Search

Introduction: Latinas in the United States have higher mortality from breast cancer, but longitudinal studies of mammography ordering (a crucial initial step towards screening) in primary care are lacking., Methods: We conducted an analysis of mammography order rates in Latinas (by language preference) and non-Latina white women (N = 181,755) over a > 10 year period in a multi-state network of community health centers (CHCs). We evaluated two outcomes (ever having a mammogram order and annual rate of mammography orders) using generalized estimating equation modeling., Results: Approximately one-third of all patients had ever had a mammogram order. Among those receiving mammogram orders, English-preferring Latinas had lower mammogram order rates than non-Hispanic white women (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95). Spanish-preferring Latinas had higher odds of ever having a mammogram ordered than non-Hispanic whites (odds ratio = 2.12, 95% CI = 2.06-2.18) and, if ever ordered, had a higher rate of annual mammogram orders (rate ratio = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.50-1.56)., Conclusion: These findings suggest that breast cancer detection barriers in low-income Latinas may not stem from a lack of orders in primary care, but in the subsequent accessibility of receiving ordered services., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no possible, perceived or real financial conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: There is limited knowledge about the cost patterns of patients who receive a diagnosis of de novo and recurrent advanced cancers in the United States., Methods: Data on patients who received a diagnosis of de novo stage IV or recurrent breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2000 and 2012 from 3 integrated health systems were used to estimate average annual costs for total, ambulatory, inpatient, medication, and other services during (1) 12 months preceding de novo or recurrent diagnosis (preindex) and (2) diagnosis month through 11 months after (postindex), from the payer perspective. Generalized linear regression models estimated costs adjusting for patient and clinical factors., Results: Patients who developed a recurrence <1 year after their initial cancer diagnosis had significantly higher total costs in the preindex period than those with recurrence ≥1 year after initial diagnosis and those with de novo stage IV disease across all cancers (all P < .05). Patients with de novo stage IV breast and colorectal cancer had significantly higher total costs in the postindex period than patients with cancer recurrent in <1 year and ≥1 year (all P < .05), respectively. Patients in de novo stage IV and those with recurrence in ≥1 year experienced significantly higher postindex costs than the preindex period (all P < .001)., Conclusions: Our findings reveal distinct cost patterns between patients with de novo stage IV, recurrent <1-year, and recurrent ≥1-year cancer, suggesting unique care trajectories that may influence resource use and planning. Future cost studies among patients with advanced cancer should account for de novo versus recurrent diagnoses and timing of recurrence to obtain estimates that accurately reflect these care pattern complexities., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate the implications of a cancer diagnosis on medication adherence for pre-existing comorbid conditions, we explored statin adherence patterns prior to and following a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer among a multi-ethnic cohort., Methods: We identified adults enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were prevalent statin medication users, newly diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer between 2000 and 2012. Statin adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the 2-year pre-cancer diagnosis and the 2-year post-cancer diagnosis. Adherence patterns were assessed using generalized estimating equations, for all cancers combined and stratified by cancer type and race/ethnicity, adjusted for demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics., Results: Among 10,177 cancer patients, statin adherence decreased from pre- to post-cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio (OR adj ):0.91, 95% confidence interval (95% CI):0.88-0.94). Statin adherence decreased from pre- to post-cancer diagnosis among breast (OR adj :0.94, 95% CI:0.90-0.99) and colorectal (OR adj :0.79, 95% CI:0.74-0.85) cancer patients. No difference in adherence was observed among prostate cancer patients (OR adj :1.01, 95% CI:0.97-1.05). Prior to cancer diagnosis, adherence to statins was generally higher among non-Hispanic whites and multi-race patients than other groups. However, statin adherence after diagnosis decreased only among these two populations (OR adj :0.85, 95% CI:0.85-0.92 and OR adj :0.86, 95% CI:0.76-0.97), respectively., Conclusions: We found substantial variation in statin medication adherence following diagnosis by cancer type and race/ethnicity among a large cohort of prevalent statin users in an integrated health care setting., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Improving our understanding of comorbidity management and polypharmacy across diverse cancer patient populations is warranted to develop tailored interventions that improve medication adherence and reduce disparities in health outcomes.

Objective: To address the knowledge gap regarding medical care costs for advanced cancer patients, we compared costs for recurrent versus de novo stage IV breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients., Data Sources/study Setting: Virtual Data Warehouse (VDW) information from three Kaiser Permanente regions: Colorado, Northwest, and Washington., Study Design: We identified patients aged ≥21 with de novo or recurrent breast (n de novo  = 352; n recurrent  = 765), colorectal (n de novo  = 1,072; n recurrent  = 542), and lung (n de novo  = 4,041; n recurrent  = 340) cancers diagnosed 2000-2012. We estimated average total monthly and annual costs in the 12 months preceding, month of, and 12 months following the index de novo/recurrence date, stratified by age at diagnosis (<65, ≥65). Generalized linear repeated-measures models controlled for demographics and comorbidity., Principal Findings: In the pre-index period, monthly costs were higher for recurrent than for de novo breast (<65: +$2,431; ≥65: +$1,360), colorectal (<65: +$3,219; ≥65: +$2,247), and lung cancer (<65: +$3,086; ≥65: +$2,260) patients. Conversely, during the index and post-index periods, costs were higher for de novo patients. Average total annual pre-index costs were five- to ninefold higher for recurrent versus de novo patients <65., Conclusions: Cost differences by type of advanced cancer and by age suggest heterogeneous patterns of care that merit further investigation., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Cancer is the second leading cause of death among American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN), although cancer survival information in this population is limited, particularly among urban AIAN. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared all-cause and prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal cancer-specific mortality among AIAN ( n = 582) and non-Hispanic white (NHW; n = 82,696) enrollees of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) diagnosed with primary invasive breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer from 1997 to 2015. Tumor registry and other electronic health records provided information on sociodemographic, comorbidity, tumor, clinical, and treatment characteristics. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted survival curves and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). AIAN had a significantly higher comorbidity burden compared with NHW ( P < 0.05). When adjusting for patient, disease characteristics, and Charlson comorbidity scores, all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality were significantly higher for AIAN than NHW patients with breast cancer (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92) or with prostate cancer (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.06) but not for AIAN patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Despite approximately equal access to preventive services and cancer care in this setting, we found higher mortality for AIAN than NHW with some cancers, and a greater proportion of AIAN cancer patients with multiple comorbid conditions. This study provides severely needed information on the cancer experience of the 71% of AIANs who live in urban areas and access cancer care outside of the Indian Health Services, from which the vast majority of AIAN cancer information comes. Cancer Res; 77(23); 6770-6. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: There is no model to estimate absolute invasive breast cancer risk for Hispanic women., Methods: The San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study (SFBCS) provided data on Hispanic breast cancer case patients (533 US-born, 553 foreign-born) and control participants (464 US-born, 947 foreign-born). These data yielded estimates of relative risk (RR) and attributable risk (AR) separately for US-born and foreign-born women. Nativity-specific absolute risks were estimated by combining RR and AR information with nativity-specific invasive breast cancer incidence and competing mortality rates from the California Cancer Registry and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to develop the Hispanic risk model (HRM). In independent data, we assessed model calibration through observed/expected (O/E) ratios, and we estimated discriminatory accuracy with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) statistic., Results: The US-born HRM included age at first full-term pregnancy, biopsy for benign breast disease, and family history of breast cancer; the foreign-born HRM also included age at menarche. The HRM estimated lower risks than the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) for US-born Hispanic women, but higher risks in foreign-born women. In independent data from the Women's Health Initiative, the HRM was well calibrated for US-born women (observed/expected [O/E] ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 1.40), but seemed to overestimate risk in foreign-born women (O/E ratio = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.07). The AUC was 0.564 (95% CI = 0.485 to 0.644) for US-born and 0.625 (95% CI = 0.487 to 0.764) for foreign-born women., Conclusions: The HRM is the first absolute risk model that is based entirely on data specific to Hispanic women by nativity. Further studies in Hispanic women are warranted to evaluate its validity., (Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: There are limited nationally representative estimates of the annual economic burden among survivors of the three most prevalent cancers (colorectal, female breast, and prostate) in both nonelderly and elderly populations in the United States., Methods: The 2008 to 2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to identify colorectal (n = 540), female breast (n = 1568), and prostate (n = 1170) cancer survivors and individuals without a cancer history (n = 109 423). Excess economic burden attributable to cancer included per-person excess annual medical expenditures and productivity losses (employment disability, missed work days, and days stayed in bed). All analyses were stratified by cancer site and age (nonelderly: 18-64 years vs elderly: ≥ 65 years). Multivariable analyses controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, number of comorbidities, and geographic region. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Compared with individuals without a cancer history, cancer survivors experienced annual excess medical expenditures (for the nonelderly population, colorectal: $8647, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $4932 to $13 974, P < .001; breast: $5119, 95% CI = $3439 to $7158, P < .001; prostate: $3586, 95% CI = $1792 to $6076, P < .001; for the elderly population, colorectal: $4913, 95% CI = $2768 to $7470, P < .001; breast: $2288, 95% CI = $814 to $3995, P = .002; prostate: $3524, 95% CI = $1539 to $5909, P < .001). Nonelderly colorectal and breast cancer survivors experienced statistically significant annual excess employment disability (13.6%, P < .001, and 4.8%, P = .001) and productivity loss at work (7.2 days, P < .001, and 3.3 days, P = .002) and at home (4.5 days, P < .001, and 3.3 days, P = .003). In contrast, elderly survivors of all three cancer sites had comparable productivity losses as those without a cancer history., Conclusions: Colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer survivors experienced statistically significantly higher economic burden compared with individuals without a cancer history; however, excess economic burden varies by cancer site and age. Targeted efforts will be important in reducing the economic burden of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

There are limited data regarding breast cancer subtypes among Hispanic women. The current study assessed the distribution and prognosis of molecular subtypes defined by joint expression of the hormone receptors (HR; estrogen and progesterone) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Using California Cancer Registry data, we identified Hispanic women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2005 to 2010. Breast cancer subtypes were defined as HR+/HER2-, HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+, and HR-/HER2- (triple negative). We estimated breast cancer subtype frequencies and used polytomous logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival plots and Cox regression to examine differences in relation to demographic and clinical characteristics. Among 16,380 Hispanic women with breast cancer, HR+/HER- subtype was the most common (63 %), followed by triple negative (16 %), HR+/HER2+ (14 %), and HR-/HER2+ (8 %). Women in lower SES neighborhoods had greater risk of triple negative and HR-/HER2+ subtypes relative to HR+/HER2- (p < 0.05). Hispanic women with triple negative and HR-/HER2+ tumors experienced poorer survival than those with HR+/HER- tumors. Breast cancer-specific mortality increased with decreasing SES, relative to the highest SES quintile, from HR = 1.38 for quintile 4 to HR = 1.76 for quintile 1 (lowest SES level). Our findings indicate that Hispanic women residing in low SES neighborhoods had significantly increased risk of developing and dying from HR- than HR+ breast cancers. Similar patterns of subtype frequency and prognosis among California Hispanic women and studies of other racial/ethnic groups underscore the need to better understand the impact of SES on risk factor exposures that increase the risk of breast cancer subtypes with poor prognosis.

Objective: To assess the impact of Guide to Decide (GtD), a web-based, personally-tailored decision aid designed to inform women's decisions about prophylactic tamoxifen and raloxifene use., Methods: Postmenopausal women, age 46-74, with BCRAT 5-year risk ≥ 1.66% and no prior history of breast cancer were randomized to one of three study arms:intervention (n=690), Time 1 control (n=160), or 3-month control (n=162). Intervention participants viewed GtD prior to completing a post-test and 3 month follow-up assessment. Controls did not. We assessed the impact of GtD on women's decisional conflict levels and treatment decision behavior at post-test and at 3 months, respectively., Results: Intervention participants had significantly lower decisional conflict levels at post-test (p<0.001) and significantly higher odds of making a decision about whether or not to take prophylactic tamoxifen or raloxifene at 3-month follow-up (p<0.001) compared to control participants., Conclusion: GtD lowered decisional conflict and helped women at high risk of breast cancer decide whether to take prophylactic tamoxifen or raloxifene to reduce their cancer risk., Practice Implications: Web-based, tailored decision aids should be used more routinely to facilitate informed medical decisions, reduce patients' decisional conflict, and empower patients to choose the treatment strategy that best reflects their own values., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Background: Current evidence on breast cancer among US Hispanic women indicates a significant public health threat, although few studies have assessed the heterogeneity in breast cancer risk among Hispanics of different origin., Methods: The 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Modules were used to examine the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 5-year risk and lifetime risk of invasive breast cancer among Mexican/Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban/Cuban American, Dominican (Republic), Central/South American, Other Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white (NHW) women ages 35 to 84 years. Multiple linear regression models were used to compare the BCRAT 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk between 1) Hispanics and NHWs and 2) Hispanic subgroups., Results: Hispanic women had significantly lower mean BCRAT 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk compared with NHW women (P < .001). Among Hispanic subgroups, Cuban/Cuban Americans had a higher BCRAT 5-year risk (P < .05), whereas Dominicans had a higher lifetime risk (P < .001) compared with Mexican/Mexican Americans. Approximately 2.6% of Hispanic women were at high risk for breast cancer (BCRAT 5-year risk ≥1.67%), ranging from 1% of Central/South Americans to 3.7% of Puerto Ricans; few Hispanics (0.2%) had a lifetime risk ≥20%., Conclusions: The current findings indicate that Hispanic women have a significantly lower risk of breast cancer compared with NHW women, although the risk according to BCRAT differed significantly between specific Hispanic subgroups. We provide estimates of the number of US Hispanic women from six subgroups who may be eligible for prophylactic breast cancer chemoprevention. The authors concluded that future studies should further investigate the heterogeneity in breast cancer risk and risk factors between Hispanic women of different origins., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy among Chilean women and an increasingly significant public health threat. This study assessed the accuracy of breast cancer risk perception among underserved, Chilean women., Methods: Women aged 50 to 70 years, with no mammogram during the last 2 years, were randomly selected from a community clinic registry in Santiago, Chile (n = 500). Perceived risk was measured using three methods: absolute risk, comparative risk, and numerical risk. Risk comprehension was measured by comparing women's perceived and objective risk estimates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess overestimation of perceived risk., Results: Women at high risk of breast cancer were more likely than average risk women to perceive themselves at high or higher risk, using absolute and comparative risk approaches (P < 0.001). The majority of participants (67%) overestimated their breast cancer risk, on the basis of risk comprehension; although, participants achieved higher accuracy with comparative risk (40%) and absolute risk (31.6%) methods. [Age, breast cancer knowledge and Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 5-year risk were significantly associated (P < 0.01) with accuracy of perceived risk]., Conclusion: Chilean women residing in an underserved community may not accurately assess their breast cancer risk, although risk perception and level of accuracy differed between perceived risk measures. Comparative and absolute risk methods may better reflect women's interpretation and accuracy of risk perception., Impact: Improving our understanding of Chilean women's perceptions of developing breast cancer may lead to the development of culturally relevant efforts to reduce the breast cancer burden in this population., (2012 AACR)

Evaluating breast cancer outcomes specific to Hispanics of different race (e.g. Hispanic Black, Hispanic White) may further explain variations in the burden of breast cancer among Hispanic women. Using data from the SEER 17 population-based registries, we evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and tumor stage, hormone receptor status, and breast cancer-specific mortality. The study cohort of 441,742 women, aged 20-79, who were diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2008, included 44,246 Hispanic whites, 622 Hispanic Blacks, 44,797 non-Hispanic Blacks and 352,077 non-Hispanic whites. Hispanic black, Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women had a 1.5-2.5 fold greater risk of presenting with stage IV breast cancer compared to non-Hispanic whites. All groups were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed with ER+/PR- (1.1-1.5 fold increase) or ER-/PR- (1.4-2.2 fold increase) breast cancer. Hispanic black, Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women had a 10-50 % greater risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to non-Hispanic whites. Our findings underscore the breast cancer disparities that continue to exist for Hispanic and black women, overall, as well as between Hispanic women of different race. These disparities highlight the factors that may lead to the poor outcomes observed among Hispanic and black women diagnosed with breast cancer, and for which targeted strategies aimed at reducing breast cancer disparities could be developed.

