Advertisement

Hormones and Cancer

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 71–81 | Cite as

Urban Neighborhood and Residential Factors Associated with Breast Cancer in African American Women: a Systematic Review

  • Brandi Patrice Smith
  • Zeynep Madak-Erdogan
Review

Abstract

Residential characteristics in urban neighborhoods impact health and might be important factors contributing to health disparities, especially in the African American population. The purpose of this systematic review is to understand the relationship between urban neighborhood and residential factors and breast cancer incidence and prognosis in African American women. Using PubMed and Web of Science, the existing literature was reviewed. Observational, cross-sectional, cohort, and prospective studies until February 2017 were examined. Studies including populations of African American women, setting in “urban” areas, and a measure of a neighborhood or residential factor were reviewed. Four parameters related to neighborhood or residential factors were extracted including: neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), residential segregation, spatial access to mammography, and residential pollution. Our analysis showed that African American women living in low nSES have greater odds of late stage diagnosis and mortality. Furthermore, African American women living in segregated areas (higher percentage of Blacks) have higher odds of late stage diagnosis and mortality compared to White and Hispanic women living in less segregated areas (lower percentage of Blacks). Late stage diagnosis was also shown to be significantly higher in areas with poor mammography access and areas with higher Black residential segregation. Lastly, residential pollution did not affect breast cancer risk in African American women. Overall, this systematic review provides a qualitative synthesis of major neighborhood and residential factors on breast cancer outcomes in African American women.

Keywords

Breast cancer disparities African American Neighborhood factors Residential factors Systematic review 

Introduction

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, urban areas are densely settled towns or cities with a population of at least 50,000 people, and while 55% of African Americans reside in the Southern region of the USA the other 45% reside in mostly urban areas [1, 2]. A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that a neighborhood’s characteristics can influence its residents’ health and well-being [3, 4, 5]. Moreover, urban areas have been shown to harbor neighborhood characteristics that negatively influence health [6]. Factors that adversely affect health outcomes include access to resources such as health facilities or public transportation, physical stressors such as toxic chemical exposure from homes or factories, and social stressors such as crime-ridden areas, employment security, and poorly maintained communities [7]. As much as 26% of African American women living in urban areas are of low SES, a factor known to heighten the exposure to negative neighborhood effects. This factor is also associated with health disparities [8, 9, 10]. Furthermore, since urban areas are more likely black and low-income compared to their rural counterparts [11], factors that contribute to disparities in urban areas propose differing complexities.

A major health concern for urban African American women is breast cancer. Regrettably, about 1 in 8 US women will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime and African American breast cancer patients suffer from higher breast cancer associated mortality rates than any other race despite lower incidence [12]. After accounting for differences in income, past screening rates, and access to care this disparity remains unmitigated. African American women are still diagnosed with more advanced breast cancers and have worse survival than White women [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Deaths due to breast cancer for African American women are heightened, but the reasons for this are unclear [18, 19, 20]. Although ethnic differences account for 5–10% of cancer rates, these differences directly result from genetic and epidemiological factors such as the ones discussed above [21].

In addition to SES, many other factors of urbanity effect the risk, incidence, mortality, survival, and diagnosis stage for African American breast cancer patients [22]. Two such factors that are of heightened concerned are residential segregation and pollution, due to their prevalence in every major urban area [23]. Segregation is a systematic form of racial discrimination and greatly contributes to the deficit between health conditions of African Americans compared to their White counterparts [24, 25]. Studies have highlighted issues such as gentrification, access to mammograms, and follow-up care as urban neighborhood and residential stressors that are worsened by segregation [26]. Further, pollutants and other toxicants from water impurities, waste disposal, and air pollution have been shown to have associations with health outcomes. Despite identifying these factors as persistent issues for African Americans in urban areas, there have been no investigations on the interplay of these conditions and breast cancer incidence in urban settings.

While it is known that low SES, residential segregation, and access to mammography are known risk factors of poor breast cancer outcome in African-Americans, it is not fully understood how these factors effect breast cancer outcome in African American women living in urban areas. This review aims to synthesize the findings from literature on associations between nSES, residential pollution, spatial access to mammograms, and residential segregation and breast cancer incidence, risk, mortality, survival, and diagnosis stages among African American women. We aim to determine the relationship between these neighborhood characteristics and breast cancer outcomes in urban settings. Although there is a systematic review on residential segregation and racial disparities in cancer, no review has looked at neighborhood and residential exposures together or with an exclusive concern for the African American population [27]. The findings presented here will help to further understand the mechanisms of breast cancer disparities and inform future investigation into mitigating disparities in urban populations.

Methods

Study Selection Criteria

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement was used to aide in the search protocol of this review [28]. Eligible studies included in the review met the following criteria—study design: cohort studies, prospective studies, observational studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies; population: studies included adult women of African American race; outcome: breast cancer incidence/risk, stage at diagnosis, survival and mortality; and exposure: assessed a neighborhood or residential factor. Studies that were excluded include articles written in languages other than English, review papers, non-peer reviewed articles such as conference proceedings or abstracts, studies exclusively focused on rural areas, assessment of individual SES, and male breast cancer.

Search Strategy

The keyword search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science. The search algorithm included all possible combinations of keywords, with wildcard character, from the following groups: [10] “breast cancer,” (2) “breast cancer outcomes,” (3) “African American,” and (4) “residential/neighborhood characteristics.” Furthermore, Boolean terms “OR” and “AND,” Medical Subject Headings (Mesh), and truncation “*” were used. A detailed search algorithm for both search databases is available in Appendix 1. Title and abstract screening was conducted based on the search criteria. Eligible articles were extracted for full text review. A cited reference search (i.e., forward reference search) and a reference list search (i.e., backward reference search) based on the articles meeting the study selection criteria that were identified from keyword search was conducted. Articles identified through forward/backward reference search were further screened and evaluated using the same study selection criteria. Reference search was repeated on all newly identified articles until no additional relevant article was found. The authors jointly determined the inclusion/exclusion of all articles retrieved in full text and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Data Extraction

A standardized data extraction form was adopted to abstract the following data from studies: author(s), publication year, study design, urban area, sample size of African American women, age, public data set used, length of study, neighborhood or residential factor, and cancer outcome. A total of four parameters for residential and neighborhood factors were identified through the data extraction process. These parameters included residential or neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), residential racial segregation or composition, spatial access to mammography, and residential pollution. For the residential pollution parameter, two levels were identified: residential magnetic field exposure and trihalomethane levels in public water. For this review, at least two studies that assessed the same cancer outcomes with the quantitative measure that enables a meta-analysis are lacking. Thus, a narrative synthesis of the studies was conducted.

Study Quality Assessment

Study quality criteria were adopted from the 2014 NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational, Cohort, and Cross-Sectional studies with the following criteria. (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly specified? (3) Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study pre-specified and applied uniformly to all participants? (4) Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (5) For the analysis in this paper, were the neighborhood or residential factor measured prior to the breast cancer outcome being measured? (6) Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between neighborhood or residential factor and breast cancer outcome if it existed? (7) Did the study examine different levels of the neighborhood or residential factor as related to the breast cancer outcome? (8) Were the neighborhood or residential factors clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (9) Were the cancer outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (10) Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? (11) Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on relationship between neighborhood or residential factor and breast cancer outcome? The authors of this review independently scored each study based on these 11 criteria, with disagreement resolved through discussion. Scores for each criterion were either 0 or 1, depending on if the criterion were met or unmet, not reported, or not applicable. The possible total study score ranges between 0 and 11. Study quality assessment helped to determine the strength of the study but not used for inclusion of studies.

Results

A flow chart was constructed to choose eligible papers for this review (Fig. 1). Initially, 4127 unduplicated articles were identified through keyword search and 4061 articles were excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 68 articles went through full text review and 50 were excluded because they did not meet the selection criteria as listed in Fig. 1. The remaining 18 articles were included in the review. Table 1 shows the basic characteristics of each of the studies. Several study designs examined neighborhood and residential factors. The largest number were cross-sectional studies (N = 15), followed by nested case control (N = 1), prospective (N = 1), and prospective/cross-sectional (N = 1). Secondary data analysis was conducted on all the included studies. Datasets included Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), state cancer registries, local hospitals, and US Census. SEER is a program initiated through the National Cancer Institute which provides information on cancer statistics in an effort to reduce the cancer burden among the US population [29]. A cancer registry is a standardized collection of data. Highly trained cancer registrars transfer hospital information from the patient’s medical record to the registry’s computer software using standardized codes [30]. Thus, the data in the studies represented large sample sizes, contained similar demographic information, and controlled for confounders in their statistical analysis. A number of urban areas were evaluated including Atlanta, Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, St Louis, New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, and urban New Jersey and Texas. The average length of the studies was about 8 years. The combined total number of African American participants sampled from the studies was 93,670. The age of participants ranged between 19 and 91 years of age.
Fig. 1

Study selection flow chart. Flow chart followed during selection of articles to be included in the review. “n” represents the number of articles

Table 1

Basic characteristics of studies

First author (year)

Dataset

Study design

Urban area

Length of study

Sample size*

Age (mean ± SD)

Barrett et al. (2008)

Illinois State Cancer Registry 1990 and 2000 US Census

Cross-sectional

Chicago

1990–2000

4820

62.43 ± 14.48

Barry (2012)

SEER

Cross-sectional

San Francisco, Atlanta, and Detroit

1990–2000

1810

60 ± 14

Cheng (2015)

California Breast Cancer Survivorship Consortium 1990 & 2000 US Census

Prospective cross-sectional

Urban

California

1994–1995

1996–2007

1719

NR

Dai (2010)

Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program

Cross-sectional

Detroit

1998–2002

12,413

NR

Echeverria (2009)

New Jersey State Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

Urban

New Jersey

1994–2004

1167

59.8 ± 31.1

Flores (2013)

California Cancer Registry and 2000 US Census

Cross-sectional

Urban

California

1990–2000

1227

52 ± 12

Haas (2008)

SEER

Cross-sectional

Detroit, Atlanta, Seattle

1992–2002

NR

NR

Lian (2015)

2000 US Census, Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center, and Washington University School of Medicine

Prospective

St Louis

1999–2010

812

53.5

London (2003)

Multiethnic Cohort Study and SEER

Nested Case Control

Los Angeles

1995–2001

19,132

59.5 ± 14.5

Mandelblatt (1995)

New York State Department of Health Tumor Registry

Cross-sectional

New York City

1980–1985

3055

64 ± 14.15

Marcus (1998)

North Carolina Central Registry

Cross-sectional

Urban

North Carolina

1990–1992

1046

59.5 ± 24.5

Marcus (1998)

North Carolina Central Registry

Cross-sectional

Urban

North Carolina

1990–1992

1046

59.5 ± 24.5

McLafferty (2011)

Illinois State Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

Chicago

Chicago

Suburbs

Illinois

Metropolitans

1988–1992

1998–2002

9210

NR

Merkin (2002)

New York State Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

New York City

1986–1995

6993

NR

Pruitt (2015)

Texas Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

Urban Texas

1995–2009

11,253

64 ± 10.29

Russell (2011)

Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

Metropolitan and micropolitan Georgia

1999–2003

4779

40–85

Russell (2012)

Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry

Cross-sectional

Metropolitan Georgia

1999–2009

3481

40–85

Shariff-Marco (2014)

San Francisco Bay Area Breast Cancer Study and Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry

Cross-sectional

Urban California

1995–1999

993

19–79

Warner (2010)

California Cancer Registry and 2000 US Census

Cross-sectional

Metropolitan California

1996–2004

10,030

NR

Residential and Neighborhood SES

Table 2 demonstrates the factors evaluated, outcomes, and results of each study. Ten studies examined nSES and its association with late stage diagnosis, mortality, and survival. Barrett et al. studied the relationship between upward neighborhood SES (a betterment in the neighborhood’s economy, a change measured by concentrated disadvantage, concentrated affluence, and concentrated immigration) and the probability of distant metastasis at diagnosis in breast cancer [31]. Interestingly, this study showed that African American women who experience a residential area socioeconomic upward change were significantly associated with higher probabilities of distant metastasis at diagnosis of breast cancer (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.48; p = 0.022). Four studies illustrated significant associations between low nSES and high-poverty rates with greater odds of late stage diagnosis in African American women [18, 19, 32, 33]. Flores et al. and Merkin et al. both showed no significant associations with nSES and breast cancer staging [34, 35]. Cheng et al. showed nonlinear positive association between low nSES and mortality in African American women when examining years 1994–1995 and 1996–2007 [36]. Lian et al. illustrated African American women with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer had higher risk in both breast cancer mortality (HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.43–2.45) and non-breast cancer mortality (HR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.93–4.04) when associated to census-tract-level socioeconomic deprivation index [37]. The index is further described in previous literature [37]. Lastly, Shariff-Marco et al. illustrated that all-cause survival was significantly worse for African American women living in low SES neighborhoods, specifically when they were highly educated and had low nSES (HR = 1.61, p-trend = 0.03) [20]. However, breast cancer-specific mortality showed no associations with nSES.
Table 2

Studies examining associations of neighborhood and/or residential factors and breast cancer outcomes

First author (year)

Factor

Outcome

Results

Barrett (2008)

Neighborhood SES change

Probability of distant metastasis at diagnosis

Greater odds of distant breast metastasis was associated with upward neighborhood SES change

Barry (2012)

Residential poverty

Late stage diagnosis

Greater odds of being diagnosed in high-poverty areas

Cheng (2015)

Neighborhood SES

Mortality

Nonlinear positive association between neighborhood SES and mortality

Dai (2010)

