PURPOSE: Population-based studies have revealed higher mortality among breast cancer patients treated in low-volume hospitals. Other studies have demonstrated disparities in race and socioeconomic status (SES) in breast cancer survival. The purpose of our study was to determine whether nonwhite or low-SES patients are disproportionately treated in low-volume hospitals. METHODS: A population-based cohort of 2,777 Medicare breast cancer patients who underwent breast cancer surgery in 2003 participated in a survey study examining breast cancer outcomes. Information was obtained from survey responses, Medicare claims, and state tumor registry data. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, patients treated at low-volume hospitals were less likely to be white, less likely to live in an urban location, and more likely to have a low SES with less social support and live a greater distance from a high-volume hospital. Education, marital status, total household income, having additional insurance besides Medicare, population density of primary residence, and tangible support were associated with distance to the nearest high-volume hospital. On multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of treatment at a low-volume hospital were being nonwhite (P = 0.003), having a lower household income (P < 0.0001), residence in a rural location (P = 0.01), and living a greater distance from a high-volume hospital (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort, women who were poorer, nonwhite, and who lived in a rural location or at a greater distance from a high-volume hospital were more likely to be treated at low-volume hospitals. These differences may partially explain racial and SES disparities in breast cancer outcomes.
PURPOSE: Population-based studies have revealed higher mortality among breast cancerpatients treated in low-volume hospitals. Other studies have demonstrated disparities in race and socioeconomic status (SES) in breast cancer survival. The purpose of our study was to determine whether nonwhite or low-SES patients are disproportionately treated in low-volume hospitals. METHODS: A population-based cohort of 2,777 Medicare breast cancerpatients who underwent breast cancer surgery in 2003 participated in a survey study examining breast cancer outcomes. Information was obtained from survey responses, Medicare claims, and state tumor registry data. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, patients treated at low-volume hospitals were less likely to be white, less likely to live in an urban location, and more likely to have a low SES with less social support and live a greater distance from a high-volume hospital. Education, marital status, total household income, having additional insurance besides Medicare, population density of primary residence, and tangible support were associated with distance to the nearest high-volume hospital. On multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of treatment at a low-volume hospital were being nonwhite (P = 0.003), having a lower household income (P < 0.0001), residence in a rural location (P = 0.01), and living a greater distance from a high-volume hospital (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort, women who were poorer, nonwhite, and who lived in a rural location or at a greater distance from a high-volume hospital were more likely to be treated at low-volume hospitals. These differences may partially explain racial and SES disparities in breast cancer outcomes.
Authors: Nicole Hébert-Croteau; Jacques Brisson; Jacques Lemaire; Jean Latreille; Raynald Pineault Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Zhao Chen; Garnet L Anderson; Thomas Rohan; Aaron Aragaki; Dorothy Lane; Nancy C Dolan; Electra D Paskett; Anne McTiernan; F Alan Hubbell; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Ross Prentice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ann B Nattinger; Purushottam W Laud; Ruta Bajorunaite; Rodney A Sparapani; Jean L Freeman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sasha A McGee; Danielle D Durham; Chiu-Kit Tse; Robert C Millikan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Julia Frebault; Carmen Bergom; Chandler S Cortina; Monica E Shukla; Yiwen Zhang; Chiang-Ching Huang; Amanda L Kong Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Ashley Meilleur; S V Subramanian; Jesse J Plascak; James L Fisher; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth B Lamont Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nazila Azordegan; Virginia Fraser; Khuong Le; Lyn M Hillyer; David W L Ma; Gabor Fischer; Mohammed H Moghadasian Journal: Mol Cell Biochem Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 3.396
Authors: Peter D Baade; Paramita Dasgupta; Philippa H Youl; Christopher Pyke; Joanne F Aitken Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.390