Dalliah M Black1, Jing Jiang2, Henry M Kuerer1, Thomas A Buchholz3, Benjamin D Smith4. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 4. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston3Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Racial disparities exist in many aspects of breast cancer care. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was developed to replace axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for staging early breast cancer to minimize complications. Racial disparities in the use of SLNB remain incompletely characterized, and their effect on lymphedema risk is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine racial differences in SLNB use among patients with pathologically node-negative breast cancer during the period when SLNB became the preferred method for axillary staging as well as whether such differences affect lymphedema risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database from 2002 through 2007 to identify cases of incident, nonmetastatic, pathologically node-negative breast cancer in women aged 66 years or older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy use and 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema by race. RESULTS: Of 31 274 women identified, 1767 (5.6%) were black, 27 856 (89.1%) were white, and 1651 (5.3%) were of other or unknown race. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 73.7% of white patients and 62.4% of black patients (P < .001). The use of SLNB increased by year for both black and white patients (P < .001); however, a fixed disparity of approximately 12 percentage points in SLNB use persisted through 2007. In adjusted analysis, black patients were significantly less likely than white patients to undergo SLNB (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001). Overall, the 5-year cumulative lymphedema risk was 8.2% in whites and 12.3% in blacks (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.67; P < .001). When stratified by type of axillary surgery, 5-year lymphedema risk was 6.8% in whites undergoing SLNB (HR, 1 [reference]), 8.8% in blacks undergoing SLNB (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60; P = .03), 12.2% in whites undergoing ALND (1.79; 1.63-1.96; P < .001), and 18.0% in blacks undergoing ALND (2.76; 2.25-3.39; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although SLNB use increased in both black and white patients with pathologically node-negative breast cancer from 2002 through 2007, the rates of SLNB remained lower in black than white patients during this entire period by approximately 12 percentage points. This racial disparity in SLNB use contributed to racial disparities in lymphedema risk. Improvements in the dissemination of new techniques are needed to avoid disparities in breast cancer care and patient outcomes, particularly in disadvantaged groups.
IMPORTANCE: Racial disparities exist in many aspects of breast cancer care. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was developed to replace axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for staging early breast cancer to minimize complications. Racial disparities in the use of SLNB remain incompletely characterized, and their effect on lymphedema risk is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine racial differences in SLNB use among patients with pathologically node-negative breast cancer during the period when SLNB became the preferred method for axillary staging as well as whether such differences affect lymphedema risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database from 2002 through 2007 to identify cases of incident, nonmetastatic, pathologically node-negative breast cancer in women aged 66 years or older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy use and 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphedema by race. RESULTS: Of 31 274 women identified, 1767 (5.6%) were black, 27 856 (89.1%) were white, and 1651 (5.3%) were of other or unknown race. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 73.7% of white patients and 62.4% of black patients (P < .001). The use of SLNB increased by year for both black and white patients (P < .001); however, a fixed disparity of approximately 12 percentage points in SLNB use persisted through 2007. In adjusted analysis, black patients were significantly less likely than white patients to undergo SLNB (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001). Overall, the 5-year cumulative lymphedema risk was 8.2% in whites and 12.3% in blacks (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.67; P < .001). When stratified by type of axillary surgery, 5-year lymphedema risk was 6.8% in whites undergoing SLNB (HR, 1 [reference]), 8.8% in blacks undergoing SLNB (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60; P = .03), 12.2% in whites undergoing ALND (1.79; 1.63-1.96; P < .001), and 18.0% in blacks undergoing ALND (2.76; 2.25-3.39; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although SLNB use increased in both black and white patients with pathologically node-negative breast cancer from 2002 through 2007, the rates of SLNB remained lower in black than white patients during this entire period by approximately 12 percentage points. This racial disparity in SLNB use contributed to racial disparities in lymphedema risk. Improvements in the dissemination of new techniques are needed to avoid disparities in breast cancer care and patient outcomes, particularly in disadvantaged groups.
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
Authors: S F Sener; D J Winchester; C H Martz; J L Feldman; J A Cavanaugh; D P Winchester; B Weigel; K Bonnefoi; K Kirby; C Morehead Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Igor Langer; Ulrich Guller; Gilles Berclaz; Ossi R Koechli; Gabriel Schaer; Mathias K Fehr; Thomas Hess; Daniel Oertli; Lucio Bronz; Beate Schnarwyler; Edward Wight; Urs Uehlinger; Eduard Infanger; Daniel Burger; Markus Zuber Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Umberto Veronesi; Giuseppe Viale; Giovanni Paganelli; Stefano Zurrida; Alberto Luini; Viviana Galimberti; Paolo Veronesi; Mattia Intra; Patrick Maisonneuve; Francesca Zucca; Giovanna Gatti; Giovanni Mazzarol; Concetta De Cicco; Dario Vezzoli Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Funda Meric; Thomas A Buchholz; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Frederick C Ames; Merrick I Ross; Raphael E Pollock; S Eva Singletary; Barry W Feig; Henry M Kuerer; Lisa A Newman; George H Perkins; Eric A Strom; Marsha D McNeese; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Lori J Pierce; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 12.969
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
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Tara Sanft; K Scott Baker; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Melissa Hudson; Nazanin Khakpour; Allison King; Divya Koura; Robin M Lally; Terry S Langbaum; Allison L McDonough; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; William Pirl; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Paula Silverman; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Amye Tevaarwerk; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole R McMillian; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 11.908
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
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Song Yao; Valerie S Lee; Janise M Roh; Qianqian Zhu; Isaac J Ergas; Qian Liu; Yali Zhang; Susan E Kutner; Charles P Quesenberry; Christine B Ambrosone; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Shervin M Shirvani; Jing Jiang; Anna Likhacheva; Karen E Hoffman; Simona F Shaitelman; Abigail Caudle; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Danielle Riley; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary Charlton; Brian J Smith; Charles F Lynch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872