Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Geriatr Oncol. 2012 Jan 1;3(1):8–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2011.10.002

Table 3.

Factors Associated with Receipt of Radiotherapy after BCS among 5,889 Women Aged 80 and Older who Underwent BCS.*

n % Received Radiotherapy after BCS Adjusted Relative Risk of Radiotherapy after BCS
Overall 5,889 50.3
Characteristics:
Age
 80–84 3,377 65.1 1.0
 85–89 1,754 38.1 0.7 (0.6–0.7)
 90+ 758 12.7 0.3 (0.2–0.3)
Metropolitan status of residence
 Metropolitan 5,444 52.0 1.0
 Non-Metropolitan 445 29.3 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
Race/Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic White 5,439 50.2 1.0
 Non-Hispanic Black 218 48.2 1.0 (0.9–1.2)
 Hispanic 47 44.7 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
 Asian 90 68.9 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
 Other 61 52.5 0.9 (0.7–1.2)
 Unknown 34 35.3 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
Marital status
 Not currently married 4,240 46.8 1.0
 Currently married 1,444 62.6 1.1 (1.0–1.1)
 Unknown 203 36.0 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
Year of diagnosis
 92–95 1,310 38.5 1.0
 96–00 2,141 50.7 1.2 (1.1–1.3)
 01–05 2,438 56.2 1.2 (1.1–1.3)
Median income for area of residence
 Lowest Quintile 1,020 42.6 1.0
 2nd Quintile 1,156 47.7 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 3rd Quintile 1,205 50.0 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 4th Quintile 1,228 52.9 1.0 (0.9–1.2)
 5th Quintile 1,254 57.1 1.1 (1.0–1.3)
Quintiles of education (<12 years) for those Age ≥ 25 in area of residence
 Lowest Quintile 976 45.2 1.0
 2nd Quintile 1,070 49.7 1.1 (1.0–1.1)
 3rd Quintile 1,220 48.9 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
 4th Quintile 1,274 52.9 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
 5th Quintile 1,323 53.7 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
Mammography Use
 Screeners 2,846 63.0 1.0
 Non-users 1,955 37.8 0.8 (0.8–0.9)
 Peri-diagnosis 814 35.9 0.8 (0.7–0.8)
 Other 274 50.0 0.9 (0.8–1.0)
Tumor stage
 Stage I 3,733 59.5 1.0
 Stage II 842 46.2 1.0 (0.9–1.2)
 Unknown 1,314 26.8 0.8 (0.6–1.2)
Tumor Grade
 Grade I 1,740 50.6 1.0
 Grade II 2,582 52.0 1.1 (1.0–1.1)
 Grade III 1,030 50.5 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
 Grade IV 56 57.1 1.4 (1.1–1.7)
 Unknown 481 38.5 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
Tumor size
 ≤1cm 2,477 55.6 1.0
 1–≤2cm 2,387 50.6 1.0 (1.0–1.1)
 2-≤5cm 1,025 36.8 0.9 (0.8–1.1)
Tumor histology
 Ductal 4,568 50.8 1.0
 Lobular 446 55.8 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 Mucinous 417 47.5 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 Other 436 41.7 0.8 (0.8–0.9)
Lymph node
 None positive 4,604 57.0 1.0
 None examined 1,285 26.4 0.7 (0.5–1.0)
SEER registry
 Connecticut 1,031 52.4 1.0
 San Francisco 548 51.1 1.0 (0.9–1.0)
 Detroit 740 52.2 1.0 (1.0–1.1)
 Hawaii 91 69.2 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
 Iowa 847 33.3 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
 New Mexico 166 50.0 1.0 (0.9–1.2)
 Seattle 791 56.5 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
 Utah 246 56.9 1.2 (1.0–1.3)
 Atlanta 294 41.5 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
 San Jose 235 52.3 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 Los Angeles 900 55.0 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
Comorbidities
 Dementia 173 9.8 0.3 (0.2–0.4)
 Nutrition Deficiencies 88 26.1 0.7 (0.5–1.0)
 Heart Failure 812 33.4 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
 Mood Disorder 378 38.4 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
 Other Cancer 267 44.6 0.8 (0.7–0.9)
 Peptic Ulcer Disease 111 36.9 0.8 (0.7–1.1)
 Hip fracture 133 27.8 0.8 (0.6–1.0)
 Parkinson’s Disease 75 33.3 0.9 (0.6–1.2)
 COPD 667 45.9 0.9 (0.8–1.0)
 Cerebral Vascular Disease 547 39.7 0.9 (0.8–1.0)
 Pneumonia 248 32.7 0.9 (0.8–1.1)
 Peripheral Vascular Disease 292 39.4 0.9 (0.8–1.1)
 Chronic Renal Failure 90 42.2 0.9 (0.7–1.1)
 Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage 234 43.2 1.0 (0.8–1.1)
 Thyroid Disorder (not cancer) 916 51.5 1.0 (0.9–1.1)
 Falls 129 37.2 1.0 (0.8–1.3)
 Diabetes 823 50.7 1.0 (1.0–1.1)
 Rheumatologic Disorders 160 55.6 1.1 (0.9–1.2)
 Blindness 289 53.3 1.1 (1.0–1.2)
 Hypertension 3,471 52.4 1.0 (1.0–1.1)
 Myocardial infarction 217 46.5 1.1 (1.0–1.3)
Charlson Comorbidity Index
 0 3,223 55.4 1.0
 1 1,402 46.2 0.9 (0.8–0.9)
 2 743 45.4 0.9 (0.8–0.9)
 3+ 521 36.9 0.7 (0.7–0.8)
*

Each model was adjusted for tumor characteristics (grade, tumor size, histology, stage), sociodemographics at diagnosis (age, marital status, race/ethnicity, educational attainment of census tract, ZIP code, median household income of census tract/income, metropolitan status of residence), year of diagnosis, lymph node status, mammography use, and tumor registry.

Odds ratios were converted to Relative Risks using SAS PROC GENMOD’s Poisson regression capability.

In a separate model, we categorized women by their Charlson Comorbidity Index (0,1,2,3+) rather than their individual comorbidities; however, we did include conditions from the Clinical Classifications Software that were not included in the Charlson.