Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 633–637 | Cite as

The association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer tumor characteristics

  • Caryn E. Peterson
  • Garth H. Rauscher
  • Timothy P. Johnson
  • Carolyn V. Kirschner
  • Richard E. Barrett
  • Seijeoung Kim
  • Marian L. Fitzgibbon
  • Charlotte E. Joslin
  • Faith G. Davis
Brief report

Abstract

Purpose

Higher pathologic grade, suboptimal debulking surgery, and late-stage are markers of more aggressive and advanced ovarian cancer. Neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with more aggressive and advanced tumors for other cancer sites, and this may also be true for ovarian cancer.

Methods

We examined the association between neighborhood SES and ovarian cancer tumor characteristics using data on 581 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer in Cook County, Illinois. Two complementary measures (concentrated disadvantage and concentrated affluence) were used to estimate neighborhood SES. Prevalence differences and 95 % confidence intervals were estimated in logistic regression models adjusted for age and race.

Results

Greater disadvantage was associated with higher grade tumors (p = 0.03) and suboptimal debulking (p = 0.05) and marginally associated with later tumor stage (p = 0.20). Greater affluence was inversely associated with stage at diagnosis (p = 0.004) and suboptimal debulking (p = 0.03) and (marginally) with tumor grade (p = 0.21).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that lower SES, estimated by neighborhood SES, is associated with ovarian cancer tumor characteristics indicative of more advanced and aggressive disease.

Keywords

Ovarian cancer Neighborhood socioeconomic status Tumor characteristics Socioeconomic disparities 

Abbreviations

FIGO

Féderation Internationàle de Gynécologie et d’Obstétrique

PD

Prevalence difference

CI

Confidence interval

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the NIH-NIMHD Training Program: Center of Excellence in Elimination Disparities (P60MD003424).

References

  1. 1.
    Brun JL, Feyler A, Chene G et al (2000) Long-term results and prognostic factors in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78(1):21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark TG, Stewart ME, Altman DG et al (2001) A prognostic model for ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 85(7):944–952PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brun JL, Bouzigon E, Saurel J et al (2000) Prognostic factors for survival of ovarian epithelial cancers: apropos of 287 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 28(3):223–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell RT, Li X, Dolecek TA et al (2009) Economic, racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer in the US: towards a more comprehensive model. Health Place 15(3):855–864PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barry J, Breen N (2005) The importance of place of residence in predicting late-stage diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer. Health Place 11(1):15–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vona-Davis L, Rose DP (2009) The influence of socioeconomic disparities on breast cancer tumor biology and prognosis: a review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18(6):883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor A, Cheng KK (2003) Social deprivation and breast cancer. J Public Health Med 25(3):228–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson CS, Hole DJ, Twelves CJ et al (2001) Prognostic factors in women with breast cancer: distribution by socioeconomic status and effect on differences in survival. J Epidemiol Community Health 55(5):308–315PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F (1999) Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Soc Rev 64(5):633–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Browning CR, Cagney KA (2002) Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. J Health Soc Behav 43(4):383–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pecorelli S, Benedet JL, Creasman WT et al (1999) FIGO staging of gynecologic cancer. 1994–1997 FIGO committee on gynecologic oncology. International federation of gynecology and obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 65(3):243–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Browning CR, Feinberg SL, Wallace D, Cagney KA (2006) Neighborhood social processes, physical conditions, and disaster-related mortality. Am Sociol Rev 71(4):661–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Do DP, Finch BK, Basurto-Davila R et al (2008) Does place explain racial health disparities? Quantifying the contribution of residential context to the Black/white health gap in the United States. Soc Sci Med 67(8):1258–1268PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Islami F, Kahn AR, Bickell NA et al (2013) Disentangling the effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of neighborhood in cancer stage distribution in New York City. Cancer Causes Control 24(6):1069–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Link BG, Phelan J (1995) Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Soc Behav Spec 35:80–94Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Link BG, Phelan JC (2002) McKeown and the idea that social conditions are fundamental causes of disease. Am J Public Health 92(5):730–732PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hegarty V, Burchett BM, Gold DT et al (2000) Racial differences in use of cancer prevention services among older Americans. J Am Geriatr Soc 48(7):735–740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potosky AL, Breen N, Graubard BI et al (1998) The association between health care coverage and the use of cancer screening tests. Results from the 1992 National Health Interview Survey. Med Care 36(3):257–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halpern MT, Ward EM, Pavluck AL et al (2008) Association of insurance status and ethnicity with cancer stage at diagnosis for 12 cancer sites: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 9(3):222–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA et al (2009) Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control 20(4):417–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gornick ME, Eggers PW, Riley GF (2004) Associations of race, education, and patterns of preventive service use with stage of cancer at time of diagnosis. Health Serv Res 39(5):1403–1427PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Zenk SN et al (2006) Psychosocial stress and social support as mediators of relationships between income, length of residence and depressive symptoms among African American women on Detroit’s eastside. Soc Sci Med 62(2):510–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross CE, Mirowsky J (2009) Neighborhood disorder, subjective alienation, and distress. J Health Soc Behav 50(1):49–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Subramanian SV, Kubzansky L, Berkman L et al (2006) Neighborhood effects on the self-rated health of elders: uncovering the relative importance of structural and service-related neighborhood environments. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 61(3):S153–S160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uchino BN (2006) Social support and health: a review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med 29(4):377–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeigler-Johnson CM, Tierney A, Rebbeck TR et al (2011) Prostate cancer severity associations with neighborhood deprivation. Prostate Cancer 2011:846263PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwon EM, Salinas CA, Kolb S et al (2011) Genetic polymorphisms in inflammation pathway genes and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 20(5):923–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mathers JC, Strathdee G, Relton CL (2010) Induction of epigenetic alterations by dietary and other environmental factors. Adv Genet 71:3–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohammed SI, Springfield S, Das R (2012) Role of epigenetics in cancer health disparities. Methods Mol Biol 863:395–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caryn E. Peterson
    • 1
  • Garth H. Rauscher
    • 1
  • Timothy P. Johnson
    • 2
  • Carolyn V. Kirschner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Richard E. Barrett
    • 5
  • Seijeoung Kim
    • 6
  • Marian L. Fitzgibbon
    • 7
  • Charlotte E. Joslin
    • 8
  • Faith G. Davis
    • 1
    • 9
  1. 1.Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MC 923), School of Public HealthUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Survey Research Lab, Public AdministrationUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Division of Gynecologic OncologyNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  5. 5.The Center for Health Behavior ResearchUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Division of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public HealthUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  7. 7.Department of Medicine and School of Public HealthUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  8. 8.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual SciencesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  9. 9.Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations