How much do tumor stage and treatment explain socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer survival? Applying causal mediation analysis to population-based data

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 603-611

  Li, Ruoran ^a   Daniel, Rhian ^a   Rachet, Bernard ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Causal mediation; Population based data; Socioeconomic inequalities; Surgical treatment; Survival; Tumour stage

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER SURVIVOR; CAUSAL MEDIATION ANALYSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH DISPARITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POPULATION RESEARCH; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIOECONOMICS; SURVIVAL RATE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; ENGLAND; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HEALTH SURVEY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS DISPARITIES; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84966668224     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-016-0155-5     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Rachet B, Woods LM, Mitry E, et al. Cancer survival in England and Wales at the end of the 20th century. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(Suppl. 1):2–10.
2. Lyratzopoulos G, Barbiere JM, Rachet B, et al. Changes over time in socioeconomic inequalities in breast and rectal cancer survival in England and Wales over a 32-year period (1973–2004): the potential role of health care. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1661–6.
3. Rachet B, Ellis L, Maringe C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS Cancer Plan. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:446–53.
4. Ellis L, Coleman MP, Rachet B. How many deaths would be avoidable if socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England were eliminated? A national population-based study, 1996–2006. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:270–8.
5. Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:5–19.
6. Leary A, Smith IE. Survival from breast cancer in England and Wales up to 2001. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(Suppl 1):S56–8.
7. Woods LM, Rachet B, O’Connell DL, et al. Large differences in patterns of breast cancer survival between Australia and England: a comparative study using cancer registry data. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:2391–9.
8. Lejeune C, Sassi F, Ellis L, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in access to treatment and their impact on colorectal cancer survival. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:710–7.
9. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:163–5.
10. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143–55.
11. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: 17th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001. pp. 411–420.
12. Vanderweele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1339–48.
13. Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2007, England. In: Series MB1 No. 38. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2010. pp. 1–80.
14. Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions. Measuring multiple deprivation at the small area level: the indices of deprivation 2000. London: DETR; 2000.
15. Walters S, Maringe C, Butler J, et al. Comparability of stage data in cancer registries in six countries: lessons from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:676–85.
16. Health & Social Care Information Centre. OPCS-4 Classification. 2014. http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/data/clinicalcoding/codingstandards/opcs4. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.
17. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Site Specific Clinical Reference Groups (SSCRG) for breast cancer. 2013. http://www.ncin.org.uk/cancer_type_and_topic_specific_work/cancer_type_specific_work/breast_cancer/. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.
18. Perme MP, Stare J, Estève J. On estimation in relative survival. Biometrics. 2012;68:113–20.
19. StataCorp. STATA statistical software. 13th ed. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2013.
20. Grzebyk M, Urmès I, Hédelin G. Net survival estimation with stns. Stata J. 2014;14:87–102.
21. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S, Robins JM. Effect decomposition in the presence of an exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounder. Epidemiology. 2014;25:300–6.
22. Didelez V, Dawid P, Geneletti S. Direct and indirect effects of sequential treatments. In: Dechter R, Richardson TS, editors. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Arlington, VA: AUAI Press; 2006. pp. 138–146.
23. Geneletti S. Identifying direct and indirect effects in a non-counterfactual framework. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 2007;69:199–215.
24. Robins J. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model. 1986;7:1393–512.
25. Daniel RM, Stavola BLD, Cousens SN. gformula: estimating causal effects in the presence of time-varying confounding or mediation using the g-computation formula. Stata J. 2011;11:479–517.
26. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Multivariable modeling with cubic regression splines: a principled approach. Stata J. 2007;7:45–70.
27. Sutton R. Adult anthropometric measures, overweight and obesity. In Craig R, Mindell J, editors. Health Survey for England 2011. Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2012. p. 37.
28. Office for National Statistics. Smoking and drinking among adults, 2008. In: General Lifestyle Survey 2008. Office for National Statistics; 2010. p. 74.
29. Morris EJA, Quirke P, Thomas JD, et al. Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: Time to intervene? Gut. 2008;57:1690–7.
30. Lawrence G. Further analysis of ICBP treatment data (version 1.2). 2013. p. 2 (unpublished report).
31. Downing A, Prakash K, Gilthorpe MS, et al. Socioeconomic background in relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival in women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:836–40.
32. Downing A, Harrison WJ, West RM, et al. Latent class modelling of the association between socioeconomic background and breast cancer survival status at 5 years incorporating stage of disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64:772–6.
33. Rutherford MJ, Hinchliffe SR, Abel GA, et al. How much of the deprivation gap in cancer survival can be explained by variation in stage at diagnosis: an example from breast cancer in the East of England. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:2192–200.
34. Valeri L, Chen JT, Garcia-Albeniz X, et al. The role of stage at diagnosis in colorectal cancer black–white survival disparities: a counterfactual causal inference approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:83–9.