About this item:

11 Views | 5 Downloads

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Oncology
  • Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
  • HEALTH-INSURANCE
  • SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY
  • INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES
  • SOCIOECONOMIC-STATUS
  • CERVICAL-CANCER
  • UNITED-STATES
  • RISK-FACTORS
  • OLDER WOMEN
  • BODY-MASS
  • RACE

What Predicts an Advanced-Stage Diagnosis of Breast Cancer? Sorting Out the Influence of Method of Detection, Access to Care, and Biologic Factors

Tools:

Journal Title:

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION

Volume:

Volume 25, Number 4

Publisher:

, Pages 613-623

Type of Work:

Article

Abstract:

Background: Multiple studies have yielded important findings regarding the determinants of an advanced-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. We seek to advance this line of inquiry through a broadened conceptual framework and accompanying statistical modeling strategy that recognize the dual importance of access-tocare and biologic factors on stage. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study yielded a seven-state, cancer registry-derived population-based sample of 9,142 women diagnosed with a first primary in situ or invasive breast cancer in 2004. The likelihood of advanced-stage cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIB, IIIC, or IV) was investigated through multivariable regression modeling, with base-case analyses using the method of instrumental variables (IV) to detect and correct for possible selection bias. The robustness of base-case findings was examined through extensive sensitivity analyses. Results: Advanced-stage disease was negatively associated with detection by mammography (P < 0.001) and with age < 50 (P < 0.001), and positively related to black race (P = 0.07), not being privately insured [Medicaid (P = 0.01), Medicare (P = 0.04), uninsured (P = 0.07)], being single (P = 0.06), body mass index > 40 (P= 0.001), a HER2 type tumor (P < 0.001), and tumor grade not well differentiated (P < 0.001). This IV model detected and adjusted for significant selection effects associated with method of detection (P=0.02). Sensitivity analyses generally supported these base-case results. Conclusions: Through our comprehensive modeling strategy andsensitivity analyses,weprovide newestimates of themagnitude androbustness of the determinants ofadvanced-stage breast cancer. Impact: Statistical approaches frequently used to address observational data biases in treatment-outcome studies can be applied similarly in analyses of the determinants of stage at diagnosis.
Export to EndNote