Els of socioeconomic status and breast cancer danger elements; Univariate analysisVariable SES II vs.SES I OR confidence interval pvalue SES III vs.SES I OR confidence interval pvalue SES IV vs.SES I OR confidence interval pvalueAge . … … .. … … . . … … . .Referent .Referent .Referent Marital Status . … … .Single .Referent .Referent .Referent Married Family history . ……. .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No No.. … … .Pregnancy .. … .No.Abortion . .Breast . … … .Calyculin A Protocol feeding (duration) Fatty eating plan . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Smoking . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Poor socioeconomic status has regarded as the base.Significant variables have indicated with ……..decreased by enhancing socioeconomic status.It has meant that the odds of good socioeconomic PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21591972 status have decreased by increasing number in counting the pregnancies (CI.).Also, the odds of excellent socioeconomic status has decreased by increasing number in counting the pregnancies .In accordance with table , the associations between socioeconomic status and quantity of pregnancies, quantity of abortions and smoking were significant.To acquire this clearly, the results of Multiple Logistic Regression have stated o The odds of moderate socioeconomic status have decreased by growing a single number in counting the pregnancies (CI. ).o The odds of great socioeconomic status have decreased by rising one particular number in counting the pregnancies (CI.).o The odds of exceptional socioeconomic status have decreased by rising onenumber in counting the pregnancies (CI.).o The odds of outstanding socioeconomic status have enhanced by growing one particular number in counting the abortions (CI).o The odds of moderate socioeconomic status in smokers have decreased in comparison with nonsmoker folks (CI.).The odds of great socioeconomic status in smokers have decreased in comparison with nonsmoker people (Cl.).DiscussionBased on the outcomes of this study, the mean age of sufferers was .years and .in the sufferers have been younger than years.Inside the study of Yavari et al the imply age of patients was . that would be comparable to this analysis .The imply age of sufferers was .yearsIranian Journal of Cancer PreventionRelationships in between Household Levels of Socioeconomic Status and Distribution ..Table .Multinomial Logistic Regression test lead to connection among loved ones levels of socioeconomic status and breast cancer threat factors; various analysesVariable SES II vs.SES I OR self-confidence interval pvalue SES III vs.SES I OR self-confidence interval pvalue SES IV vs.SES I OR self-confidence interval pvalueAge . … … .. … … . . … … . .Referent .Referent .Referent Marital Status . … … .Single .Referent .Referent .Referent Married Family members history . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No No.. … … .Pregnancy .. … .No.Abortion . .Breast . … … .feeding (duration) Fatty diet program . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Smoking . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Poor socioeconomic status has regarded as the base.Significant variables have indicated with ……..(SD) in Akbari et al.study and in Ebrahimi et al.study the mean age of sufferers was .years and percent of patients had been younger than years .In accordance with the results of this study in Univariate Analysis, a important association in between household socioeconomic status and age at cancer diagnosis amongst individuals has detected (p value).It has meant that am.