Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28884392›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2018

Socioeconomic status and breast cancer treatment.

Marie S Dreyer, Ann B Nattinger, Emily L McGinley, Liliana E Pezzin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marie S DreyerDepartment of Medicine and Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Suite H3100, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7598-1793
Ann B NattingerDepartment of Medicine and Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Suite H3100, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Emily L McGinleyDepartment of Medicine and Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Suite H3100, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Liliana E PezzinDepartment of Medicine and Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Suite H3100, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. lpezzin@mcw.edu.

Funding

CALIFORNIA COORDINATED CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003862 · DP · CALIFORNIA STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2012 to 2014
$31.5M
Mechanisms Underlying SES Disparities in Breast Cancer MortalityR01CA170945 · NCI · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI NATTINGER, ANN B, PEZZIN, LILIANA E. · 2013 to 2015
$1.2M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS R01 CA170945NCI NIH HHS R01-CA 170945
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvidence suggests substantial disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES). We examine the extent to which receipt of newer, less invasive, or more effective treatments-a plausible source of disparities in survival-varies by SES among elderly women with early-stage breast cancer.

methodsMultivariate regression analyses applied to 11,368 women (age 66-90 years) identified from SEER-Medicare as having invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2006-2009. Socioeconomic status was defined based on Medicaid enrollment and level of poverty of the census tract of residence. All analyses controlled for demographic, clinical health status, spatial, and healthcare system characteristics.

resultsPoor and near-poor women were less likely than high SES women to receive sentinel lymph node biopsy and radiation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Poor women were also less likely than near-poor or high SES women to receive any axillary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in use of aromatase inhibitors (AI) between poor and high SES women. However, near-poor women who initiated hormonal therapy were more likely to rely exclusively on tamoxifen, and less likely to use the more expensive but more effective AI when compared to both poor and high SES women.

conclusionsOur results indicate that SES disparities in the receipt of treatments for incident breast cancer are both pervasive and substantial. These disparities remained despite women's geographic area of residence and extent of disease, suggesting important gaps in access to effective breast cancer care.

Indexed as

Social ClassAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMedicareRadiotherapy, AdjuvantSEER ProgramUnited StatesAdjuvant and neoadjuvant treatmentsBreast cancerSEER-medicareSocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID28884392
PMCPMC5790605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.