Literature DB >> 18364506

Disparities and trends in sentinel lymph node biopsy among early-stage breast cancer patients (1998-2005).

Amy Y Chen1, Michael T Halpern, Nicole M Schrag, Andrew Stewart, Marilyn Leitch, Elizabeth Ward.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), an acceptable alternative to axillary lymph node dissection for staging patients with breast cancer, was introduced to clinical practice in the late 1990s. We assessed demographic, clinical, and facility-related factors associated with SLNB in women with early-stage breast cancer and evaluated trends in these factors over time.
METHODS: Data on early-stage breast cancers (T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2N0) diagnosed between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2005, were extracted from the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based registry. Patient demographics, tumor stage, type of lymph node surgery, type of breast cancer surgery, health insurance, treatment facility type, and area-level education and income variables were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess predictive factors associated with SLNB, temporal differences in factors associated with SLNB, and differences in rates of SLNB by facility type, race/ethnicity, and type of health insurance over time.
RESULTS: The total analytic study population included 490,899 women. The use of SLNB increased from 26.8% in 1998 to 65.5% in 2005. Factors associated with lower likelihood of SLNB over the study period included being older (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 0.92 for those aged 72 or older compared with those aged 51 or younger), being of racial/ethnic minority (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.78 for African Americans compared with whites), having no health insurance (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.80 for uninsured compared with having private insurance), having certain government insurance plans (for Medicaid, OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.84, and for Medicare at age <65 years, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.87, both compared with private insurance), residing in zip codes with lower proportion of high school graduates (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.86 to 0.89) or with lower median income (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.81), and receiving treatment in facility types other than a teaching or research hospital (for community hospital, OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.86; for community cancer center, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.87). The associations with insurance status and sociodemographic characteristics were more pronounced in 2005 than in 1998. For example, the adjusted annual rates of SLNB in 1998 were 0.29 in whites, 0.26 in African Americans, and 0.35 in Hispanics; in 2005 the respective rates were 0.70, 0.64, and 0.67.
CONCLUSIONS: Although use of SLNB increased from 1998 to 2005, disparities persisted in receipt of SLNB that are based on nonclinical factors, including sociodemographic characteristics and insurance status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18364506     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  33 in total

1.  Disparities in the early adoption of chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the United States.

Authors:  Christopher R Flowers; Stacey A Fedewa; Amy Y Chen; Loretta J Nastoupil; Joseph Lipscomb; Otis W Brawley; Elizabeth M Ward
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Demographic and other characteristics of nodal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma managed in academic versus non-academic centers.

Authors:  Vijaya Raj Bhatt; Prajwal Dhakal; Sumit Dahal; Smith Giri; Ranjan Pathak; R Gregory Bociek; Peter T Silberstein; James O Armitage
Journal:  Ther Adv Hematol       Date:  2015-10

3.  Prevalence and Consequences of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in the Era of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Tina W F Yen; Purushottam W Laud; Liliana E Pezzin; Emily L McGinley; Erica Wozniak; Rodney Sparapani; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The role of organizational affiliations and research networks in the diffusion of breast cancer treatment innovation.

Authors:  William R Carpenter; Katherine Reeder-Hayes; John Bainbridge; Anne-Marie Meyer; Keith D Amos; Bryan J Weiner; Paul A Godley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Utilization and Outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Vulvar Cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Cham; Ling Chen; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Jim C Hu; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Predictors and outcomes of completion axillary node dissection among older breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Sara H Javid; Hao He; Larissa A Korde; David R Flum; Benjamin O Anderson
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Understanding age and race disparities in the application of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Archana Radhakrishnan; Paula Silverman; Craig Evan Pollack; Elizabeth R Pfoh; Robert Shenk; Cheryl L Thompson
Journal:  J Investig Med       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Patterns of treatment for early stage breast cancers at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1997 to 2004.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Wenli Dong; Barry W Feig; Peter Ravdin; Richard L Theriault; Sharon H Giordano
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Troubleshooting Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Ted A James; Alex R Coffman; Anees B Chagpar; Judy C Boughey; V Suzanne Klimberg; Monica Morrow; Armando E Giuliano; Seth P Harlow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Surgeon specialization and use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Tina W F Yen; Purushuttom W Laud; Rodney A Sparapani; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 14.766

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.