Search

PurposeHigher mortality after a breast cancer diagnosis has been observed among women who are obese. We investigated the relationships between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause or breast cancer-specific mortality after a diagnosis of locoregional breast cancer.MethodsWomen diagnosed in 2004 with AJCC Stage I, II, or III breast cancer (n = 5394) were identified from a population-based National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) patterns of care study (POC-BP) drawing from registries in seven U.S. states. Differences in overall and breast cancer-specific mortality were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates, including age- and stage-based subgroup analyses.ResultsIn women 70 or older, higher BMI was associated with lower overall mortality (HR for a 5 kg/m2 difference in BMI = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95). There was no significant association between BMI and overall mortality for women under 70. BMI was not associated with breast cancer death in the full sample, but among women with Stage I disease; those in the highest BMI category had significantly higher breast cancer mortality (HR for BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 vs. 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 = 4.74, 95% CI 1.78-12.59).ConclusionsContrary to our hypothesis, greater BMI was not associated with higher overall mortality. Among older women, BMI was inversely related to overall mortality, with a null association among younger women. Higher BMI was associated with breast cancer mortality among women with Stage I disease, but not among women with more advanced disease.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare yet aggressive form of breast cancer. We examined differences in patient demographics and outcomes in IBC compared to locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and all other breast cancer patients from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study (POC-BP), containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Out of 7,624 cases of invasive carcinoma, IBC and LABC accounted for 2.2% (N = 170) and 4.9% (N = 375), respectively. IBC patients were more likely to have a higher number (P = 0.03) and severity (P = 0.01) of comorbidities than other breast cancer patients. Among IBC patients, a higher percentage of patients with metastatic disease versus nonmetastatic disease were black, on Medicaid, and from areas of higher poverty and more urban areas. Black and Hispanic IBC patients had worse overall and breast cancer-specific survival than white patients; moreover, IBC patients with Medicaid, patients from urban areas, and patients from areas of higher poverty and lower education had worse outcomes. These data highlight the effects of disparities in race and socioeconomic status on the incidence of IBC as well as IBC outcomes. Further work is needed to reveal the causes behind these disparities and methods to improve IBC outcomes.

Objective We investigated patient experience with screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to determine whether a general population of women with dense breasts would accept CEM in a screening setting. Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective study, patients with heterogeneous and extremely dense breasts on their mammogram were invited to undergo screening CEM and complete pre-CEM and post-CEM surveys. On the pre-CEM survey, patients were asked about their attitudes regarding supplemental screening in general. On the post-CEM survey, patients were asked about their experience undergoing screening CEM, including causes and severity of any discomfort and whether they would consider undergoing screening CEM again in the future or recommend it to a friend. Results One hundred sixty-three women were surveyed before and after screening CEM. Most patients, 97.5% (159/163), reported minimal or no unpleasantness associated with undergoing screening CEM. In addition, 91.4% (149/163) said they would probably or very likely undergo screening CEM in the future if it cost the same as a traditional screening mammogram, and 95.1% (155/163) said they would probably or very likely recommend screening CEM to a friend. Patients in this study, who were all willing to undergo CEM, more frequently reported a family history of breast cancer than a comparison cohort of women with dense breasts (58.2% vs 47.1%, P = .027). Conclusion Patients from a general population of women with dense breasts reported a positive experience undergoing screening CEM, suggesting screening CEM might be well received by this patient population, particularly if the cost was comparable with traditional screening mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeInflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer for which treatments vary, so we sought to identify factors that affect the receipt of guideline-concordant care.MethodsPatients diagnosed with IBC in 2004 were identified from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study, containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Variation in guideline-concordant care for IBC, based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, was assessed according to patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.ResultsOf the 107 IBC patients in the study without distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, only 25.8% received treatment concordant with guidelines. Predictors of non-concordance included patient age (≥70 years), non-white race, normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m(2)), patients with physicians graduating from medical school >15 years prior, and smaller hospital size (

Purpose: Develop and test a measurement framework of mammogram facility resources, policies, and practices in Appalachia. Methods: Survey items describing 7 domains of imaging facility qualities were developed and tested in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Medicare claims data (2016‐2018) were obtained on catchment area mammogram services. Construct validity was examined from associations with facility affiliation, community characteristics, mammogram screening uptake, and market reach. Analyses were performed with t‐tests and ANOVA. Results: A total of 192 (of 377) sites completed the survey. Five factors were initially selected in exploratory factor analysis (FA) and refined in confirmatory FA: capacity, outreach & marketing, operational support, radiology review (NNFI =.94, GFI = 0.93), and diagnostic services (NNFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.99). Imaging capacity and diagnostic services were associated with screening uptake, with capacity strongly associated with catchment area demographic and economic characteristics. Imaging facilities in economically affluent versus poorer areas belong to larger health systems and have significantly more resources (P <.001). Facilities in economically distressed locations in Appalachia rely more heavily on outreach activities (P <.001). Higher facility capacity was significantly associated (P <.05) with larger catchment area size (median split: 48.5 vs 51.6), mammogram market share (47.4 vs 52.7), and screening uptake (47.6 vs 52.4). Conclusions: A set of 18 items assessing breast imaging services and facility characteristics was obtained, representing policies and practices related to a facility's catchment area size, market share, and mammogram screening uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]