For Hispanic women, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT; "Gail Model") combines 1990-1996 breast cancer incidence for Hispanic women with relative risks for breast cancer risk factors from non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. BCRAT risk projections have never been comprehensively evaluated for Hispanic women. We compared the relative risks and calibration of BCRAT risk projections for 6,353 Hispanic to 128,976 NHW postmenopausal participants aged 50 and older in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). Calibration was assessed by the ratio of the number of breast cancers observed with that expected by the BCRAT (O/E). We re-evaluated calibration for an updated BCRAT that combined BCRAT relative risks with 1993-2007 breast cancer incidence that is contemporaneous with the WHI. Cox regression was used to estimate relative risks. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed using the concordance statistic (AUC). In the WHI Main Study, the BCRAT underestimated the number of breast cancers by 18% in both Hispanics (O/E = 1.18, P = 0.06) and NHWs (O/E = 1.18, P < 0.001). Updating the BCRAT improved calibration for Hispanic women (O/E = 1.08, P = 0.4) and NHW women (O/E = 0.98, P = 0.2). For Hispanic women, relative risks for number of breast biopsies (1.71 vs. 1.27, P = 0.03) and age at first birth (0.97 vs. 1.24, P = 0.02) differed between the WHI and BCRAT. The AUC was higher for Hispanic women than NHW women (0.63 vs. 0.58, P = 0.03). Updating the BCRAT with contemporaneous breast cancer incidence rates improved calibration in the WHI. The modest discriminatory accuracy of the BCRAT for Hispanic women might improve by using risk factor relative risks specific to Hispanic women.

Introduction: Evidence suggests Latinas residing along the United States-Mexico border face higher breast cancer mortality rates compared to Latinas in the interior of either country. The purpose of this study was to investigate breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and use of breast cancer preventive screening among U.S. Latina and Mexican women residing along the U.S.-Mexico border., Methods: For this binational cross-sectional study, 265 participants completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire that obtained information on sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge, attitudes, family history, and screening practices. Differences between Mexican (n=128) and U.S. Latina (n=137) participants were assessed by Pearson's chi-square, Fischer's exact test, t tests, and multivariate regression analyses., Results: U.S. Latinas had significantly increased odds of having ever received a mammogram/breast ultrasound (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=2.95) and clinical breast examination (OR=2.67) compared to Mexican participants. A significantly greater proportion of Mexican women had high knowledge levels (54.8%) compared to U.S. Latinas (45.2%, p<0.05). Age, education, and insurance status were significantly associated with breast cancer screening use., Conclusions: Despite having higher levels of breast cancer knowledge than U.S. Latinas, Mexican women along the U.S.-Mexico border are not receiving the recommended breast cancer screening procedures. Although U.S. border Latinas had higher breast cancer screening levels than their Mexican counterparts, these levels are lower than those seen among the general U.S. Latina population. Our findings underscore the lack of access to breast cancer prevention screening services and emphasize the need to ensure that existing breast cancer screening programs are effective in reaching women along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rates of breast cancer (BC) have increased in Mexico, with the highest incidence and mortality rates observed in the northern Mexican states. This study aimed to describe the BC knowledge, attitudes and screening practices among Mexican women with and without a family history of BC residing along the Mexico-US border, and identify factors associated with screening behaviors. One hundred and twenty eight Mexican women aged 40 and older completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge, family history, and screening practices. There were no significant differences between Mexican women with and without a family history. Over 60% of women in both groups had never had a mammogram/breast ultrasound, and more than 50% had never obtained a clinical breast exam. Age, marital status, insurance, and breast cancer knowledge significantly influenced BC screening behaviors among Mexican women. Further research is needed to examine other key factors associated with screening utilization, in effort of improving BC rates.

Background: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among U.S. Hispanic women. Hispanics are less likely than non-Hispanic White women to be diagnosed at an early stage and survive breast cancer., Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we assessed differences in breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening practices between Hispanic women with (FH+) and without (FH-) a family history of breast cancer in three U.S.-Mexico border counties., Results: Among 137 Hispanic women age 40 and older, FH+ women had levels of knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer similar to those of FH- women. FH+ participants were more likely to have ever performed breast self-examinations, although levels of compliance with screening guidelines did not significantly differ between FH+ and FH- groups., Conclusion: U.S. Hispanic women with a family history of breast cancer constitute an at-risk group for which adhering to preventive screening guidelines could substantially reduce breast cancer mortality.