Breast cancer-specific mortality is static in older women despite having fallen in younger age groups, possibly due to lack of screening and differences in treatment. This study compared stage and treatment between two cohorts of postmenopausal women (55 -69 vs 470 years) in a single cancer network over 6 months. A total of 378 patients were studied (470: N ¼ 167, 55 -69 years: N ¼ 210). Older women presented with more advanced disease (470: metastatic/locally advanced 12%, 55 -69 years: 3%, Po0.01). Those with operable cancer had a worse prognosis (Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) 470: median NPI 4.4, 55 -69 years: 4.25, Po0.03). These stage differences were partially explained by higher screening rates in the younger cohort. Primary endocrine therapy was used in 42% of older patients compared with 3% in the younger group (Po0.001). Older women with cancers suitable for breast conservation were more likely to choose mastectomy (470: 57.5% mastectomy rate vs 55 -69 years: 20.6%, Po0.01). Nodal surgery was less frequent in older patients (470: 6.7% no nodal surgery, 55 -69 years: 0.5%, Po0.01) and was more likely to be inadequate (470: 10.7% o4 nodes excised, 55 -69 years: 3.4%, Po0.02). In summary, older women presented with more advanced breast cancer, than younger postmenopausal women and were treated less comprehensively.

INTRODUCTIONAbstracts presented at national and international scientific meetings are an important educational resource. However, the work is not peer reviewed and little is known about the quality or validity of the presented results and the fate of such abstracts.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis is a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented to the 1997 annual meeting of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. We examined the rates of full-text publication, time to publication, factors influencing publication, inconsistencies between presented and subsequently published manuscripts, and reasons for non-publication of abstracts.RESULTSOf the 241 abstracts presented, 136 (56.4%) were published at a median duration of 18 months. Multicentre studies had a greater tendency to subsequent publication and studies involving academic centres predicted publication in a high impact factor journal. Inconsistencies between presented and published abstracts were common and were significantly associated with delayed publication. Oral and poster presentations were equally likely to be published. Reasons for non-submission of presented abstracts included lack of time, low priority to publish, perceived methodological limitations, lack of novelty of findings and co-investigators leaving the organisation.CONCLUSIONSMore than half of the work presented at a national surgical meeting in the UK has been subsequently published. Various factors that influence the process of publication and remediable causes for non-publication have been identified.