Cancer Causes & Control

, 16:139

Regional variations in breast cancer incidence among California women, 1988–1997

  • Peggy Reynolds
  • Susan E. Hurley
  • Anh-Thu Quach
  • Hilary Rosen
  • Julie Von Behren
  • Andrew Hertz
  • Daniel Smith
Article

Abstract

Background: Internationally, California has some of the highest breast cancer rates; these rates also show substantial regional variations within the state. This study describes geographic breast cancer incidence patterns within California and evaluates the degree to which socioeconomic status (SES) and urbanization explain the regional variability.

Methods: Invasive breast cancer cases in women ≥20 year of age were identified from the California Cancer Registry, for 1988–1997, then assigned to one of three regions (San Francisco Bay Area, Southern Coastal Area and the rest of California), based on residence at diagnosis. Neighborhood SES and urbanization were derived from U.S. Census data. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Poisson regression. Analyses were conducted for all invasive breast cancer cases (n=176,302) and by selected histologic subtypes: ductal (n=121,619); lobular (n=13,410); mixed ductal and lobular (n=9744).

Results: Compared to block groups with the lowest quartile of SES, rates were highest in block groups with high SES. Rates also were higher in suburban and city areas than in small town/rural areas. Compared to the rest of California, age- and race-adjusted rates for all breast cancer were approximately 20% higher in the San Francisco Bay Area and 10% higher in the Southern Coastal Area. After adjusting for SES and urbanization the rate ratios were reduced to near unity (RR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.03–1.09 for San Francisco Bay Area; RR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.99–1.04 for Southern Coastal Area). Rates ratios for ductal carcinomas mirrored those for all cases. For lobular cases, rate ratios remained elevated after adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, neighborhood SES and urbanization (RR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.11–1.27 for San Francisco Bay Area; RR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.04–1.17 for Southern Coastal Area). For the subset of cases with mixed ductal and lobular histologies, the rate ratio for the San Francisco Bay Area was no longer elevated after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, SES and urbanization (RR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.84–1.01); the adjusted rate ratio for the Southern Coastal Area, however, remained elevated (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.12–1.32).

Conclusions: Regional differences in neighborhood SES and urbanization appear to largely explain regional rate differences in California for all breast cancers and ductal carcinomas but do not fully explain geographic patterns of breast cancer with a lobular component.

Keywords

breast neoplasms socioeconomic factors urbanization geographic factors carcinoma lobular 

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Raymond L, Young J, eds (1997) Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol. VII. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 1997 (IARC Scientific Publications No. 143)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin, DM. 2001Global cancer statistics in the year 2000Lancet Oncol.2533543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Institute (2004) Surveillance, Epidemiology & End Results (SEER) Homepage [Web Page]. Available at http://www.seer.cancer.gov/ (Accessed 11 May 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, CI, Anderson, BO, Porter, P, Holt, SK, Daling, JR, Moe, RE. 2000Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older womenCancer.8825612569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, CI, Anderson, BO, Daling, JR, Moe, RE. 2003Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinomaJAMA.28914211424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Madigan, MP, Ziegler, RG, Benichou, J, Byrne, C, Hoover, RN. 1995Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factorsJ Natl Cancer Inst.8716811685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perkins, CI 1995Cancer incidence and mortality in California by detailed race/ethnicity, 1988–1992California Cancer Registry SacramentoCAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris, C, Kwong, S 2004Breast Cancer in California 2003Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance SectionSacramento, CA, USA: CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blot, WJ, Fraumeni, JF,Jr, Stone, BJ. 1977Geographic patterns of breast cancer in the United StatesJ Natl Cancer Inst.5914071411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sturgeon, SR, Schairer, C, Gail, M, McAdams, M, Brinton, LA, Hoover, RN. 1995Geographic variation in mortality from breast cancer among white women in the United StatesJ Natl Cancer Inst.8718461853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garland, FC, Garland, CF, Gorham, ED, Young, JF. 1990Geographic variation in breast cancer mortality in the United States: a hypothesis involving exposure to solar radiationPrev Med.19614622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwin, JS, Freeman, JL, Freeman, D, Nattinger, AB. 1998Geographic variations in breast cancer mortality: do higher rates imply elevated incidence or poorer survival?Am J Public Health.88458460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laden, F, Spiegelman, D, Neas LM., etal. 1997Geographic variation in breast cancer incidence rates in a cohort of U.S. womenJ Natl Cancer Inst.8913731378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prehn, AW, West, DW. 1998Evaluating local differences in breast cancer incidence rates: a census- based methodology (United States)Cancer Causes Control.9511517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robbins, AS, Brescianini, S, Kelsey, JL. 1997Regional differences in known risk factors and the higher incidence of breast cancer in San FranciscoJ Natl Cancer Inst.89960965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reynolds P, Hurley S, Goldberg D etal. Regional Variations in breast cancer among California teachers, Epidemiology in pressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doll, R. 1991Urban and rural factors in the aetiology of cancerInt J Cancer.47803810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahoney, MC, LaBrie, DS, Nasca, PC, Wolfgang, PE, Burnett, WS. 1990Population density and cancer mortality differentials in New York State, 1978–1982Int J Epidemiol.19483490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yost, K, Perkins, C, Cohen, R, Morris, C, Wright, W. 2001Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groupsCancer Causes Control.12703711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gordon, NH. 2003Socioeconomic factors and breast cancer in black and white AmericansCancer Metastasis Rev.225565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heck, KE, Pamuk, ER. 1997Explaining the relation between education and postmenopausal breast cancerAm J Epidemiol.145366372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teppo, L. 1984Cancer incidence by living area, social class and occupationScand J Work Environ Health.10361366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gilliland, FD, Hunt, WC, Baumgartner KB, etal. 1998Reproductive risk factors for breast cancer in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women: the New Mexico Women’s Health StudyAm J Epidemiol.148683692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barbone, F, Filiberti, R, Franceschi S, etal. 1996Socioeconomic status, migration and the risk of breast cancer in ItalyInt J Epidemiol.25479487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carter, CL, Jones, DY, Schatzkin, A, Brinton, LA. 1989A prospective study of reproductive, familial and socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer using NHANES I dataPublic Health Rep.1044550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall SA, Rockhill B. (2002). Race, poverty, affluence, and breast cancer. Am J Public Health. 92: 1559; author reply 1560Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robert, SA, Strombom, I, Trentham-Dietz A, etal. 2004Socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer: distinguishing individual- and community-level effectsEpidemiology.15442450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tavani, A, Braga, C, La Vecchia, C, Negri, E, Russo, A, Franceschi, S. 1997Attributable risks for breast cancer in Italy: education, family history and reproductive and hormonal factorsInt J Cancer.70159163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haenszel W, Marcus SC, Zimmerer EG. (1956). Cancer morbidity in urban and rural Iowa. Public Health Monogr. 1–85Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pawlega, J, Wallace, R. 1980Nutrition and age at first birth in breast-cancer riskBr J Cancer.41941945PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nasca, PC, Burnett, WS, Greenwald, P, Brennan, K, Wolfgang, P, Carlton, K. 1980Population density as an indicator of urban–rural differences in cancer incidence, upstate New York, 1968–1972Am J Epidemiol.112362375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nasca, PC, Mahoney, MC, Wolfgang, PE. 1992Population density and cancer incidence differentials in New York State, 1978–1982Cancer Causes Control.3715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sierra, R, Parkin, DM, Leiva, GM. 1989Cancer in Costa RicaCancer Res.49717724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howe, HL, Keller, JE, Lehnherr, M. 1993Relation between population density and cancer incidence, Illinois, 1986–1990Am J Epidemiol.1382936PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Valerianova, Z, Gill, C, Duffy, SW, Danon, SE. 1994Trends in incidence of various cancers in Bulgaria, 1981–1990Int J Epidemiol.2311171126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vassallo, A, Stefani, E, Ronco, A, Barrios, E. 1994Urbanization gradients and cancer mortality in Uruguay, 1988–1992Int J Cancer.59345350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Benz, CC, Clarke, CA, Moore DH, II. 2003Geographic excess of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.1215231527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stalsberg, H, Thomas, DB, Noonan, EA. 1989Histologic types of breast carcinoma in relation to international variation and breast cancer risk factorsWHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Int J Cancer.44399409Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    MacLean, J. 2004Breast Cancer in California: A Closer LookOaklandCAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Percy, CVan Holten, VMuir, C eds. 1990International Classification of Diseases for Oncology2World Health OrganizationGeneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kwong, SL, Perkins, CI, Morris, CR, Cohen, R, Allen, M, Wright, WE 2001Cancer in California: 1988–1999California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance SectionSacramento, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hurley, SE, Saunders, TM, Nivas, R, Hertz, A, Reynolds, P. 2003Post office box addresses: a challenge for geographic information system-based studiesEpidemiology.14386391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    United States Bureau of the Census (2000) Females 20+ for mutually exclusive race/Hispanic groups at block group level, 1990: unpublished special tabluation of 100% microdata of 7 groups; 2000: Census 2000 Summary File 1, Tables PCT12H-O (8 groups) [data file – unpublished data]. Washington DC, USA: United States Bureau of the CensusGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics (2004) U.S. Census Populations with Bridged Race Categories [Web Page]. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm, (Accessed 11 August 2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    United States Bureau of the Census (1992) Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 (California) [data file]. Washington DC, USA: United States Bureau of the CensusGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    United States Bureau of the Census (30 April 2002) Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification [Web Page]. Available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html (Accessed 22 January 2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Waard, F. 1998Risk factors for breast cancer at various agesEur J Cancer Prev.7S13S15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Cancer Institute (2003) Menopausal Hormone Use: Questions and Answers [Web Page]. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/estrogenplus (Accessed 24 June 2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    SAS Institute, Inc.2001SAS 8.01, 8.01 [computer program]SAS Institute, IncCary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hosmer, DW, Lemeshow, S 1989Applied Logistic RegressionJohn Wiley & SonsNew York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    SAS Institute, Inc.1999SAS/STAT User’s Guide8SAS Institute, Inc.Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barron, DN. 1992The analysis of count data: overdispersion and autocorrelationSocio. Methodol.22179220Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McCullagh, P, Nelder, JA 1989Generalized linear models. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability2Chapman and HallLondonVol. 7Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bernstein, L, Allen, M, Anton-Culver H, etal. 2002High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States)Cancer Causes Control.13625635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clarke CA, Glaser SL, West DW etal. (2002). Breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in an affluent population: Marin County, California, USA, 1990–1999. Breast Cancer Res 4: R13Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perkins C (1996) Laterality, detailed Primary site and histology of female breast cancer, 1988–1992. In: Morris CR, Wright WE, eds. Breast Cancer in California. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance SectionGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Verkooijen, HM, Fioretta, G, Vlastos G, etal. 2003Important increase of invasive lobular breast cancer incidence in Geneva SwitzerlandInt J Cancer.104778781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen, CL, Weiss, NS, Newcomb, P, Barlow, W, White, E. 2002Hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancerJAMA.287734741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Li, CI, Malone, KE, Porter, PL, Weiss, NS, Tang, MT, Daling, JR. 2003Reproductive and anthropometric factors in relation to the risk of lobular and ductal breast carcinoma among women 65–79 years of ageInt J Cancer.107647651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stalsberg, H, Thomas, DB. 1993Age distribution of histologic types of breast carcinomaInt J Cancer.5417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Li, CI, Malone, KE, Porter, PL, Weiss, NS, Tang, MT, Daling, JR. 2003The relationship between alcohol use and risk of breast cancer by histology and hormone receptor status among women 65–79 years of ageCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.1210611066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    California Department of Finance (2001) Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of FinanceGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Krieger, N. 1990Social class and the black/white crossover in the age-specific incidence of breast cancer: a study linking census-derived data to population-based registry recordsAm J Epidemiol.131804814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stierer, M, Rosen, H, Weber, R, Hanak, H, Spona, J, Tuchler, H. 1993Immunohistochemical and biochemical measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors in primary breast cancerCorrelation of histopathology and prognostic factors. Ann Surg.2181321Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Li, CI, Weiss, NS, Stanford, JL, Daling, JR. 2000Hormone replacement therapy in relation to risk of lobular and ductal breast carcinoma in middle-aged womenCancer.8825702577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Newcomer, LM, Newcomb, PA, Potter JD, etal. 2003Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of breast cancer by histologic type (United States)Cancer Causes Control.14225233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Newcomer, LM, Newcomb, PA, Trentham-Dietz, A, Longnecker, MP, Greenberg, ER. 2003Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer by histologic typeInt J Cancer.106961964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Survey Research Group (2000) California Women’s Health Survey [Web Page]. Available at http://www.surveyresearchgroup.com/clients.asp?ID=11 (Accessed 11 May 2004)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    The Regents of the University of California (2003) California Health Interview Survey [Web Page]. Available at http://www.chis. ucla.edu/main/ (Accessed 11 May 2004)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Brett, KM, Madans, JH. 1997Use of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: estimates from a nationally representative cohort studyAm J Epidemiol.145536545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Keating, NL, Cleary, PD, Rossi, AS, Zaslavsky, AM, Ayanian, JZ. 1999Use of hormone replacement therapy by postmenopausal women in the United StatesAnn Int Med.130545553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ferrara, A, Karter, AJ, Ackerson, LM, Liu, JY, Selby, JV. 2001Hormone replacement therapy is associated with better glycemic control in women with type 2 diabetes: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes RegistryDiabetes Care.2411441150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Newcomb, PA, Titus-Ernstoff, L, Egan KM, etal. 2002Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use in relation to breast cancer riskCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.11593600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dixon, JM, Anderson, TJ, Page, DL, Lee, D, Duffy, SW. 1982Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breastHistopathology.6149161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yeatman, TJ, Cantor, AB, Smith TJ, etal. 1995Tumor biology of infiltrating lobular carcinomaImplications for management. Ann Surg.222549559discussion 559–561Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Silverstein, MJ, Lewinsky, BS, Waisman, JR,  et al. 1994Infiltrating lobular carcinoma Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma?Cancer.7316731677PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peggy Reynolds
    • 1
  • Susan E. Hurley
    • 2
  • Anh-Thu Quach
    • 3
  • Hilary Rosen
    • 3
  • Julie Von Behren
    • 1
  • Andrew Hertz
    • 3
  • Daniel Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.California Department of Health Services (CDHS)Environmental Health Investigations BranchOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Public Health Institute (PHI)OaklandUSA
  3. 3.Impact Assessment, Inc.OaklandUSA
  4. 4.California Department of Health ServicesEnvironmental Health Investigations BranchOakland

Personalised recommendations