Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 729–738 | Cite as

Disparities in breast cancer characteristics and outcomes by race/ethnicity

  • Siew Loon Ooi
  • Maria Elena Martinez
  • Christopher I. Li
Epidemiology

Abstract

Disparities in breast cancer stage and mortality by race/ethnicity in the United States are persistent and well known. However, few studies have assessed differences across racial/ethnic subgroups of women broadly defined as Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Islander, particularly using more recent data. Using data from 17 population-based cancer registries in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, we evaluated the relationships between race/ethnicity and breast cancer stage, hormone receptor status, treatment, and mortality. The cohort consisted of 229,594 women 40–79 years of age diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma between January 2000 and December 2006, including 176,094 non-Hispanic whites, 20,486 Blacks, 15,835 Hispanic whites, 14,951 Asians, 1,224 Pacific Islanders, and 1,004 American Indians/Alaska Natives. With respect to statistically significant findings, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Indian/Pakistani, Black, Filipino, Hawaiian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Samoan women had 1.3–7.1-fold higher odds of presenting with stage IV breast cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. Almost all groups were more likely to be diagnosed with estrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-negative (ER−/PR−) disease with Black and Puerto Rican women having the highest odds ratios (2.4 and 1.9-fold increases, respectively) compared to non-Hispanic whites. Lastly, Black, Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, and Samoan patients had 1.5–1.8-fold elevated risks of breast cancer-specific mortality. Breast cancer disparities persist by race/ethnicity, though there is substantial variation within subgroups of women broadly defined as Hispanic or Asian. Targeted, multi-pronged interventions that are culturally appropriate may be important means of reducing the magnitudes of these disparities.

Keywords

Breast cancer Disparities Race Ethnicity Stage Estrogen receptor Progesterone receptor Mortality 

Introduction

It is well established that compared to non-Hispanic whites, several racial/ethnic groups, including Blacks, Hispanic whites, and American Indians, are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer and have poorer disease-specific survival rates [10]. These same groups of women are also more likely to be diagnosed with hormone receptor negative tumors [14], which are more aggressive than hormone receptor positive tumors and have a poorer prognosis regardless of factors such as stage of disease [6]. There is clear evidence that over the past two decades the proportion of breast cancers diagnosed at an advanced stage has fallen and survival rates have increased across women of all racial/ethnic groups [10, 23]. However, the relative disparities with respect to stage and mortality have held essentially constant by race/ethnicity [10, 17].

Few studies have assessed breast cancer disparities related to stage or mortality across subgroups of broadly defined racial/ethnic groups, such as Asians, Hispanic whites, and Pacific Islanders. Here, we assess these disparities among six distinct Asian populations, four distinct Hispanic populations, and two distinct Pacific Islander populations. We have previously reported on some of these differences based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data from 1992 to 1998, which was the first to document differences in these disparities across many of these subgroups [3, 15]. An update of this report to both confirm the disparities and to evaluate how they have changed is warranted, particularly since the SEER program was substantially expanded in 2000 and now includes 26% of the United States population. Identification of the types of disparities experienced by each racial/ethnic subgroup can help identify needs specific to different communities and facilitate the development of culturally appropriate strategies to reduce these disparities.

Methods

Women 40–79 years of age without a prior history of any type of cancer who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2006 were identified through 17 population-based cancer registries in the United States that participate in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program. Women less than 40 and 80 years of age and older were excluded. This is because one of the primary outcomes of interest was cancer stage, and stage is influenced by mammographic screening and routine screening is not recommended for women <40 and is less common among women ≥80 years of age. 2000 was chosen as the starting point for this analysis because this was the year when several registries were added to the SEER program. The SEER registries that were included serve the states of California (through the participation of four distinct SEER registries), Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Utah, the areas surrounding Atlanta, Georgia; Detroit, Michigan, and Seattle, Washington; a rural area of Georgia; and the population of Alaskan Natives living in Alaska. It is estimated that more than 95% of all incident cases in the populations under surveillance are ascertained. The primary source of data used by SEER is patient medical records, and further operational details regarding the methodology employed by the SEER program are provided elsewhere [28].

A total of 242,056 women were potentially eligible for this study. To make our race/ethnicity categories mutually exclusive, 195 Black women, 27 American Indian/Alaska Native women, 60 Asian women, and 25 Pacific Islanders who were also categorized as being Hispanic were excluded, as were the 1,610 with an unknown race/ethnicity. Of the remaining 240,139 cases, 10,545 with an unknown AJCC were excluded leaving a total of 229,594 cases.

Our primary exposure of interest was race/ethnicity. Based on SEER data, race/ethnicity was categorized into six broad groups: non-Hispanic white, Black, Hispanic white, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native. SEER also collects more detailed data on Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander subgroups. Analyses were conducted on the following subgroups: Hispanics–Mexican, South/Central American, Puerto Rican, and Cuban women; Asians–Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indian/Pakistani, Korean, and Vietnamese women; and Pacific Islanders–Hawaiian, and Samoan women.

Our primary outcomes of interest were AJCC stage, joint estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status, receipt of appropriate treatment, and breast cancer-specific mortality. Data on AJCC stage and ER/PR status are directly available in the SEER data. The 14,444 women with missing stage data and the additional 40,182 women missing ER/PR status were excluded, leaving a final total of 229,594 women included in our analyses. We were also interested in assessing whether or not the primary surgical and radiation treatments given to women of different races/ethnicities with stages I and II breast carcinomas less than 2.0 cm in size met current standards of care outlined by national comprehensive cancer network using methodology consistent with previous reports [2, 20]. Women were categorized as having received an appropriate first course of treatment if they either received a total mastectomy or had breast conserving surgery (BCS) with axillary node dissection and radiation. Women who had BCS but did not receive axillary node dissection and/or radiation were categorized as having received inappropriate treatment. This analysis was limited to women with tumors <2.0 cm because of the potential benefit those with larger tumors experience with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Our final outcome of interest was breast cancer-specific mortality. Information on vital status and survival time is obtained annually by each registry through a variety of data sources. SEER calculates survival time in months beginning with the month and year of diagnosis, and in this study the outcome of interest was death due to breast cancer. So, women were followed until whichever of the following occurred first: (1) date of death due to breast cancer, (2) date of death due to a cause other than breast cancer (censored), (3) date last known to be alive, or (4) December 31, 2006, the follow-up cutoff date used in this analysis.

Associations between race/ethnicity and AJCC stage, ER/PR status, and treatment were estimated using polytomous logistic regression. Risks of mortality by race/ethnicity were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. In all analyses non-Hispanic white women served as the reference race/ethnicity, and risk estimates were adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, SEER registry, and county level measures of poverty and education according to how they are categorized in Table 1. Analyses of ER/PR status and treatment were additionally adjusted for AJCC stage. For risk of mortality we conducted analyses additionally adjusted for AJCC stage, surgical and radiation treatments, and ER/PR status. All analyses were conducted using Stata/SE 10.1 for Windows (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA) statistical software.
Table 1

Characteristics of the 229,594 breast cancer cases by race/ethnicity

 

Non-Hispanic whites (n = 176,094)

Blacks (n = 20,486)

Hispanic whites (n = 14,951)

Asians (n = 14,951)

Pacific Islanders  (n = 1,224)

American Indians/Alaska Natives  (n = 1,004)

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Age of diagnosis (years)

 40–49

37,015

21.0

5,816

28.4

5,157

32.6

4,503

30.1

323

26.4

307

30.6

 50–59

52,288

29.7

6,457

31.5

4,783

30.2

4,826

32.3

412

33.7

331

33.0

 60–69

46,260

26.3

4,805

23.5

3,525

22.3

3,318

22.2

315

25.7

225

22.4

 70–79

40,531

23.0

3,408

16.6

2,370

15.0

2,304

15.4

174

14.2

141

14.0

Mean ± standard deviation

59.7 ± 10.8

57.3 ± 10.6

56.4 ± 10.6

56.7 ± 10.5

57.2 ± 10.1

56.5 ± 10.2

Year of diagnosis

 2000

26,581

15.1

2,833

13.8

1,904

12.0

1,879

12.6

138

11.3

131

13.0

 2001

26,916

15.3

2,850

13.9

2,020

12.8

1,993

13.3

190

15.5

132

13.1

 2002

26,354

15.0

2,986

14.6

2,257

14.3

2,210

14.8

176

14.4

125

12.5

 2003

24,549

13.9

2,983

14.6

2,249

14.2

2,061

13.8

193

15.8

162

16.1

 2004

24,064

13.7

3,006

14.7

2,341

14.8

2,197

14.7

178

14.5

147

14.6

 2005

23,651

13.4

2,740

13.4

2,563

16.2

2,281

15.3

186

15.2

157

15.6

 2006

23,979

13.6

3,088

15.1

2,501

15.8

2,330

15.6

163

13.3

150

14.9

SEER registry

 Alaska Natives

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

282

28.1

 Atlanta

5,479

3.1

2,522

12.3

146

0.9

200

1.3

3

0.2

5

0.5

 Connecticut

11,164

6.3

766

3.7

454

2.9

135

0.9

6

0.5

10

1.0

 Detroit

10,131

5.8

2,870

14.0

110

0.7

136

0.9

1

0.1

8

0.8

 Greater California

43,538

24.7

2,038

9.9

5,726

36.2

3,354

22.4

131

10.7

201

20.0

 Hawaii

1,135

0.6

20

0.1

62

0.4

2,138

14.3

828

67.6

18

1.8

 Iowa

9,372

5.3

117

0.6

58

0.4

27

0.2

2

0.2

17

1.7

 Kentucky

12,176

6.9

834

4.1

41

0.3

43

0.3

4

0.3

1

0.1

 Los Angeles

14,546

8.3

2,787

13.6

4,746

30.0

3,484

23.3

66

5.4

30

3.0

 Louisiana

9,058

5.1

3,591

17.5

94

0.6

73

0.5

3

0.2

9

0.9

 New Jersey

23,073

13.1

3,039

14.8

1,485

9.4

1,047

7.0

29

2.4

13

1.3

 New Mexico

3,665

2.1

54

0.3

1,021

6.4

44

0.3

0

0.0

184

18.3

 Rural Georgia

258

0.1

124

0.6

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

 San Francisco-Oakland

9,547

5.4

1,194

5.8

895

5.7

2,330

15.6

73

6.0

22

2.2

 San Jose-Monterey

5,002

2.8

124

0.6

678

4.3

1,070

7.2

19

1.6

12

1.2

 Seattle-Puget Sound

13,183

7.5

386

1.9

170

1.1

798

5.3

39

3.2

174

17.3

 Utah

4,767

2.7

20

0.1

148

0.9

72

0.5

20

1.6

18

1.8

% of population in country living below 200% of the federal poverty level in the year 2000, quartiles

 >36.74

38,927

22.1

6,193

30.2

7,800

49.3

4,215

28.2

97

7.9

282

28.1

 28.36–36.73

42,292

24.0

7,222

35.3

3,662

23.1

2,040

13.6

218

17.8

179

17.8

 19.74–28.35

45,222

25.7

4,221

20.6

2,497

15.8

5,315

35.5

807

65.9

413

41.1

 <19.73

49,653

28.2

2,850

13.9

1,876

11.8

3,381

22.6

102

8.3

130

12.9

% of population in country with less than a high school education in the year 2000, quartiles

  >25.06

36,970

21.0

6,163

30.1

8,151

51.5

4,378

29.3

108

8.8

155

15.4

 17.64–25.05

45,606

25.9

7,671

37.4

3,324

21.0

3,231

21.6

80

6.5

161

16.0

 14.73–17.63

41,906

23.8

4,160

20.3

2,996

18.9

4,908

32.8

909

74.3

170

16.9

 <14.72

51,612

29.3

2,492

12.2

1,364

8.6

2,434

16.3

127

10.4

518

51.6

Results

Non-Hispanic white women were somewhat older at diagnosis compared to women in each of the other racial/ethnic groups (Table 1). The proportions of patients that were non-Hispanic white generally decreased from 2000 to 2006, whereas they increased somewhat among Blacks, Hispanic whites, Asians, and American Indians/Alaska Natives. Non-Hispanic white women most frequently came from the Greater California and New Jersey registries; Black women from Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Louisiana, and New Jersey; Hispanic whites from Greater California and Los Angeles, Asians from Greater California, Hawaii, Los Angeles, and San Francisco-Oakland; Pacific Islanders from Hawaii and Greater California; and American Indians/Alaska Natives from the Alaska Natives, Greater California, New Mexico, and Seattle-Puget Sound registries. Higher proportions of Blacks, Hispanic whites, Asians, and American Indians/Alaska Natives lived in counties where higher proportions of the population were living below 200% of the federal poverty level based on 2000 census data. Higher proportions of Hispanic whites, Blacks, and Asians lived in counties where higher proportions of the population had less than a high school education.

With respect to statistically significant findings (P < 0.05), compared with non-Hispanic white women, Black, Hispanic white, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native women had 1.5–2.5-fold higher odds of presenting with stage IV tumors (Table 2). Among Hispanic whites, Mexican and Puerto Rican women had the highest odds of presenting with stage IV disease (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6–2.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1, respectively). Among Asians, both Chinese and Japanese women were 30% less likely while Filipino and Asian Indian/Pakistani women were 30 and 50%, respectively, more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease. Samoan women had the highest odds of having stage IV breast cancer of any of the women studied (OR 7.1, 95% CI 3.6–14.0), though both Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander women were also more likely to present with stage IV disease.
Table 2

Risk of advanced stage breast cancer by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Stage IV

n

%

n

%

OR

95% CI

n

%

OR

95% CI

n

%

OR

95% CI

Non-Hispanic white

88,505

50.3

65,922

37.4

1.0

Ref

14,228

8.1

1.0

Ref

7,439

4.2

1.0

Ref

Black

7,257

35.4

8,836

43.1

1.5

1.5–1.6*

2,726

13.3

2.1

2.0–2.2*

1,667

8.1

2.5

2.4–2.7*

Hispanic white

6,060

38.3

6,914

43.7

1.4

1.3–1.5*

2,114

13.4

1.8

1.7–1.9*

747

4.7

1.5

1.3–1.6*

Asian

7,096

47.5

6,001

40.1

1.1

1.1–1.2*

1,326

8.9

1.1

1.1–1.2*

528

3.5

1.0

0.9–1.1

Pacific Islander

508

41.5

511

41.7

1.6

1.4–1.8*

132

10.8

2.0

1.6–2.5*

73

6.0

2.4

1.8–3.1*

American Indian/Alaska Native

448

44.6

403

40.1

1.2

1.0–1.4*

89

8.9

1.3

1.0–1.8*

64

6.4

2.3

1.7–3.0*

Hispanic subgroups

 Mexican

1,569

33.8

2,090

45.0

1.6

1.5–1.7*

751

16.2

2.4

2.2–2.7*

232

5.0

1.8

1.6–2.1*

 South or Central American

902

41.2

925

42.3

1.2

1.1–1.4*

271

12.4

1.6

1.4–1.8*

89

4.1

1.1

0.9–1.4

 Puerto Rican

250

38.3

280

42.9

1.5

1.2–1..7*

86

13.2

2.1

1.6–2.7*

37

5.7

1.5

1.1–2.1*

 Cuban

159

43.2

144

39.1

1.2

1.0–1.5

42

11.4

1.6

1.1–2.3*

23

6.3

1.4

0.9–2.2

 Other Hispanics

3,324

39.8

3,627

43.4

1.4

1.3–1.4*

1,011

12.1

1.6

1.5–1.7*

386

4.6

1.4

1.2–1.5*

Asian Subgroups

 Filipino

1,892

43.6

1,812

41.7

1.2

1.2–1.3*

451

10.4

1.4

1.3–1.6*

189

4.4

1.3

1.1–1.5*

 Chinese

1,451

50.2

1,134

39.2

1.0

0.9–1.1

225

7.8

0.9

0.8–1.0

83

2.9

0.7

0.6–0.9*

 Japanese

1,503

56.5

919

34.6

0.9

0.8–1.0*

165

6.2

0.8

0.7–1.0*

71

2.7

0.7

0.5–0.9*

 Asian Indian/Pakistani

436

41.3

447

42.3

1.3

1.2–1.5*

118

11.2

1.5

1.2–1.8*

55

5.2

1.5

1.1–1.9*

 Korean

444

43.8

442

43.6

1.2

1.1–1.4*

97

9.6

1.2

0.9–1.5

31

3.1

0.9

0.6–1.2

 Vietnamese

397

45.5

351

40.3

1.1

0.9–1.3

93

10.7

1.3

1.0–1.6*

31

3.6

1.0

0.7–1.5

 Other Asians

1,002

46.1

921

42.4

1.2

1.1–1.3*

182

8.4

1.0

0.9–1.2

69

3.2

0.9

0.7–1.1

Pacific Islander subgroups

 Hawaiian

390

44.1

368

41.6

1.5

1.2–1.7*

83

9.4

1.7

1.3–2.2*

44

5.0

1.8

1.3–2.6*

 Samoan

26

21.7

59

49.2

3.1

1.9–4.9*

22

18.3

5.5

3.1–9.8*

13

10.8

7.1

3.6–14.0*

 Other Pacific Islanders

106

43.4

91

37.3

1.1

0.9–1.5

31

12.7

1.7

1.1–2.6*

16

6.6

2.9

2.0–4.4*

P < 0.05

Note: Non-Hispanic white women served as the reference race/ethnicity and all odds ratios (OR) are adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, SEER registry, and county level measures of poverty and education

Compared with non-Hispanic white women, Black, Hispanic white, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women had 1.2–2.4-fold higher odds of being diagnosed with ER−/PR− breast cancer (Table 3). Among Hispanic whites, Mexican, South or Central American and Puerto Rican women had higher likelihood of being diagnosed with ER−/PR− breast cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4–1.6, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.5 and OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6–2.3, respectively). Among Asians, Japanese women had a 20% lower odds of having ER−/PR− breast cancer, whereas Korean women had the highest OR (1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Black women had the highest odds of being diagnosed with ER−/PR− breast cancer of any of the racial/ethnic groups studied (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.3–2.5).
Table 3

Risk of breast cancer by estrogen and progesterone status by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity

ER +/PR+

ER +/PR−

ER−/PR−

n

%

n

%

OR

95% CI

n

%

OR

95% CI

Non-Hispanic white

102,537

68.4

19,528

13.0

1.0

ref

27,824

 

1.0

ref

Black

8,214

49.4

2,175

13.1

1.3

1.3–1.4*

6,230

37.5

2.4

2.3–2.5*

Hispanic white

7,868

61.4

1,634

12.8

1.1

1.0–1.2*

3,310

25.8

1.4

1.3–1.5*

Asian

8,417

66.2

1,606

12.6

1.1

1.0–1.2*

2,682

21.1

1.2

1.2–1.3*

Pacific Islander

783

70.9

114

10.3

0.9

0.7–1.1

208

18.8

1.1

0.9–1.2

American Indian/Alaska Native

571

65.3

96

11.0

0.8

0.6–1.1

208

23.8

1.3

1.1–1.6*

Hispanic Subgroups

 Mexican

2,239

60.1

440

11.8

1.0

0.9–1.2

1,048

28.1

1.5

1.4–1.6*

 South or Central American

1,089

61.8

233

13.2

1.1

1.0–1.3

441

25.0

1.4

1.2–1.5*

 Puerto Rican

290

54.9

73

13.8

1.2

0.9–1.6

165

31.3

1.9

1.6–2.3*

 Cuban

203

70.7

34

11.8

0.8

0.5–1.1

50

17.4

0.9

0.7–1.2

 Other Hispanics

4,237

62.2

892

13.1

1.1

1.0–1.2*

1,686

24.7

1.3

1.3–1.4*

Asian subgroups

 Filipino

2,343

64.0

484

13.2

1.1

1.0–1.3*

834

22.8

1.3

1.2–1.4*

 Chinese

1,633

66.6

317

12.9

1.1

1.0–1.3*

501

20.4

1.2

1.0–1..2*

 Japanese

1,699

73.5

280

12.1

1.0

0.8–1.1

332

14.4

0.8

0.7–0.9*

 Asian Indian/Pakistani

558

62.3

108

12.1

1.0

0.8–1.3

229

25.6

1.4

1.2–1.6*

 Korean

544

62.5

100

11.5

1.1

0.9–1.3

227

26.1

1.5

1.3–1.7*

 Vietnamese

448

62.9

82

11.5

1.1

0.8–1.4

182

25.6

1.4

1.2–1.7*

 Other Asians

1,228

66.3

240

13.0

1.1

1.0–1.3

385

20.8

1.2

1.0–1.3*

Pacific Islander subgroups

 Hawaiian

582

72.5

85

10.6

0.9

0.7–1.2

136

16.9

0.9

0.7–1.1

 Samoan

75

70.1

9

8.4

0.7

0.3–1.3

23

21.5

0.9

0.6–1.5

 Other Pacific Islanders

143

65.6

23

10.6

0.9

0.6–1.4

52

23.9

1.3

0.9–1.8

P < 0.05

Note: Non-Hispanic white women served as the reference race/ethnicity and all odds ratios (OR) are adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, AJCC stage, SEER registry, and county level measures of poverty and education

Among women with stage I or II breast carcinomas <2.0 cm in size, compared with non-Hispanic white women, Black, and Hispanic white women had increased odds of receiving inappropriate primary surgical and radiation breast cancer treatment (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.6 and OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3, respectively) (Table 4). Among Hispanic whites, Mexican and South or Central American women had the highest likelihood of receiving inappropriate treatment (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.5 and OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7, respectively). Samoan women had the highest OR of receiving inappropriate treatment of any of the racial/ethnic subgroups studied (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.0–13.0).
Table 4

Risk of inappropriate treatment for early stage breast cancer by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity

Standard treatment

Inappropriate treatment

n

%

n

%

OR

95% CI

Non-Hispanic white

94,779

94.2

5,876

5.8

1.0

Ref

Black

7,716

92.0

672

8.0

1.5

1.3–1.6*

Hispanic white

6,549

93.6

451

6.4

1.2

1.1–1.3*

Asian

7,564

94.6

431

5.4

1.0

0.9–1.2

Pacific Islander

539

92.9

41

7.1

1.4

1.0–1.9

American Indian/Alaska Native

476

93.9

31

6.1

1.3

0.8–2.0

Hispanic subgroups

 Mexican

1,743

94.3

106

5.7

1.2

1.0–1.5*

 South or Central American

961

92.8

75

7.2

1.3

1.0–1.7*

 Puerto Rican

273

91.6

25

8.4

1.2

0.8–1.8

 Cuban

159

92.4

13

7.6

1.0

0.6–1.8

 Other Hispanics

3,573

93.5

247

6.5

1.2

1.1–1.4*

Asian subgroups

 Filipino

1,991

94.7

112

5.3

1.0

0.9–1.3

 Chinese

1,572

94.6

90

5.4

1.0

0.8–1.3

 Japanese

1,585

94.0

102

6.0

0.9

0.7–1.1

 Asian Indian/Pakistani

461

95.4

22

4.6

0.9

0.6–1.3

 Korean

485

94.2

30

5.8

1.3

0.9–1.8

 Vietnamese

412

95.2

21

4.8

1.1

0.7–1.8

 Other Asians

1,093

95.0

57

5.0

1.1

0.9–1.5

Pacific Islander subgroups

 Hawaiian

418

93.3

30

6.7

1.2

0.8–1.8

 Samoan

21

77.8

6

22.2

5.1

2.0–13.0*

 Other Pacific Islanders

113

95.0

6

5.0

1.1

0.5–2.4

P < 0.05

Note: Non-Hispanic white women served as the reference race/ethnicity and all odds ratios (OR) are adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, AJCC stage, SEER registry, and county level measures of poverty and education

Compared with non-Hispanic white women, Black, Hispanic white, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native women had 1.4–2.4-fold greater risks of breast cancer specific mortality, adjusting for diagnosis age, year, and SEER registry (Table 5). Elevations in risk of mortality were still observed, though attenuated, in Black, Hispanic white, and Pacific Islander women, after additionally adjusting for stage, ER/PR status, surgical and radiation treatments, and county level measures of poverty and education. Among Hispanic whites, Puerto Rican women had the highest risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in our multivariate-adjusted model (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.1). Among Asians, Japanese women had 20% lower breast cancer-specific mortality risks, after multivariate adjustment (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6–1.0). Among Pacific Islanders, both Hawaiian and Samoan women had increased risk of mortality (multivariate-adjusted OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.0 and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0, respectively).
Table 5

Risk of breast cancer specific mortality by race/ethnicity

 

Alive

Dead

Adjusted for age and registry

Multivariate adjusted

HR

95% CI

HR

95% CI

Non-Hispanic white

165,271

10,823

1.0

ref

1.0

ref

Black

17,678

2,808

2.4

2.3–2.5*

1.5

1.4–1.6*

Hispanic white

14,647

1,188

1.4

1.3–1.5*

1.1

1.0–1.2*

Asian

1,407

744

1.0

0.9–1.1

0.9

0.8–1.0

Pacific Islander

1,125

99

1.8

1.5–2.3*

1.5

1.2–1.9-

American Indian/Alaska Native

925

79

1.6

1.3–2.1*

1.1

0.8–1.4

Hispanic subgroups

 Mexican

4,259

383

1.7

1.5–1.8*

1.1

0.9–1.2

 South or Central American

2,052

135

1.1

1.0–1.4

1.0

0.8–1.2

 Puerto Rican

570

83

2.2

1.8–2.8*

1.7

1.3–2.1*

 Cuban

328

40

1.8

1.3–2.5*

1.4

0.9–2.1

 Other Hispanics

7,770

578

1.3

1.2–1.4*

1.1

0.9–1.2

Asian subgroups

 Filipino

4,063

281

1.2

1.1–1.4*

1.1

0.9–1.2

 Chinese

2,761

132

0.9

0.7–1.0

1.0

0.8–1.2

 Japanese

2,553

105

0.7

0.6–0.9*

0.8

0.6–1.0*

 Asian Indian/Pakistani

1,002

54

1.0

0.8–1.3

0.7

0.5–1.0*

 Korean

958

53

1.1

0.9–1.5

1.0

0.8–1.4

 Vietnamese

827

45

1.1

0.8–1.4

1.0

0.7–1.4

 Other Asians

2,100

74

0.7

0.6–0.9*

0.6

0.5–0.8*

Pacific Islander subgroups

 Hawaiian

817

68

1.6

1.2–2.0*

1.5

1.1–2.0*

 Samoan

101

19

3.7

2.4–5.9*

1.8

1.1–3.0*

 Other Pacific Islanders

228

16

1.5

0.9–2.4

1.2

0.7–2.0

P < 0.05

Note: Non-Hispanic white women served as the reference race/ethnicity and all odds ratios (OR) are adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, SEER registry, AJCC stage, ER/PR status, surgical and radiation treatments, and county level measures of poverty and education

Discussion

The results of our study (summarized in Table 6) are consistent with multiple prior studies that have evaluated various aspects of breast cancer disparities by race/ethnicity. Specifically, it is consistent with the literature demonstrating that compared to non-Hispanic white women, Black [3, 15, 18, 22], Hispanic white [13, 15, 16, 18, 22], Hawaiian [4, 7, 15], and American Indian [15, 26, 27] women present with more advanced stages of breast cancer and have greater risks of mortality after a breast cancer diagnosis. It has also been previously reported that Japanese women have better breast cancer survival rates compared to non-Hispanic white women [4, 19]; that Black and Hispanic white women are more likely to receive inappropriate treatments [3, 15]; and that Black, Hispanic white and American Indian women are more likely to present with tumors that were ER− or PR− [11, 14, 16, 21]. Beyond confirming that all of these disparities persist in the United States through 2006, a unique contribution is the characterization of breast cancer disparities impacting Pacific Islander women. These women, and in particular Samoan women, were among those experiencing disparities with the highest magnitudes. Specifically, Samoan women had substantially higher odds of presenting with Stage IV disease (OR 7.1) and receiving inappropriate treatment for early stage breast cancer (OR 5.1), and the highest risk of any group of breast cancer mortality (HR 1.8) despite being one of the only groups to have a similar risk of ER−/PR− disease compared to non-Hispanic whites. This suggests that the disparities these women experience are primarily related to issues of access to care with respect to both screening and follow-up after a breast cancer diagnosis rather than differences in tumor biology. These disparities have not been previously well characterized as most prior studies have combined Pacific Islander women with Asian women in their analyses despite the fact that they are a racially diverse group of people with respect to genetics, socioeconomic status (SES), and culture.
Table 6

Summary of breast cancer disparities by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity

Stage IV

ER−/PR−

Inappropriate treatment

Multivariate-adjusted risk of breast cancer-specific mortality

Non-Hispanic white

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

Black

↑↑

↑↑

Hispanic

Asian

-

-

Pacific Islander

↑↑

-

-

American Indian/Alaska Natives

↑↑

-

-

Hispanic subgroups

 Mexican

-

 South or Central American

-

-

 Puerto Rican

-

 Cuban

-

-

-

-

Asian subgroups

 Filipino

-

-

 Chinese

-

-

 Japanese

-

 Asian Indian/Pakistani

-

 Korean

-

-

-

 Vietnamese

-

-

-

Pacific Islander subgroups

 Hawaiian

-

-

 Samoan

↑↑

-

↑↑

↑ Denotes a statistically significant increase ≤2.0 in magnitude

↑↑ Denotes a statistically significant increase >2.0 in magnitude

↓ Denotes a statistically significant decrease

– Denotes not statistically different from non-Hispanic whites

Black breast cancer patients continue to fare quite poorly as they had elevated likelihood of having all four adverse breast outcomes assessed here. This suggests that disparities are impacting Black women across the breast cancer spectrum with respect to access and utilization of screening and preventive services, clinical care subsequent to breast cancer diagnosis, and long-term follow-up care and clinical management for Black breast cancer survivors. These results support continued multi-pronged efforts to address these disparities in Black communities throughout the United States.

We observed distinct differences with respect to breast cancer stage, treatment, and mortality risks within the broadly defined racial/ethnic group of Hispanic whites, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. With respect to Hispanic white women of the four subgroups assessed, Mexican women had the highest likelihood of presenting with stages III and IV breast cancer, Puerto Rican women were the most frequently diagnosed with ER−/PR− disease, only Mexican and South/Central American women had higher likelihood of receiving inappropriate treatment, and only Puerto Rican women had an increased risk of mortality in the multivariate-adjusted model. As each outcome measured is an indicator of different types of disparities, this information could be potentially useful in designing public health strategies. For example, the high likelihood of advanced stage cancer among Mexican women suggests that efforts to promote breast cancer screening and/or timely access to care after an abnormal mammogram may be of particular importance in this population, while the high risk of mortality among Puerto Rican women indicates that efforts to ensure that Puerto Rican breast cancer survivors get adequate treatment and follow-up care may be needed.

