Table 3.

Adjusted HRs and their 95% CIs of ipsilateral and contralateral breast tumors for neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and urban/rural locations among women with primary DCIS of the breast in the Missouri Cancer Registry, 1996–2011

Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivationUrban/rural location
Tertile 1 (lowest)Tertile 2Tertile 3 (highest)UrbanRural
Ipsilateral breast tumors
No. of events90686017048
Model 1a
 95% CIReference0.95–1.861.11–2.46Reference0.60–1.29
P trend = 0.02
Model 1+health insurance
 95% CIReference0.95–1.861.10–2.44Reference0.60–1.28
P trend = 0.02
Model 1+health insurance+tumor characteristicsb
 95% CIReference0.95–1.871.12–2.49Reference0.60–1.28
P trend = 0.01
Model 1+health insurance+tumor characteristics+treatmentc
 95% CIReference0.92–1.811.07–2.38Reference0.58–1.25
P trend = 0.03
Contralateral breast tumors
No. of events1691137226985
Model 1a
 95% CIReference0.76–1.280.62–1.21Reference0.80–1.45
P trend = 0.43
Model 1+health insurance
 95% CIReference0.76–1.280.62–1.21Reference0.81–1.45
P trend = 0.44
Model 1+health insurance and tumor characteristicsb
 95% CIReference0.76–1.280.62–1.21Reference0.81–1.46
P trend = 0.43
Model 1+health insurance, tumor characteristics, and treatmentc
 95% CIReference0.76–1.280.61–1.20Reference0.81–1.46
P trend = 0.40
  • aThe HRs were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and year of diagnosis of the index DCIS.

  • bTumor characteristics included grade, size, histology, and estrogen receptor status.

  • cTreatment included surgery, surgical margin status (in the analysis of ipsilateral breast tumors), radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy.