Literature DB >> 34697059

Phenotype Discovery and Geographic Disparities of Late-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosis across U.S. Counties: A Machine Learning Approach.

Weichuan Dong1,2,3,4, Wyatt P Bensken5,3, Uriel Kim5,2,3, Johnie Rose5,2,3, Nathan A Berger5,6, Siran M Koroukian5,2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disparities in the stage at diagnosis for breast cancer have been independently associated with various contextual characteristics. Understanding which combinations of these characteristics indicate highest risk, and where they are located, is critical to targeting interventions and improving outcomes for patients with breast cancer.
METHODS: The study included women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2009 and 2018 from 680 U.S. counties participating in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. We used a machine learning approach called Classification and Regression Tree (CART) to identify county "phenotypes," combinations of characteristics that predict the percentage of patients with breast cancer presenting with late-stage disease. We then mapped the phenotypes and compared their geographic distributions. These findings were further validated using an alternate machine learning approach called random forest.
RESULTS: We discovered seven phenotypes of late-stage breast cancer. Common to most phenotypes associated with high risk of late-stage diagnosis were high uninsured rate, low mammography use, high area deprivation, rurality, and high poverty. Geographically, these phenotypes were most prevalent in southern and western states, while phenotypes associated with lower percentages of late-stage diagnosis were most prevalent in the northeastern states and select metropolitan areas.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of machine learning methods of CART and random forest together with geographic methods offers a promising avenue for future disparities research. IMPACT: Local interventions to reduce late-stage breast cancer diagnosis, such as community education and outreach programs, can use machine learning and geographic modeling approaches to tailor strategies for early detection and resource allocation. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34697059      PMCID: PMC8755627          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  46 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening, area deprivation, and later-stage breast cancer in Appalachia: does geography matter?

Authors:  Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Cancer Statistics, 2021.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Hannah E Fuchs; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Geographic disparities in late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in California.

Authors:  Tzy-Mey Kuo; Lee R Mobley; Luc Anselin
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 4.078

4.  Breast cancer stage at diagnosis: is travel time important?

Authors:  Kevin A Henry; Francis P Boscoe; Christopher J Johnson; Daniel W Goldberg; Recinda Sherman; Myles Cockburn
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2011-12

Review 5.  Social determinants of breast cancer risk, stage, and survival.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Body mass and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis.

Authors:  Yadong Cui; Maura K Whiteman; Jodi A Flaws; Patricia Langenberg; Katherine H Tkaczuk; Trudy L Bush
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-03-10       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Geographical and seasonal barriers to mammography services and breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Adedayo A Onitilo; Hong Liang; Rachel V Stankowski; Jessica M Engel; Michael Broton; Suhail A Doi; Douglas A Miskowiak
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 1.759

8.  Detecting an association between socioeconomic status and late stage breast cancer using spatial analysis and area-based measures.

Authors:  Jill Amlong MacKinnon; Robert C Duncan; Youjie Huang; David J Lee; Lora E Fleming; Lydia Voti; Mark Rudolph; James D Wilkinson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Changes in Disparities in Stage of Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Pennsylvania After the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  Neal G Spada; Emily M Geramita; Maryam Zamanian; G J van Londen; Zhaojun Sun; Lindsay M Sabik
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Relationship between insurance status and outcomes for patients with breast cancer in Missouri.

Authors:  Jennifer L Berrian; Ying Liu; Min Lian; Chester L Schmaltz; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 6.921

View more
  2 in total

1.  PSOWNNs-CNN: A Computational Radiology for Breast Cancer Diagnosis Improvement Based on Image Processing Using Machine Learning Methods.

Authors:  Ashkan Nomani; Yasaman Ansari; Mohammad Hossein Nasirpour; Armin Masoumian; Ehsan Sadeghi Pour; Amin Valizadeh
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-11

2.  Variation in and Factors Associated With US County-Level Cancer Mortality, 2008-2019.

Authors:  Weichuan Dong; Wyatt P Bensken; Uriel Kim; Johnie Rose; Qinjin Fan; Nicholas K Schiltz; Nathan A Berger; Siran M Koroukian
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-09-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.