Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 511–514 | Cite as

Temporal trends in the black/white breast cancer case ratio for estrogen receptor status: disparities are historically contingent, not innate

  • Nancy KriegerEmail author
  • Jarvis T. Chen
  • Pamela D. Waterman
Brief report

Abstract

Objective

For at least three decades, many investigators have reported on the US black/white breast cancer case ratio for estrogen receptor (ER) status as if it reflected an intrinsic biological difference. In light of racial/ethnic differences in declines in the incidence of ER+ breast cancer, as linked to changing use of hormone therapy, we empirically tested whether the black/white breast cancer estrogen receptor ratio has changed over time.

Methods

We examined temporal trends in the odds of being ER+ among white as compared to black women among all cases of invasive breast cancer occurring among women residing in the catchment area of the SEER 13 Registries Database between 1992 and 2005.

Results

During the study period, the odds of being ER+ among the white compared to black cases increased from 1992 to 2002 (a statistically significant joinpoint; p < 0.05; peak odds ratio (2002) = 2.25 (95% confidence interval 2.13, 2.39)). Thereafter, the odds ratio leveled off (post-2002 slope not significantly different from zero; p = 0.326). Among women aged 45–54, moreover, the post-2002 decline tended toward statistical significance (p = 0.0891).

Conclusions

The results suggest the black/white breast cancer case estrogen receptor ratio is historically contingent, not innate.

Keywords

Black Breast cancer Cancer disparities Estrogen receptor Social determinants of health White 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grant 5R03CA132131 to NK).

References

  1. 1.
    Natrajan N, Nemoto T, Mettlin C, Murphy GP (1985) Race-related differences in breast cancer patients: results of the 1982 National Survey of Breast Cancer by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 56:1704–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pegoraro RJ, Karnan V, Nirmul D, Joubert SM (1986) Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer among women of different racial groups. Cancer Res 46:2117–2120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elledge RM, Clark GM, Chamness GC et al (1994) Tumor biologic factors and breast cancer prognosis among white, Hispanic, and black women in the United States. JNCI 86:705–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joslyn SA (2002) Hormone receptors in breast cancer: racial differences in distribution and survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat 73:45–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morris GJ, Naidu S, Topham AK et al (2007) Differences in breast carcinoma characteristics in newly diagnosed African-American and Caucasian patients: a single-institution compilation compared with the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. Cancer 110:876–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banks E, Canfell K (2010) Recent declines in breast cancer incidence: mounting evidence that reduced use of menopausal hormones is largely responsible. Breast Cancer Res 12:103. http://breast-cancer-research.com/12/1/103
  7. 7.
    Chlebowski RT, Kuller LH, Prentice RL et al (2009) Breast cancer after use of estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women. New Engl J Med 360:573–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators (2002) Risk and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman-Koss D, Crespo CJ, Bellantoni MF, Andersen RE (2002) The relationship of race/ethnicity and social class to hormone replacement therapy: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988–1994. Menopause 9:264–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chlebowski RT, Chen Z, Anderson GL et al (2005) Ethnicity and breast cancer: factors influencing differences in incidence and outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:439–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD (2010) Decline in US breast cancer rates after the women’s health initiative: socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differentials. Am J Public Health 100: S132–139 [epub advance access: 10 Feb 2010]. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.181628; NIHMS # 171687Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) Limited-Use Data (1973–2005), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2008, based on the November 2007 submission. http://seer.cancer.gov/data/index.html. Accessed 3 August 2009
  13. 13.
    Anderson RN, Rosenberg HM (1998) Age standardization of death rates: implementation of the year 2000 standard. Natl Vital Stat Rep 37(3)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim H-J, Fay MP, Yu B, Barrett MJ, Feuer EJ (2004) Comparability of segmented line regression models. Biometrics 60:1005–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietel M, Lewis MA, Shapiro S (2005) Hormone replacement therapy: pathobiological aspects of hormone-sensitive cancers in women relevant to epidemiological studies on HRT: a mini-review. Hum Reprod 20:2052–2060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kunitz S (2006) The health of populations: general theories and particular realities. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krieger N, Davey Smith G (2004) Bodies count & body counts: social epidemiology & embodying inequality. Epidemiol Rev 26:92–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graham H (1996) Smoking prevalence among women in the European community 1950–1990. Soc Sci Med 43:243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brandt A (2007) The cigarette century: the rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Center for Health Statistics (2009) Health, United States 2009. Table 36: death rates for malignant neoplasm of breast among females, by race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 1950–2006. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, p 224Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Feuer EJ, Huang L, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Lewis DR, Eisner MP, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds) (2010) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2006. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/, based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2009; see: Table 4.6. Cancer of the breast (Invasive). Age-adjusted US death rates by year, race, and sex. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/results_merged/sect_04_breast.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2010
  22. 22.
    Krieger N, Chen JT, Ware JH, Kaddour A (2008) Race/ethnicity and breast cancer estrogen receptor status: impact of class, missing data, & modeling assumptions. Cancer Causes Control 19:1305–1318. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9202-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krieger N, Emmons K, Williams D (2009) Defining, investigating, and addressing cancer inequities: critical issues. In: Koh H (ed) Toward the elimination of cancer disparities: a clinical and public health perspective. Springer, New York, pp 3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krieger N (ed) (2004) Embodying inequality: epidemiologic perspectives. Baywood Publishing Co, AmityvilleGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gravlee CC (2009) How race becomes biology: embodiment of social inequality. Am J Phys Anthropol 139:47–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy Krieger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jarvis T. Chen
    • 1
  • Pamela D. Waterman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Society, Human Development, and HealthHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations