Medical Oncology

, 30:691

Surveillance mammography use after treatment of primary breast cancer and racial disparities in survival

  • Z. Z. Nurgalieva
  • L. Franzini
  • R. Morgan
  • S. W. Vernon
  • C. C. Liu
  • X. L. Du
Original Paper


Racial and ethnic minority patients continue to die disproportionately from breast cancer compared with their white counterparts, even after adjusting for insurance status and income. No studies have examined whether surveillance mammography reduces racial disparities in survival among elderly breast cancer survivors following active treatment for breast cancer. This study included 28,117 cases diagnosed with primary breast cancer at age 66 years and over, identified from SEER data during 1992–2005. Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox regression models were used for survival analysis. A higher proportion of whites received surveillance mammograms during the surveillance period compared with nonwhites: 71.7 % of African-Americans, 72.5 % of Hispanics, and 69.3 % of Asians had mammograms compared with 74.9 % of whites. In propensity-score-adjusted analysis, women who had a mammogram within 2 years were less likely (hazard ratio 0.84; 95 % CI 0.78–0.82) to die from any cause compared with women who did not have any mammograms during this time period. The hazard ratio of cancer-specific mortality elevated for Hispanics compared with whites (hazard ratio 1.5; 95 % CI 0.6–3.2) and was reduced after adjusting for surveillance mammography (hazard ratio 1.4; 95 % CI 0.5–2.9). Similar pattern in the reduction in disease-specific hazard ratio was observed for blacks: After controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, hazard ratio was elevated but not significantly different from that in whites (hazard ratio 2.0; 95 % CI 0.9–3.7), and hazard ratio adjusting for surveillance mammography further reduced the point estimate (hazard ratio 1.5; 95 % CI 0.7–2.8). Asian and Pacific Islanders and Hispanics appeared to have lower risks of all-cause mortality compared with whites after controlling for patient and tumor characteristics and surveillance mammogram received. Our findings indicates that while surveillance mammograms and physician visits may play a contributory role in achieving equal outcomes for breast cancer-specific mortality for women with breast cancer, searching for other factors that might help achieve national goals to eliminate racial disparities in healthcare, and outcomes is warranted.


Breast cancer Surveillance mammography Post-treatment surveillance Survivorship care 


  1. 1.
    Mead H, Cartwright-Smith L, Jones K, et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in US Healthcare: A Chartbook. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith TJ, Davidson NE, Schapira DV, et al. American society of clinical oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1080–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology, v. 1.2005.
  4. 4.
    Clark A, Fong C, Romans M. Health disparities among U.S. women of color: an overview. Washington, DC: The Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schootman M, Jeffe DB, Lian M, Aft R, Gillanders WE. Surveillance mammography and the risk of death among elderly breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111:489–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shapira MM, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Underutilization of mammography in older breast cancer survivors. Med Care. 2000;38:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lash TL, Silliman RA. Medical surveillance after breast cancer diagnosis. Med Care. 2001;39:945–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Winer EP, Ayanian JZ. Factors related to underuse of surveillance mammography. Among breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:85–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Field TS, Doubeni C, Fox MP, Buist DS, Wei F, Geiger AM, Quinn VP, Lash TL, Prout MN, Yood MU, Frost FJ, Silliman RA. Under utilization of surveillance mammography among older breast cancer survivors. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):158–63.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fouad M, Wynn T, Martin M, Partridge E. Patient navigation pilot project: results from the community health advisors in action program (CHAAP). Ethn Dis. 2010;20(2):155–61. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler Nattinger A, Schapira MM, Warren JL, Earle CC. Methodological issues in the use of administrative claims data to study surveillance after cancer treatment. Med Care. 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-69–74.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blustein J. Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance, and the use of mammography by older women. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1138–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    May DS, Trontell AE. Mammography use by elderly women: a methodological comparison of two national data sources. Ann Epidemiol. 1998;8(7):439–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Randolph WM, Mahnken JD, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL. Using medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(6):1643–57.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Randolph WM, Goodwin JS, Mahnken JD, Freeman JL. Regular mammography use is associated with elimination of age-related disparities in size and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(10):783–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper GS, Schultz L, Simpkins J, Lafata JE. The utility of administrative data for measuring adherence to cancer surveillance care guidelines. Med Care. 2007;45(1):66–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-3–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1258–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare: Calculation of Comorbidity Weights. Available at program/comorbidity.html).
  20. 20.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warren JL, Harlan LC, Fahey A, et al. Utility of the SEER medicare data to identify chemotherapy use. Med Care. 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-55–61.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Du X, Goodwin JS. Increase of chemotherapy use in older women with breast carcinoma from 1991 to 1996. Cancer. 2001;92:730–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Culler SD, Parchman ML, Przybylski M. Factors related to potentially preventable hospitalizations among the elderly. Med Care. 1998;36(6):804–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parchman ML, Culler SD. Preventable hospitalizations in primary care shortage area. An analysis of vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:487–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weissman JS, Gatsonis C, Epstein AM. Rates of avoidable hospitalization by insurance status in Massachusetts and Maryland. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2388–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1447–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rao S, Kubisiak J, Gilden D. Cost of illness associated with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;83(1):25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenbaum P. Observational studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 Pt 2):757–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149–56.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:841–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robert O. Morgan, Virnig BA, Petersen LA et al. Medicare + Choice and Minority Elderly Final report for R01AG019284-03, May 31, 2009.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Grunfeld E, Gainford C, Benk V, Bondy S, Coyle D, Holloway C, Sawka C, Shumak R, Vallis K, van Walraven C. Outcomes of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a population-based case series. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(1):169–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165(6):1373–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lairson DR, Chan W, Chang YC, Del Junco DJ, Vernon SW. Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States. Eval Program Plan. 2011;34(2):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fowler T, Steakley C, Garcia AR, et al. Reducing disparities in the burden of cancer: the role of patient navigators. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e193.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Freeman HP, Rodriguez RL. History and principles of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011;117(15 suppl):3539–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raj A, Ko N, Battaglia TA, Chabner BA, Moy B. Patient navigation for underserved patients diagnosed with breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17:1027–31.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Z. Nurgalieva
    • 1
  • L. Franzini
    • 2
  • R. Morgan
    • 2
  • S. W. Vernon
    • 3
  • C. C. Liu
    • 1
  • X. L. Du
    • 1
  1. 1.Divisions of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Divisions of Management, Policy and Community HealthUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Divisions of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences School of Public HealthUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations