Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 261–268 | Cite as

Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women

  • Aparna R. Parikh
  • Celia Patricia Kaplan
  • Nancy J. Burke
  • Jennifer Livaudais-Toman
  • E. Shelley Hwang
  • Leah S. Karliner
Epidemiology

Abstract

While not itself life-threatening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive disease if untreated, and confers an increased risk of future breast cancer. We investigated knowledge of DCIS among a cohort of English- and Spanish-speaking Latina and English-speaking non-Latina white women previously treated for DCIS. We examined knowledge of DCIS with four true/false statements about risk of invasive disease, breast cancer recurrence, and prognosis. For each knowledge statement, we modeled the odds of a correct answer by language–ethnicity (English-speaking Latinas, Spanish-speaking Latinas, and English-speaking whites) adjusting for demographics, health history, and treatment factors. Of 710 participants, 52 % were English-speaking whites, 21 % English-speaking Latinas, and 27 % Spanish-speaking Latinas. Less than half (41 %) of participants were aware that DCIS is not life-threatening and only 32 % knew that surgical treatment choice does not impact mortality; whereas two-thirds (67 %) understood that DCIS confers increased risk of future breast cancer, and almost all (92 %) knew that DCIS, if untreated, could become invasive. Only three Spanish-speakers used professional interpreters during discussions with their physicians. In adjusted analyses, compared to English-speaking whites, both English- and Spanish-speaking Latinas had significantly lower odds of knowing that DCIS was not life-threatening (OR, 95 % CI 0.6, 0.4–0.9 and 0.5, 0.3–0.9, respectively). In contrast, Spanish-speaking Latinas had a twofold higher odds of knowing that DCIS increases risk of future breast cancer (OR, 95 % CI 2.6, 1.6–4.4), but English-speaking Latinas were no different from English-speaking whites. Our data suggest that physicians are more successful at conveying the risks conferred by DCIS than the nuances of DCIS as a non-life-threatening diagnosis. This uneven communication is most marked for Spanish-speaking Latinas. In addition to the use of professional interpreters, efforts to create culturally and linguistically standardized information could improve knowledge and engagement in informed decision making for all DCIS patients.

Keywords

Ductal carcinoma in situ Latino/Hispanic Breast cancer Language barriers Healthcare disparities Patient–physician communication 

References

  1. 1.
    Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, Ljung BM, Ernster VL, Stewart K, Chew K, Moore DH 2nd, Waldman F (2003) Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(22):1692–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rebner M, Raju U (1994) Noninvasive breast cancer. Radiology 190(3):623–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    California Cancer Registry Inquiry System http://www.cancer-rates.info/ca/index.php
  4. 4.
    Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, Gertig D (2006) The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 97(2):135–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(3):170–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, Costantino J, Fisher B, Paik S, Wolmark N (1999) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer 86(3):429–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Group EBCC, Group ER, Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, Bogaerts J, Van Hoorebeeck I, Julien JP, Gennaro M, Rouanet P et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24(21):3381–3387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warren JL, Weaver DL, Bocklage T, Key CR, Platz CE, Cronin KA, Ballard-Barbash R, Willey SC, Harlan LC (2005) The frequency of ipsilateral second tumors after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS: a population based analysis. Cancer 104(9):1840–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allegra CJ, Aberle DR, Ganschow P, Hahn SM, Lee CN, Millon-Underwood S, Pike MC, Reed SD, Saftlas AF, Scarvalone SA et al (2010) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ September 22-24, 2009. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(3):161–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Partridge AH, Elmore JG, Saslow D, McCaskill-Stevens W, Schnitt SJ (2012) Challenges in ductal carcinoma in situ risk communication and decision-making: report from an American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute workshop. CA Cancer J Clin 62(3):203–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bluman LG, Borstelmann NA, Rimer BK, Iglehart JD, Winer EP (2001) Knowledge, satisfaction, and perceived cancer risk among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 10(6):589–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davey C, White V, Warne C, Kitchen P, Villanueva E, Erbas B (2011) Understanding a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis: patient views and surgeon descriptions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 20(6):776–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Morgan S, Redman S, D’Este C, Rogers K (2011) Knowledge, satisfaction with information, decisional conflict and psychological morbidity amongst women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Patient Educ Couns 84(1):62–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janz NK, Hawley ST, Mujahid MS, Griggs JJ, Alderman A, Hamilton AS, Graff JJ, Jagsi R, Katz SJ (2011) Correlates of worry about recurrence in a multiethnic population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Cancer 117(9):1827–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karliner LS, Hwang ES, Nickleach D, Kaplan CP (2011) Language barriers and patient-centered breast cancer care. Patient Educ Couns 84(2):223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM, Janz NK, Morrow M, Schwartz K, Deapen D, Salem B, Liu L, Katz SJ (2006) An informed decision? breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Educ Couns 64(1–3):303–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan CP, Napoles AM, Hwang ES, Bloom J, Stewart S, Nickleach D, Karliner L (2011) Selection of treatment among Latina and non-Latina white women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 20(2):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Partridge A, Adloff K, Blood E, Dees EC, Kaelin C, Golshan M, Ligibel J, de Moor JS, Weeks J, Emmons K et al (2008) Risk perceptions and psychosocial outcomes of women with ductal carcinoma in situ: longitudinal results from a cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(4):243–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Napoles-Springer AM, Livaudais JC, Bloom J, Hwang S, Kaplan CP (2007) Information exchange and decision making in the treatment of Latina and white women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Psychosoc Oncol 25(4):19–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McWilliam CL, Brown JB, Stewart M (2000) Breast cancer patients’ experiences of patient-doctor communication: a working relationship. Patient Educ Couns 39(2–3):191–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siminoff LA, Ravdin P, Colabianchi N, Sturm CM (2000) Doctor–patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussions. Health Expect 3(1):26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S (2007) Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? a systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res 42(2):727–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schenker Y, Lo B, Ettinger KM, Fernandez A (2008) Navigating language barriers under difficult circumstances. Ann Intern Med 149(4):264–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Office of Minority Health (2013) National Standards on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS). http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=15. Accessed 13 August 2013
  25. 25.
    Liu Y, Perez M, Schootman M, Aft RL, Gillanders WE, Ellis MJ, Jeffe DB (2010) A longitudinal study of factors associated with perceived risk of recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and early-stage invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124(3):835–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aparna R. Parikh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Celia Patricia Kaplan
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nancy J. Burke
    • 2
    • 6
  • Jennifer Livaudais-Toman
    • 3
    • 4
  • E. Shelley Hwang
    • 5
  • Leah S. Karliner
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse PopulationsUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Anthropology, History and Social MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations