from mesenchymal tissue. Although several occupational exposures have been evaluated in association with sarcoma, little is known about the role of socioeconomic indicators such as education. Socioeconomic status has been found to be associated with risk of development of several types of cancers, primarily lung, gastric, and cervical cancers. We conducted a hospital-based case-control study to evaluate the association of socioeconomic level with the risk for sarcoma. A total of 371 incident cases of sarcoma were matched in terms of age, sex, and year of enrollment in the study with 742 cancer-free controls. Education and income levels were evaluated as the indicators of socioeconomic status. Higher education (college level) was associated with a significantly lower risk for sarcoma [odds ratio (OR)=0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.29-0.80], even after adjusting for important confounders. After stratifying by sex, significantly lower risk for sarcoma was observed among men who had college level education compared with men with a level of education of eighth grade or lower (OR=0.38, 95% CI=0.19-0.74). A significant association between education and the risk for sarcoma remained after stratifying by income (OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.28-0.86, among the low income group). When analyzed as a composite exposure, individuals with high education and high income status had significantly lower risk for sarcoma compared with those with low income and low education status (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.23-0.71). Thus, socioeconomic factors may play a significant role in determining the risk for sarcoma and should be explored further to elucidate the underlying factors that may explain these sociodemographic inequalities related to sarcoma.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Socioeconomic factors and the risk for sarcoma

Hampras

Moysich²,

Marimuthu

et al. 2014

European Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few studies have found that SEP is strongly related to risk of sarcoma [22][23][24]. Few studies have found that socioeconomic deprivation affects survival of sarcoma patients negatively [23,[25][26][27][28]. In order to improve the outcome in sarcoma patients, the aim of this nationwide multicentre study was to examine the association between socioeconomic factors (educational level, disposable income and cohabitation status) and three prognostic factors (malignancy grade, stage, and size) in Danish sarcoma patients from 2000-2013, and further to examine the overall mortality in relation to SEP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The association between socioeconomic position and tumour size, grade, stage, and mortality in Danish sarcoma patients – A national, observational study from 2000 to 2013

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Survival in sarcoma patients depends on a range of prognostic factors. An association between cancer survival and socioeconomic position is known for several other cancers. We therefore examined the relations between three socioeconomic factors and risk of presenting with known tumour related prognostic factors, and the overall mortality of the different socioeconomic and prognostic factors in 1919 patients diagnosed with sarcoma in Denmark 2000-2013. Material and methods: Patients with sarcoma in extremities or trunk wall aged 30 years or more at diagnosis were identified in the Danish Sarcoma Registry and linked on an individual level to Danish national registries. We obtained data on educational level, disposable income and cohabitation status. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for the association between the socioeconomic factors and grade, stage and tumour size. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Results: In adjusted analyses, educational level, income and cohabitation status were not associated with high grade or dissiminated stage at time of diagnosis. However, living alone was statistically significantly associated with having a large soft tissue sarcoma (!5 cm) at time of diagnosis (OR 1.51; CI1.12-2.03). The overall mortality was statistically significantly increased in the group of patients with 10 years of education (HR 1.27; CI 1.02-1.57), in patients with the 20% lowest income (HR 1.30; CI 1.00-1.67) and nearly in patients living alone (HR 1.16; CI 0.99-1.36). Conclusion: In this nationwide, multicentre, population-based study, soft tissue sarcoma patients living alone had greater risk of having a large tumour at time of diagnosis. Soft tissue and bone sarcoma patients with a short education, low income, or living alone, had a higher mortality. This might indicate that the social differences in mortality might be related to treatment aspects and the biology of the disease rather that the diagnostic process.

show abstract

“…Similarly, low socioeconomic status is associated with poorer overall survival for patients with STS. 8 Recently, our group showed that physician experience influences treatment sequencing in STS. 9 The objective for our study was to assess the influence of physician specialty in the management of patients with STS of the extremities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%