Even greater heterogeneity was observed among Asian subgroups. Japanese women consistently had better outcomes than non-Hispanic white women in several respects including lower odds of having stage IV breast cancer, ER−/PR− disease, and lower mortality risk. The picture was more mixed for other Asian subgroups as Chinese women also had lower likelihood of presenting with stage IV disease but more likely to have ER−/PR− disease and Asian Indian/Pakistani women had odds of having stages III and IV breast cancer but had a lower risk of mortality. With the exception of higher odds of ER−/PR− disease, Korean and Vietnamese women were similar to non-Hispanic whites in other respects. Lastly, of all the Asian subgroups, Filipino women in general had the poorest outcomes compared to the other Asian subgroups in that they were more likely to present with advanced stage and with ER−/PR− breast cancer. Again, consideration of the nature of the disparities each subgroup experienced could be useful in developing strategies to address them.

We also found that Alaska Native/American Indian women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage and ER−/PR− breast cancer. Our results agree with previous studies that show that American Indian/Alaska Native women are more likely to be diagnosed with late stage breast cancer. Prior studies also suggest that these women are more likely to die of breast cancer [27], even after adjustment for definitive therapy [26]; however, results of our study did not show differences in mortality. While it is possible that relative mortality rates for these women have improved, there is also considerable heterogeneity across American Indian/Alaska Native populations, which could contribute to this difference.

While many of the relative disparities persist, including with respect to receipt of appropriate treatment for early stage breast cancer, one encouraging difference we found is in the higher proportions of women with early stage disease who do receive appropriate treatment across all races/ethnicities. While our study that included data from 1992 to 1998 found that the percentage of women receiving appropriate therapy ranged from 77.1 to 86.3% across races/ethnicities, the more recent 2000–2006 data shown here indicate that with the exception of Samoan women, 91.6–95.4% of women across races/ethnicities received appropriate treatment.

One potential limitation of our study was that race/ethnicity was determined via medical record reviews only, and is also subjected to misclassification of race/ethnicity, which has been shown to vary by race/ethnicity [8]. Consequently, a sizable proportion of Asian, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic white women were classified as “other” or “not-otherwise-specified” (NOS) (14.5, 19.5, and 51.5%, respectively). Precisely how our point estimates would have changed if these women, and particularly the larger number of Hispanic whites, NOS, could have been correctly classified into a subgroup is unknown. In general though, the point estimates for the “other” groups were consistent with those for the broader classifications. Another potential limitation is misclassification of our various outcomes. For example, ER/PR data also came from medical record data and so variation in the methods used to evaluate and interpret ER and PR status across hospitals and geographic regions could contribute to this misclassification. Lastly, a lack of data on individual level socioeconomic variables as well as other factors such as family history of breast cancer, lifestyle factors, anthropometric characteristics, and treatment with hormonal therapy and chemotherapy precludes us from evaluating these exposures as potential confounders or effect modifiers of the relationships observed.

The disparities identified here are multifactorial and due to a combination of several factors including those related to socioeconomic status, access to health care, lifestyle and cultural differences, and cancer biology. All these factors have the potential to influence disparities at several points along the spectrum of breast cancer clinical care from prevention and screening services, to diagnosis and treatment, and to long-term follow-up and survivorship. We demonstrate here that many breast cancer disparities persist after adjusting for various aspects of these disparities. Other studies with more detailed individual level data have shown that some disparities are attenuated or disappear after adjusting for certain factors, while other show that they persist [5, 9, 12, 24, 25]. For example, one study compared breast cancer outcomes among underinsured Black and non-Hispanic white patients treated in an equal healthcare access setting over a 10-year period (1997–2006) [12]. It has been found that Black patients had a poorer breast cancer-specific survival rate compared to non-Hispanic white patients, but that after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors this difference was no longer statistically significant. Similar attenuation was seen in another study that evaluated breast cancer outcomes in a population with low SES and similar access to healthcare [5]. 60% of the patients in the two hospitals studied were Blacks and over two-thirds of patients had either Medicaid coverage or no insurance, and here 5-year overall survival rates for Black and Caucasian patients were similar. In contrast, a study of breast cancer incidence observed that even after adjusting for factors associated with SES, a disparity in breast cancer incidence persisted among Blacks [24]. The authors utilized several studies (published between 1990 and 2007) that addressed disparities in breast cancer incidence across racial and socioeconomic strata to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing the highest to the lowest strata of SES for white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander populations. They found that the magnitude of the disparity in breast cancer incidence between races decreased as SES increased. However, when adjusted for factors closely associated with SES, disparities in breast cancer incidence between white, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific-Islander were no longer seen, but did persist in the comparison between white and Black women. With respect to disparities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment delay by race/ethnicity, in a study of 49,865 female Medicare recipients 65 years and older diagnosed with breast cancer during a 7-year period (1992–1999), Black women most frequently experienced delays in both initial diagnosis and initiation of breast cancer treatment relative to women of other races/ethnicities in a multivariate-adjusted model that included access to healthcare [9, 25]. Diagnostic and therapeutic delays were also found to contribute to breast and cervical cancer disparity in a population-based sampling and cross-sectional design study, which showed that Hispanic whites are more likely to report diagnostic delays while Blacks are more likely to report therapeutic delays [1]. However, breast cancer disparities by race/ethnicity seem to be less affected by mammography usage during our study time period. Mammography usage based on Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data indicate that from 1993 to 2003 mammography utilization has been similar among Black and non-Hispanic women [23].

While many other studies have also addressed these issues, the studies described above are illustrative of the complexity and multifactorial nature of racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer. Our study shows that despite ongoing efforts, breast cancer disparities by race and ethnicity persist in the United States and in particular quantitates disparities present in smaller racial/ethnic subgroups that have not been previously well studied. Importantly, our study identifies the types of disparities faced by distinct racial/ethnic subgroups and can potentially help inform further development and implementation of specific strategies to address them.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (Grant number R25-CA94880).

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Ashing-Giwa KT, Gonzalez P, Lim JW, Chung C, Paz B, Somlo G, Wakabayashi MT (2010) Diagnostic and therapeutic delays among a multiethnic sample of breast and cervical cancer survivors. Cancer 116:3195–3204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballard-Barbash R, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Nayfield SG, Kessler LG (1996) Factors associated with surgical and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer in older women. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:716–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berz JP, Johnston K, Backus B, Doros G, Rose AJ, Pierre S, Battaglia TA (2009) The influence of black race on treatment and mortality for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care 47:986–992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun KL, Fong M, Gotay CC, Chong CD (2004) Ethnic differences in breast cancer in Hawai’i: age, stage, hormone receptor status, and survival. Pac Health Dialog 11:146–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu QD, Smith MH, Williams M, Panu L, Johnson LW, Shi R, Li BD, Glass J (2009) Race/Ethnicity has no effect on outcome for breast cancer patients treated at an academic center with a public hospital. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:2157–2161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA, Li CI (2007) Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 9:R6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goggins WB, Wong GK (2007) Poor survival for US Pacific Islander cancer patients: evidence from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database: 1991 to 2004. J Clin Oncol 25:5738–5741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomez SL, Glaser SL (2006) Misclassification of race/ethnicity in a population-based cancer registry (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17:771–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorin SS, Heck JE, Cheng B, Smith SJ (2006) Delays in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment by racial/ethnic group. Arch Intern Med 166:2244–2252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harper S, Lynch J, Meersman SC, Breen N, Davis WW, Reichman MC (2009) Trends in area-socioeconomic and race-ethnic disparities in breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, screening, mortality, and survival among women ages 50 years and over (1987–2005). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:121–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hausauer AK, Keegan TH, Chang ET, Clarke CA (2007) Recent breast cancer trends among Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and African-American women in the US: changes by tumor subtype. Breast Cancer Res 9:R90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komenaka IK, Martinez ME, Pennington RE, Jr., Hsu CH, Clare SE, Thompson PA, Murphy C, Zork NM, Goulet RJ, Jr. (2010) Race and ethnicity and breast cancer outcomes in an underinsured population. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1178–1187Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kouri EM, He Y, Winer EP, Keating NL (2010) Influence of birthplace on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment for Hispanic women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121:743–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Daling JR (2002) Differences in breast cancer hormone receptor status and histology by race and ethnicity among women 50 years of age and older. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:601–607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Daling JR (2003) Differences in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity. Arch Intern Med 163:49–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martinez ME, Nielson CM, Nagle R, Lopez AM, Kim C, Thompson P (2007) Breast cancer among Hispanic and non-Hispanic White women in Arizona. J Health Care Poor Underserved 18:130–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDougall JA, Li CI (2010) Trends in distant stage breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer incidence rates from 1992–2004. Hormones Cancer 1:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menck HR, Mills PK (2001) The influence of urbanization, age, ethnicity, and income on the early diagnosis of breast carcinoma: opportunity for screening improvement. Cancer 92:1299–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meng L, Maskarinec G, Lee J (1997) Ethnicity and conditional breast cancer survival in Hawaii. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1289–1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nattinger AB, Hoffmann RG, Kneusel RT, Schapira MM (2000) Relation between appropriateness of primary therapy for early-stage breast carcinoma and increased use of breast-conserving surgery. Lancet 356:1148–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Setiawan VW, Monroe KR, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN, Pike MC, Henderson BE (2009) Breast cancer risk factors defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 169:1251–1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shavers VL, Harlan LC, Stevens JL (2003) Racial/ethnic variation in clinical presentation, treatment, and survival among breast cancer patients under age 35. Cancer 97:134–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smigal C, Jemal A, Ward E, Cokkinides V, Smith R, Howe HL, Thun M (2006) Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity: update 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56:168–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vainshtein J (2008) Disparities in breast cancer incidence across racial/ethnic strata and socioeconomic status: a systematic review. J Natl Med Assoc 100:833–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vona-Davis L, Rose DP (2009) The influence of socioeconomic disparities on breast cancer tumor biology and prognosis: a review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wampler NS, Lash TL, Silliman RA, Heeren TC (2005) Breast cancer survival of American Indian/Alaska Native women, 1973–1996. Soz Praventivmed 50:230–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wingo PA, King J, Swan J, Coughlin SS, Kaur JS, Erb-Alvarez JA, Jackson-Thompson J, Arambula Solomon TG (2008) Breast cancer incidence among American Indian and Alaska native women: US, 1999–2004. Cancer 113:1191–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Young JL, Jr., Percy CL, Asire AJ, Berg JW, Cusano MM, Gloeckler LA, Horm JW, Lourie WI, Jr., Pollack ES, Shambaugh EM (1981) Cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, 1973–77. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 57: 1–187Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siew Loon Ooi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Elena Martinez
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christopher I. Li
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Public Health SciencesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Arizona Cancer Center, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations