Original Research| Volume 130, P204-210, May 2020

Download started.


Patients' education level and treatment modality for prostate cancer in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Published:March 28, 2020DOI:


      • In prostate cancer, the lower education level is associated with worse survival.
      • The primary treatment modality and education level were analysed in 9255 men.
      • Cancer stage, the patient's age and comorbidity burden were included in analysis.
      • Men with a higher education level are treated with more radical intention.
      • Less curatively aimed therapy is likely to influence worse cancer survival.



      In prostate cancer (PCa), lower education level is associated with less screening, more advanced stage at diagnosis and worse survival. The aim of this study was to estimate the association between education level and treatment modality and subsequently survival.


      The 9255 men diagnosed with PCa in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer were included. Cancer stage, comorbidity, education level and primary treatment modality were extracted from the patient records, the Finnish Cancer Registry, Statistics Finland and the National Institute of Health and Welfare, and these covariates were used in logistic regression (treatment selection) and Cox regression (survival analysis).


      In high-risk cancers, men with tertiary education were more likely to be treated with radical prostatectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27–2.44) than men with primary education. Men with secondary (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.38–0.84) or tertiary (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.29–0.60) education were managed less frequently with mere hormonal therapy. In locally advanced cases, tertiary education was associated with more curatively aimed therapies and less hormonal therapy (OR for radical prostatectomy = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.49–3.66; OR for radiotherapy = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.09–1.85; OR for hormonal therapy = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.33–0.60). The hazard ratio for PCa death was lower in men with secondary (0.81; 95% CI = 0.69–0.95) and tertiary (0.75; 95% CI = 0.65–0.87) education than in the patients with primary education.


      When controlled for the cancer risk group, comorbidity and patient's age, low education level is independently associated with less curatively aimed treatment in men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa and subsequently worse prognosis.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Marmot M.
        Social determinants of health inequalities.
        Lancet. 2005; 365: 1099-1104
        • Commission on Social Determinants of Health
        Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2008
        • Mackenbach J.P.
        • Stirbu I.
        • Roskam A.J.
        • Schaap M.M.
        • Menvielle G.
        • Leinsalu M.
        • et al.
        European union working group on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 2468-2481
        • Klein J.
        • von dem Knesebeck O.
        Socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer survival: a review of the evidence and explanatory factors.
        Soc Sci Med. 2015; 142: 9-18
        • Goldman D.
        • Smith J.P.
        The increasing value of education to health.
        Soc Sci Med. 2011; 72: 1728-1737
        • Steenland K.
        • Rodriguez C.
        • Mondul A.
        • Calle E.E.
        • Thun M.
        Prostate cancer incidence and survival in relation to education (United States).
        Cancer Causes Control. 2004; 15: 939-945
        • Byers T.E.
        • Wolf H.J.
        • Bauer K.R.
        • Bolick-Aldrich S.
        • Chen V.W.
        • Finch J.L.
        • et al.
        The impact of socioeconomic status on survival after cancer in the United States: findings from the national program of cancer registries patterns of care study.
        Cancer. 2008; 113: 582-591
        • Clegg L.X.
        • Reichman M.E.
        • Miller B.A.
        • Hankey B.F.
        • Singh G.K.
        • Lin Y.D.
        • et al.
        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. 2009; 20: 417-435
        • Rundle A.
        • Neckerman K.M.
        • Sheehan D.
        • Jankowski M.
        • Kryvenko O.N.
        • Tang D.
        • et al.
        A prospective study of socioeconomic status, prostate cancer screening and incidence among men at high risk for prostate cancer.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2013; 24: 297-303
        • Kilpeläinen T.P.
        • Talala K.
        • Raitanen J.
        • Taari K.
        • Kujala P.
        • Tammela T.L.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer and socioeconomic status in the Finnish randomized study of screening for prostate cancer.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2016; 184: 720-731
        • Kilpeläinen T.P.
        • Tammela T.L.
        • Malila N.
        • Hakama M.
        • Santti H.
        • Määttänen L.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer mortality in the Finnish randomized screening trial.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 719-725
        • Leinonen M.K.
        • Miettinen J.
        • Heikkinen S.
        • Pitkäniemi J.
        • Malila N.
        Quality measures of the population-based Finnish Cancer Registry indicate sound data quality for solid malignant tumours.
        Eur J Canc. 2017; 77: 31-39
        • Mottet N.
        • van den Bergh R.C.N.
        • Briers E.
        • Cornford P.
        • de Santis M.
        • Fanti S.
        • et al.
        EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer.
        (Retrieved from)
        • Quan H.
        • Li B.
        • Couris C.M.
        • Fushimi K.
        • Graham P.
        • Hider P.
        • et al.
        Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2011; 173: 676-682
        • United Nations Educational
        Scientific and cultural organization. ISCED: international standard classification of education.
        • Lyratzopoulos G.
        • Barbiere J.M.
        • Greenberg D.C.
        • Wright K.A.
        • Neal D.E.
        Population based time trends and socioeconomic variation in use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for prostate cancer in a UK region: continuous survey.
        BMJ. 2010; 340c1928
        • Berglund A.
        • Garmo H.
        • Robinson D.
        • Tishelman C.
        • Holmberg L.
        • Bratt O.
        • et al.
        Differences according to socioeconomic status in the management and mortality in men with high risk prostate cancer.
        Eur J Canc. 2012; 48: 75-84
        • Tomic K.
        • Ventimiglia E.
        • Robinson D.
        • Häggström C.
        • Lambe M.
        • Stattin P.
        Socioeconomic status and diagnosis, treatment, and mortality in men with prostate cancer. Nationwide population-based study.
        Int J Canc. 2018; 142: 2478-2484
        • Ferlay J.
        • Soerjomataram I.
        • Ervik M.
        • Dikshit R.
        • Eser S.
        • Mathers C.
        • et al.
        GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11.
        International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France2013 ([Internet])
        Date accessed: February 18, 2018
        • Willems S.
        • De Maesschalck S.
        • Deveugele M.
        • Derese A.
        • De Maeseneer J.
        Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference?.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2005; 56: 139-146
        • Zeliadt S.B.
        • Ramsey S.D.
        • Penson D.F.
        • Hall I.J.
        • Ekwueme D.U.
        • Stroud L.
        • et al.
        Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2006; 106: 1865-1874
        • Violette P.D.
        • Agoritsas T.
        • Alexander P.
        • Riikonen J.
        • Santti H.
        • Agarwal A.
        • et al.
        Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65: 239-251
        • World Bank
        World development indicators.
        2019 (Table 1.3)
        Date accessed: May 28, 2019
        • Sarfati D.
        • Koczwara B.
        • Jackson C.
        The impact of comorbidity on cancer and its treatment.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 337-350
        • Rajan P.
        • Sooriakumaran P.
        • Nyberg T.
        • Akre O.
        • Carlsson S.
        • Egevad L.
        • et al.
        Effect of comorbidity on prostate cancer-specific mortality: a prospective observational study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 3566-3574