Fuentes de resistencia a begomovirus en Solanum spp

Table 22 shows, for patients of all ages diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2001/02 and 2006, how 1-year and 5-year relative survival varied with deprivation and ethnicity. Some caution should be exercised when viewing these data because of the small numbers of patients in the minority ethnic groups. In order to minimise the eff ects of small numbers the Chinese, Mixed and Other ethnic groups were combined into a single Other Ethnic group.

1-year and 5-year relative survival were strongly dependent on deprivation; with patients in the most affl uent quintile having signifi cantly higher 1-year and 5-year relative survival than those in the most deprived quintile (97.1% compared to 92.1% at 1 year for patients diagnosed in 2006 and 96.1% compared to 91.8% at

1 year for patients diagnosed in 2001/02 and 85.6% compared to 73.3% at 5 years for patients diagnosed in 2001/02).

1-year relative survival increased across all the deprivation quintiles between 2001/02 and 2006; with the two most affl uent quintiles showing the greatest improvements. 1-year relative survival also increased for all ethnic groups between the two time periods, except for patients known to be Black. Although not statistically signifi cant, for patients diagnosed in 2006, 1-year relative survival was higher in patients known to be Asian and lower in those known to be Black. These results echo those in other published studies which demonstrate that patients known to be Asian have a superior survival to other ethnic groups26 _{and that breast}

Results_{Results – Relative Survival}

35 RESULTS – RELATIVE SURVIVAL

cancer patients known to be Black have the poorest survival27, 28_.

Table 23 shows for patients aged 50–70 diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in England in 2001/02 and 2006, how variations in 1-year and 5-year relative survival between deprivation quintiles and ethnic groups were aff ected by route of presentation. The variation in the relative survival of symptomatic cancer patients with ethnic group was larger than that seen in screen-detected cancer patients. However, this variation is not statistically signifi cant at the 95% confi dence intervals.

A much more marked eff ect of screening was seen in the deprivation analyses; with 1-year relative survival for patients with screen-detected cancers in all deprivation quintiles diagnosed in 2001/02 and 2006 being no diff erent to that of the general population, whilst the

overall diff erences for patients of all ages seen between deprivation quintiles in Table 22 were just as marked in symptomatic patients aged 50–70.

Cohort 1-year relative survival 2006 (%) 1-year relative survival 2001/02 (%) 5-year relative survival 2001/02 (%) Screen- detected Sympto- matic Screen- detected Sympto- matic Screen- detected Sympto- matic

All invasive breast cancers 100.1 95.2 100.0 94.9 96.2 80.3 Ethnic group

White 100.0 95.3 100.0 95.6 95.4 79.6

Black 100.8 92.0 97.3 96.5 99.7 78.0

Asian 100.7 96.1 100.5 94.6 93.7 75.7

Other (Chinese, Mixed and

other) 98.4 95.2 100.7 98.0 100.1 88.9 Unknown 100.1 93.2 100.1 93.8 97.3 81.3 Deprivation group Most deprived 99.5 91.6 99.5 92.4 92.8 73.2 Quintile 2 100.1 93.1 99.7 95.3 95.1 78.3 Quintile 3 100.0 95.2 99.9 94.9 94.6 80.4 Quintile 4 100.0 95.7 100.2 95.1 97.1 81.1

Most affl uent 100.3 96.2 100.6 96.0 99.4 85.4

Table 23: Variation in 1-year and 5-year relative survival with ethnic group, deprivation quintile and route of presentation for breast cancer patients aged 50–70 diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (England only)

Figure 8: Variation with deprivation status in 1-year relative survival for patients aged 50–70 diagnosed with invasive

breast cancer in 2006, symptomatically or via screening (England only) 80 85 90 95 100

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Deprivation (ID2007 Quintile)

1 yr relative survival (%)

Screen-detected Symptomatic

Results

Results – Relative Survival

36

RESULTS – RELATIVE SURVIVAL

Table 23 shows that screening also had a very marked eff ect on the diff erences in 5-year relative survival between deprivation quintiles. Thus, for patients diagnosed in 2001/02, whilst there was a signifi cant 12.2% diff erence in 5-year relative survival between the most deprived and most affl uent symptomatic patients, there was only a 6.6% diff erence in patients with screen-detected cancers.

The positive eff ect of screening is clearly illustrated in Figure 8 which shows that for 2006 cases, whilst there was a 4.6% diff erence in 1-year relative survival between symptomatic patients in the most affl uent and most deprived quintiles, the diff erences in survival for patients with screen-detected cancers were very small.

References_References

37 REFERENCES

1. Offi ce for National Statistics (2008). Cancer statistic registrations, Registrations of cancers diagnosed in 2006, England.

2. CancerStats Breast Cancer – UK. Cancer Research UK, May 2009. http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/ WebRoot/crukstoredb/CRUK_PDFs/CSBREA09.pdf

3. Cancer Research UK website. www.cancerresearchuk.org

4. NCIN (2009). Cancer Incidence and Survival by Major Ethnic Group, England, 2002–2006

5. Rowan S, Trends in cancer incidence by deprivation, England and Wales, 1990–2002, Health Statistics Quarterly No. 36, Winter 2007.

6. EUROCARE-4; Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995–1999 http://www.eurocare.it/Results/tabid/79/ Default.aspx.

7. Offi ce for National Statistics (2009). Survival rates in England, patients diagnosed in 2001–2006, followed up to 2007.

8. Macmillan Support (2008). Prevalence fi gures and statistics

9. Forrest APM. Breast Cancer Screening: Report to the Health Minister of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 1986. London, HMSO.

10. The NHS Cancer Plan, a plan for investment, a plan for reform (2000). Department of Health. London 11. The NHS Information Centre (2007) NHS Breast Screening Programme Statistical Bulletin 2005–06. 12. Cancer Reform Strategy (2007). Department of Health, London.

13. NHS Connecting for Health. Data Standards: Cancer Registration Data Set. www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ dscn/dscn2005/092005.pdf

14. www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/sus/delivery/hes

15. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007, March 2008, Communities and Local Government: London

16. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast

Cancer Research Treatment, 1992,22:207–219.

17. Schoonjans JM & Brem RF. Sonographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with ultrasono- graphy guided large core needle biopsy: correlation with mammographic and mammographic fi ndings.

J Ultrasound Med 2000;19:449–457.

18. Lai Fong Chiu, Inequalities of Access to Cancer Screening: A Literature Review. Cancer Screening Series No 1 December 2003

19. Esteban D, Whelan S, Laudico A & Parkin DM. Manual for Cancer Registry Personnel. IARC Technical Report No 10, IARC 1995.

20. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative and HER2 negative invasive breast cancer, the so called triple negative phenotype: a population-based study from the Californian cancer registry. Cancer 2007;109:1721–1728.

References_References

38 REFERENCES

21. Stead LA, Lash T L, Sobieraj J E, Chi D D, Westrup J L, Charlot M, Blanchard R A, Lee JC, King TC and Rosenberg C L. Triple-negative breast cancers are increased in black women regardless of age or body mass index. Breast

Cancer Research 2009, 11(2).

22. An audit of screen-detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2007 to March 2008 (2009) NHS Breast Screening Programme and Association of Breast Surgery at BASO.

23. www.sloaneproject.co.uk

24. The NHS Information Centre (2008). First Annual Report of the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit.

25. Dodwell D, Clements K, Lawrence G, Kearins O, Thomson C S, Dewar J & Bishop H. Radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery for screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: indications and utilisation in the UK. Interim fi ndings from the Sloane Project. British Journal of Cancer 97, 725–729

26. Farooq S, Coleman MP. Breast cancer survival in South Asian women in England and Wales. J Epidemiol

Community Health. 2005 May;59(5):402–6.

27. Bowen RL, Duff y SW, Ryan DA, Hart IR, Jones JL. Early onset of breast cancer in a group of British black women.

British Journal of Cancer. 2008:98:277–81.

28. Jack R H, Davies E A & Møller H. Breast cancer incidence, stage, treatment and survival in ethnic groups in South East England. British Journal of Cancer. 2009;100:545–550