Residential segregation and spatial access to healthcare

Variation in late stage diagnosis

Late stage cancer diagnosis was significantly higher in areas with poor mammography access and areas with higher Black residential segregation

Echeverria (2009)

Neighborhood index

Staging risk

Odds of late stage diagnosis were high in African American women by a marginal significance when compared to neighborhood index

Flores (2013)

Neighborhood SES

Changes in stage at diagnosis

No significant differences observed in percent change stage of diagnosis and income level

Haas (2008)

Residential segregation

Diagnosis of early versus late stage cancer

For combination of low and high segregation and low and high income the odds of early stage diagnosis were lower in Black women compared to White women

Lian (2015)

Census-tract-level socioeconomicdeprivation index

All-cause death and breast cancer-specific death

African American women with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer had higher risk in both breast cancer and non-breast cancer mortality

London (2003)*

Eesidential magnetic field exposure

Incidence

Breast cancer risk was not appreciably associated with broadband magnetic field measurements

Mandelblatt (1995)

Neighborhood SES

Stage at diagnosis

African American women were 34% more likely to be diagnosed at late stage than White women before controlling for area SES

Marcus (1998)*

Trihalomethane levels

Incidence

Rate ratios suggest little risk to breast cancer incidence when exposed to differing levels of trihalomethane

McLafferty (2011)

Neighborhood SES

Late stage risk

Odds of late stage diagnosis were roughly 20% higher for Black breast cancer patients living in suburban areas and other metropolitan areas compared to women of similar age who live in socioeconomically similar communities in Chicago

Merkin (2002)

Residential area SES

Advance stage

No significant differences observed neighborhood SES and advance stage breast cancer but individual characteristics were significant for Black women

Pruitt (2015)

Residential segregation

Mortality

Higher Black segregation and higher Hispanic segregation were associated with higher all-cause mortality

Russell (2011)

Residential segregation

Breast cancer and all-cause mortality

Black women had high breast cancer mortality when living in segregated areas

Russell (2012)

Neighborhood residential racial composition

Mortality and survival time

Elevated risk for breast cancer-specific mortality among Blacks in segregated metropolitan areas

Shariff-Marco (2014)

Neighborhood SES

Survival

All-cause survival was show to be significantly worse in Black women living in low SES neighborhoods regardless of education

Warner (2010)

Neighborhood racial composition and residential segregation

Stage at diagnosis and all-cause mortality

Higher odds of distant stage among Black women living in low % Black neighborhoods within the most segregated metropolitan regions

*Studied showed no eff

Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Racial Composition

Six studies illustrated the associations between residential segregation or neighborhood racial composition and breast cancer mortality, survival, and stage at diagnosis [38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. One of the six studies also looked at residential segregation as a factor and analyzed spatial access to mammograms as a factor, which will be discussed later. Pruitt et al. and Russell et al. analyzed mortality and residential segregation, respectively [39, 40]. Pruitt et al. showed that compared with Whites, African American women were more than twice as likely to die from breast cancer when living in segregated areas (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 2.02–2.26) [39]. Also this study showed that higher black segregation (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.56–1.77) and higher Hispanic segregation (HR, 2.52; 95% CI = 2.29–2.77) were associated with higher all-cause mortality [39]. Russell et al. showed that Black women consistently had significantly higher breast cancer mortality associated to residential segregation, even after controlling for stage, surgery status, age at diagnosis, and percent of census tract residents living in poverty (p < 0.001) [40]. Furthermore, results indicate that census tract residential racial composition has a small but significant relationship with breast cancer mortality such that for each 10% increase in tract percent Black residents, women experience a 7% increased risk of mortality (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.05–1.08) [40]. Russell et al. analyzed neighborhood residential racial composition and mortality and survival time. This study showed that there are elevated risks for breast cancer-specific mortality among African American women in segregated metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) (HR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.09, 4.45) compared to White women [41]. Furthermore, Warner and Gomez studied showed higher odds of distant stage disease among Black women living in low percent Black neighborhoods within the most segregated metropolitan regions as measured by the isolation index, compared to Black women living in low percentage Black neighborhoods within the least segregated regions (OR = 2.11 (95% CI: 1.05–4.27) [42]. The data showed that when African American women who lived in a neighborhood with greater than or equal to 20% Black residents was associated with lower breast cancer-specific (HR = 0.86 (95% CI 0.76–0.97)) and all-cause (HR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.82–0.99)) mortality. This study also showed that when White women lived in high percentage Black areas, they had higher percentages of mortality rates compared to other White women supporting the idea that the environmental conditions associated with lower SES contributes to death due to breast cancer rather than the race itself [42]. Lastly, Haas et al. analyzed residential segregation and early versus late stage diagnosis. The study showed that for combinations of low and high segregation and low and high income, the odds of early stage diagnosis was lower in Black women compared to White women [38].

Spatial Access to Healthcare and Residential Segregation

Access to healthcare is a crucial factor in breast cancer detection and survival. Individuals must have access to facilities which perform mammogram testing to be diagnosed and patients need to be able to correspond with their physicians upon diagnosis. Dai’s studies illustrated that late stage cancer diagnosis was significantly higher in areas with poor mammography access (R = − 0.38, p = 0.001) and areas with higher Black residential segregation (R = 0.74, p = 0.001) [43]. This analysis was coupled with the understanding of residential segregation to conclude that when living an area with socioeconomic deprivation, due to limited mammography access, and sociocultural barriers, African American women have increased likelihood of being diagnosed with late stage breast cancer [43, 44].

Residential Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence

There are few studies on the relationship between environmental pollutants and breast cancer outcomes. Environmental pollutants encompass a variety of characteristics but here we focus at residential pollutants. Two studies [45, 46] looked at residential pollutants, specifically residential magnetic field exposure and trihalomethane levels in public drinking water. The results showed that neither, magnetic field exposure or trihalomethane levels, had effects on breast cancer incidence in African American women (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89, 1.16) and (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.8, 1.8), respectively. The odds ratio of trihalomethane levels was at the highest parts per billion (ppb) ≥ 80; however, there was still little or no effect shown on breast cancer incidence [46]. Each study examined the exposure at least 8 years after the pollutants were exposed.

Study Quality

Table 3 reports results of study quality assessment. Studies included in the review on average scored 8.8 out of 11 and ranged between 7 and 11. The distribution of qualification differed substantially across criteria. All 18 studies included in the review clearly described their research question and objective, had similarity among populations and inclusion and exclusion criteria, clearly defined neighborhood and residential factors, and confounded variables in their analysis [18, 20, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]. In contrast, all but two studies [19, 38] clearly defined the study population, in addition, only one study [45] blinded assessors for outcome variables. Since 17 of the papers were cross-sectional, the neighborhood or residential exposures could not be defined and measured before the breast cancer outcome, thus only one study [45] was able to assess and report this.
Table 3

Study quality assessment

Criterion

Mean

Standard deviation

Q1 Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?

1

0

Q2 Was the study population clearly specified and defined?

0.9

0.3

Q3 Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study pre-specified and applied uniformly to all participants?

1

0

Q4 Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?

0.9

0.2

Q5 For the analyses in this paper, were the neighborhood or residential factors measured prior to the breast cancer outcome(s) being measured?

0.2

0.4

Q6 Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between neighborhood or residential factors and breast cancer outcome if it existed?

0.9

0.2

Q7 For neighborhood or residential factors that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?

0.9

0.3

Q8 Were the neighborhood or residential factors clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?

1

0

Q9 Were the breast cancer outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?

0.9

0.2

Q10 Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?

0.1

0.2

Q11 Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between neighborhood or residential factors and breast cancer outcome(s)?

1

0

Total score

8.8

1.8

Note: Criterion yes = 1, all others (no, not reported, cannot determine, not applicable) = 0

Total global score between 0 and 11

Discussion

The study systematically reviewed and qualitatively synthesized the current evidence on the association of urban neighborhood and residential factors and breast cancer in African American women. The main conclusion from our analysis is that, we are lacking carefully designed studies specifically focusing on breast cancer disparities in African American women due to urban residential and neighborhood factors.

African American Women Living in Low nSES Have Greater Odds of Late Stage Diagnosis and Mortality

Several studies showed significant associations between low nSES and late stage breast cancer diagnosis and mortality in African American women. Previous literature has shown that living in areas with low nSES, regardless of race, has overall negative impacts on health outcomes [7]. African American women often live in low-income neighborhoods in urban areas because of affordability. Literature has also shown that nSES is a better measure for studying population health outcomes as oppose to individual SES, since nSES considers the built environment or components that contribute to the neighborhood’s environment. A study for example, illustrated that some high SES individuals live in low SES neighborhoods and vice versa [47]. Interestingly, the characteristics of the individuals living in low SES neighborhoods with high SES were White men with low body mass index (BMI), while low SES individuals living in high SES neighborhoods were Black women with high BMIs. This example justifies the need to differentiate individual and neighborhood SES [47]. Gentrification or “upward” change in nSES has also shown to have overall negative health outcomes [48, 49]. This is enlightening because an increase in overall nSES should result in better health of residents. However, Barret et al. pointed out that “long standing residents of neighborhoods” experiencing this change, are more prone to distant metastasis at breast cancer diagnosis [31].

African American Women Living in Segregated Areas Have Higher Odds of Late Stage Diagnosis and Mortality

A previous review on residential segregation shows similar results of the negative impacts of segregation on late stage diagnosis and mortality of breast cancer [27]. Williams [50] also suggests that residential segregation has an impact on SES and educational opportunities, thus residential segregation and SES are associated, which further complicates breast cancer staging and mortality [50]. Historically, residential segregation stems from Whites wanting social distance from Blacks, during the 1950s. However, these trends have not seemed to dissipate resulting in disparities within minority populations [50]. Residential segregation can be seen in almost every urban area; with Blacks almost always living in the poverty-stricken areas with little resources. Conversely, the resources that they have are usually for example, public health departments, which sometimes lack doctors and utilize nurse practitioners [50].

Late Stage Diagnosis Significantly Higher in Areas with Poor Mammography Access and Areas with Higher Black Residential Segregation

Only one study in this review illustrated the association of mammography access and residential segregation on late stage diagnosis of breast cancer [43]. This study was alarming because it showed that Detroit has a mammography access problem that directly correlates with its higher percentage of Black neighborhoods. Even with resources such as state mandated health departments, there is still a problem with diagnosing breast cancer in African American women in urban areas. Russell [40] also highlighted that African American women are less likely to have tumors removed compared to Caucasian women, which is mainly due to lack of specialists on hand at health departments or access to primary care physicians.

Residential Pollution Has no Effect on Breast Cancer Risk

Residential pollution showed no significant association on breast cancer risk in this review. In general, previous literature has cited pollution as a concern when it comes to breast cancer risk and incidence [51]. A review on environmental pollutants and breast cancer suggested that there is an association between industrial development and breast cancer outcomes [52]. Endocrine disruptors such as Bisphenol-A (BPA) were an anticipated pollutant we had hoped to see in the literature since found in some household products such as plastic goods. More importantly, it was anticipated to see some association between BPA-products and breast cancer risk and incidence in African American women. However, our database search brought about no articles related to these types of pollutants. The reason for this may have been due to the combinations of words used during the literature search or lack of research to address the impact of these exposures on breast cancer outcomes in this population. In addition, the latency period for these chemicals to manifest any carcinogenic activity might be longer. Future research is needed to address these questions in this population.

Strengths and Limitations

The construction of a meta-analysis could not be developed in this review because of the measured factors of nSES and the use of multiple residential segregation isolation indices. These findings indicate that more studies are needed to answer the question of the role that residential characteristics play in breast cancer outcomes in urban African American women. Furthermore, with a focus on epidemiological studies causal relationships cannot be established between neighborhood and residential factors on breast cancer risk, stage at diagnosis, late stage diagnosis, survival, and mortality. However, epidemiological studies do allow us to better understand factors that may contribute to breast cancer disparities in African American women and to develop experimental designs to test these hypotheses. Epidemiological studies also allow us to bring forth issues on health policy. In 2012, the National Cancer Institute’s Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, proposed a plan to tackle gaps in research discoveries and clinical and public health practice [53]. This initiative would serve to use the knowledge of epidemiological studies to further study cancer epidemiology in clinical trials and to support health policy initiatives. Health policy change is a targeted goal with the development of this review. Furthermore, by understanding these factors molecular biologists can take them into consideration when testing experimental designs for targeted, individualized medicine is a secondary goal. Underrepresented groups alike can benefit from this review because these experiments can be generalized to other populations.

Conclusion

This review provides a qualitative synthesis of major neighborhood and residential factors on breast cancer risk, stage at diagnosis, mortality and survival. Focusing on African American women is important since they face greater disparities in breast cancer late stage diagnosis, mortality and survival. By understanding reasons for health disparities in this population, disparities in other populations with similar health outcomes can be addressed better.

References

  1. 1.
    Ratcliffe M, Burd C, Holder K, Fields A (2016) Defining rural at the U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey and Geography BriefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sonya Rastogi, T.D.J., Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, Malcom P. Drewery, Jr., The Black Population: 2010.2010 Census Briefs, 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diez-Roux AV (2007) Neighborhoods and health: where are we and where do we go from here? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 55(1):13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2006.12.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diez-Roux AV, Mair C (2010) Neighborhoods and health. Annals New York Academy Sci 1186(1):125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cubbin C, Pedregon V, Egerter S, Braveman P (2008) Where we live matters for our health: neighborhoods and health. Neighborhoods and Health 2008(3)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matheson FI, Moineddin R, Dunn JR, Creatore MI, Gozdyra P, Glazier RH (2006) Urban neighborhoods, chronic stress, gender and depression. Soc Sci Med 63(10):2604–2616. Epub 2006 Aug 22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellen IG, Miianovich T, Dillman KN (2001) Neighborhood effects on health: exploring the links and assessing the evidence. J Urban Affairs 23(3–4):391–408.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pampel FC, Krueger PM, Denney JT (2010) Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annu Rev Sociol 36(1):349–370.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102529 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubowitz T, Heron M, Basurto-Davila R, Bird CE, Lurie N, Escarce JJ (2011) Racial/ethnic differences in US health behaviors: a decomposition analysis. Am J Health Behav 35(3):290–304.  https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.35.3.4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estimates, A.C.S.-Y., Selected social characteristics in the United States 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meilleur, A., Subramanian, S., Plascak, J. J., Fisher, J. L., Paskett, E. D., & Lamont, E. B., Rural Residence and Cancer Outcomes in the US: Issues and Challenges. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2013. 22(10)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (2017) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2014. National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curtis E, Quale C, Haggstrom D, Smith-Bindman R (2008) Racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer survival: how much is explained by screening, tumor severity, biology, treatment, comorbidities, and demographics? Cancer 112(1):171–180.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23131 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newman, L.A., Griffith K.A., Jatoi I., Simon M.S., Crowe J.P., Colditz G.A., Meta-analysis of survival in African American and white American patients with breast cancer: ethnicity compared with socioeconomic status. J Clin Oncol, 2006. 24(9): p. 1342–9, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3472
  15. 15.
    Cronin KA, Richardson LC, Henley J, Miller JW, Thomas CC, White A, Plescia M (2012) Vital signs: racial disparities in breast cancer severity — United States, 2005–2009. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 61(45):922–926Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen L, Li CI (2015) Racial disparities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment by hormone receptor and HER2 status. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 24(11):1666–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iqbal J, Ginsburg O, Rochon PA, Sun P, Narod SA (2015) Differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer-specific survival by race and ethnicity in the United States. JAMA 313(2):165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17322 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barry J, Breen N, Barrett M (2012) Significance of increasing poverty levels for determining late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in 1990 and 2000. J Urban Health-Bulletin New York Academy Medicine 89(4):614–627.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9660-8 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLafferty S, Wang F, Luo L, Butler J (2011) Rural-urban inequalities in late-stage breast cancer: spatial and social dimensions of risk and access. Environ Planning B-Planning & Design 38(4):726–740.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b36145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shariff-Marco S, Yang J, John EM, Sangaramoorthy M, Hertz A, Koo J, Nelson DO, Schupp CW, Shema SJ, Cockburn M, Satariano WA, Yen IH, Ponce NA, Winkleby M, Keegan THM, Gomez SL (2014) Impact of neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status on survival after breast cancer varies by race/ethnicity: the neighborhood and breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(5):793–811.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0924Epub 2014 Mar 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neuhausen SL (1999) Ethnic differences in cancer risk resulting from genetic variation. Cancer 86(S8):1755–1762.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991015)86:8+<1755::AID-CNCR15>3.0.CO;2-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenberg MR (1983) Urbanization and cancer: changing mortality patterns? Int Reg Sci Rev 8(2):127–145.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016001768300800202 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krieger N, Singh N, Waterman PD (2016) Metrics for monitoring cancer inequities: residential segregation, the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE), and breast cancer estrogen receptor status (USA, 1992-2012). Cancer Causes Control 27(9):1139–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-016-0793-7Epub 2016 Aug 8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramer MR, Hogue CR (2009) Is segregation bad for your health? Epidemiol Rev 31:178–194.  https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxp001Epub 2009 May 23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mays VM, Cochran SD, Barnes NW (2007) Race, race-based discrimination, and health outcomes among African Americans. Annu Rev Psychol 58(1):201–225.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190212 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan-Gates JA, Ersek JL, Eberth JM, Adams SA, Pruitt SL (2015) Geographic access to mammography and its relationship to breast cancer screening and stage at diagnosis: a systematic review. Womens Health Issues 25(5):482–493.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2015.05.010 Epub 2015 Jul 26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landrine H et al (2016) Residential segregation and racial cancer disparities: a systematic review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 30(10):016–0326Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Epub 2009 Jul 21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    About the SEER Program [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Group, U.S.C.S.W., United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2014 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, 2017Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barrett RE, Cho YI, Weaver KE, Ryu K, Campbell RT, Dolecek TA, Warnecke RB (2008) Neighborhood change and distant metastasis at diagnosis of breast cancer. Ann Epidemiol 18(1):43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Echeverria SE, Borrell LN, Brown D, Rhoads G (2009) A local area analysis of racial, ethnic, and neighborhood disparities in breast cancer staging. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(11):3024–3029.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mandelblatt J, Andrews H, Kao R, Wallace R, Kerner J (1995) Impact of access and social-context on breast-cancer stage at diagnosis. J Health Care Poor Underserved 6(3):342–351.  https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0449 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flores YN, Davidson PL, Nakazono TT, Carreon DC, Mojica CM, Bastani R (2013) Neighborhood socio-economic disadvantage and race/ethnicity as predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis. BMC Public Health 13(1).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1061
  35. 35.
    Merkin SS, Stevenson L, Powe N (2002) Geographic socioeconomic status, race, and advanced-stage breast cancer in New York City. Am J Public Health 92(1):64–70.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.1.64 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cheng I, Shariff-Marco S, Koo J, Monroe KR, Yang J, John EM, Kurian AW, Kwan ML, Henderson BE, Bernstein L, Lu Y, Sposto R, Vigen C, Wu AH, Gomez SL, Keegan THM (2015) Contribution of the neighborhood environment and obesity to breast cancer survival: the California Breast Cancer Survivorship Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 24(8):1282–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Min Lian MP, Liu Y, Schootman M, Frisse A, Foldes E, Donna B (2015) Jeffe, Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, tumor subtypes, and causes of death after non-metastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosis: a multilevel competing-risk analysis. Support Care Cancer 23(4):933–941.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2441-7 Epub 2014 Sep 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haas JS, Earle CC, Orav JE, Brawarsky P, Neville BA, Williams DR (2008) Racial segregation and disparities in cancer stage for seniors. J Gen Intern Med 23(5):699–705.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0545-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pruitt SL, Lee SJC, Tiro JA, Xuan L, Ruiz JM, Inrig S (2015) Residential racial segregation and mortality among black, white, and Hispanic urban breast cancer patients in Texas, 1995 to 2009. Cancer 121(11):1845–1855.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29282 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russell E et al (2011) Residential racial composition, spatial access to care, and breast cancer mortality among women in Georgia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(10):3199–3206.  https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-1314 Epub 2011 Aug 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Russell EF et al (2012) Metropolitan area racial residential segregation, neighborhood racial composition, and breast cancer mortality. Womens Health Issues 22(5):e429–e438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2012.06.004 Epub 2012 Jul 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Warner ET, Gomez SL (2010) Impact of neighborhood racial composition and metropolitan residential segregation on disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis and survival between Black and White women in California. J Community Health 35(4):398–408.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-010-9265-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dai D (2010) Black residential segregation, disparities in spatial access to health care facilities, and late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Detroit. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(8):2073–2079.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0428 Epub 2010 Jul 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McLafferty S, Wang F (2009) Rural reversal? Rural-urban disparities in late-stage cancer risk in Illinois. Cancer 115(12):2755–2764.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24306 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    London SJ et al (2003) Residential magnetic field exposure and breast cancer risk: a nested case-control study from a multiethnic cohort in Los Angeles County. California J Nutr 133(11 Suppl 1):3785S–3793SGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marcus PM et al (1998) Female breast cancer and trihalomethane levels in drinking water in North Carolina. Int J Clin Pract 52(1):7–12Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roblin DW (2013) Validation of a neighborhood SES index in a managed care organization. Med Care 51(1):e1–e8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182349b97 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huynh M, Maroko AR (2014) Gentrification and preterm birth in New York City, 2008–2010. J Urban Health-Bulletin New York Academy Medicine 91(1):211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-013-9823-x Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gibbons J, Barton MS (2016) The Association of Minority Self-Rated Health with black versus white gentrification. J Urban Health-Bulletin New York Academy Medicine 93(6):909–922.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0087-0 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    David R Williams CC (2001) Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep 116(5):404–416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50068-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    AR Zota, A.A., RA Rudel, JG Brody, Self-reported chemicals exposure, beliefs about disease causation, and risk of breast cancer in Cap Cod Breat Cancer and Environment Study: a case control study.. Environ Health, 2010Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Julia Green Brody RAR (2003) Environmental pollutants and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect 111(8):1007–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.6310 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    National Cancer Institute, D.o.C.C.a.P.S., How Can We Use Epidemiology to Bridge Evidence Gaps in Translating Research Discoveries into Clinical and Public Health Practice? 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food Science and Human NutritionUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Center at IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Supercomputing ApplicationsUrbanaUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Genomic BiologyUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations