BACKGROUND: The reasons for race/ethnicity (R/E) differences in breast cancer survival have been difficult to disentangle. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify 41,020 women aged > or =68 years with incident breast cancer between 1994-1999 including African American (2479), Hispanic (1172), Asian/Pacific Island (1086), and white women (35,878). A Cox proportional hazards model assessed overall and stage-specific (0/I, II/III, and IV) R/E differences in breast cancer survival after adjusting for mammography screening, tumor characteristics at diagnosis, biologic markers, treatment, comorbidity, and demographics. RESULTS: African American women had worse survival than white women, although controlling for predictor variables reduced this difference among all stage breast cancer (hazards ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97-1.20). Adjustment for predictors reduced, but did not eliminate, disparities in the analysis limited to women diagnosed with stage II/III disease (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.54). Screening mammography, tumor characteristics at diagnosis, biologic markers, and treatment each produced a similar reduction in HRs for women with stage II/III cancers. Asian and Pacific Island women had better survival than white women before and after accounting for all predictors (adjusted all stages HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]; adjusted stage II/III HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]). Hispanic women had better survival than white women in all and stage II/III analysis (all stage HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04) and stage II/III analysis (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04), although these findings did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference in survival by R/E noted among women diagnosed with stage IV disease. CONCLUSIONS: Predictor variables contribute to, but do not fully explain, R/E differences in breast cancer survival for elderly American women. Future analyses should further investigate the role of biology, demographics, and disparities in quality of care. 2007 American Cancer Society
BACKGROUND: The reasons for race/ethnicity (R/E) differences in breast cancer survival have been difficult to disentangle. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify 41,020 women aged > or =68 years with incident breast cancer between 1994-1999 including African American (2479), Hispanic (1172), Asian/Pacific Island (1086), and white women (35,878). A Cox proportional hazards model assessed overall and stage-specific (0/I, II/III, and IV) R/E differences in breast cancer survival after adjusting for mammography screening, tumor characteristics at diagnosis, biologic markers, treatment, comorbidity, and demographics. RESULTS: African American women had worse survival than white women, although controlling for predictor variables reduced this difference among all stage breast cancer (hazards ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97-1.20). Adjustment for predictors reduced, but did not eliminate, disparities in the analysis limited to women diagnosed with stage II/III disease (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.54). Screening mammography, tumor characteristics at diagnosis, biologic markers, and treatment each produced a similar reduction in HRs for women with stage II/III cancers. Asian and Pacific Island women had better survival than white women before and after accounting for all predictors (adjusted all stages HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]; adjusted stage II/III HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]). Hispanic women had better survival than white women in all and stage II/III analysis (all stage HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04) and stage II/III analysis (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04), although these findings did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference in survival by R/E noted among women diagnosed with stage IV disease. CONCLUSIONS: Predictor variables contribute to, but do not fully explain, R/E differences in breast cancer survival for elderly American women. Future analyses should further investigate the role of biology, demographics, and disparities in quality of care. 2007 American Cancer Society
Authors: Lisa A Newman; Kent A Griffith; Ismail Jatoi; Michael S Simon; Joseph P Crowe; Graham A Colditz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Nicole Lurie; Linn Abraham; Rachel Ballard Barbash; Jodi Strzelczyk; Mark Dignan; William E Barlow; Cherry M Beasley; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer Adjemian; Kenneth N Olivier; Amy E Seitz; Steven M Holland; D Rebecca Prevots Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: James R Hébert; Virginie G Daguise; Deborah M Hurley; Rebecca C Wilkerson; Catishia M Mosley; Swann A Adams; Robin Puett; James B Burch; Susan E Steck; Susan W Bolick-Aldrich Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Betsy Risendal; Lisa M Hines; Carol Sweeney; Martha L Slattery; Anna R Giuliano; Kathy B Baumgartner; Karen Curtin; Tim E Byers Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jessie Kimbrough Marshall; Olive M Mbah; Jean G Ford; Darcy Phelan-Emrick; Saifuddin Ahmed; Lee Bone; Jennifer Wenzel; Gary R Shapiro; Mollie Howerton; Lawrence Johnson; Qiana Brown; Altovise Ewing; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 5.128