Disparities in breast cancer subtypes among women in the lower Mississippi Delta Region states
To describe and elucidate rates in breast cancer incidence by subtype in the federally designated Mississippi Delta Region, an impoverished region across eight Southern/Midwest states with a high proportion of Black residents and notable breast cancer mortality disparities.
Cancer registry data from seven LMDR states (Missouri was not included because of permission issues) were used to explore breast cancer incidence differences by subtype between the LMDR’s Delta and non-Delta Regions and between White and Black women within the Delta Region (2012–2014). Overall and subtype-specific age-adjusted incidence rates and rate ratios were calculated. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to evaluate how individual-level and area-level factors, like race/ethnicity and poverty level, respectively, affect rates of breast cancers by subtype.
Women in the Delta Region had higher rates of triple-negative breast cancer, the most aggressive subtype, than women in the non-Delta (17.0 vs. 14.4 per 100,000), but the elevated rate was attenuated to non-statistical significance in multivariable analysis. Urban Delta women also had higher rates of triple-negative breast cancer than non-Delta urban women, which remained in multivariable analysis. In the Delta Region, Black women had higher overall breast cancer rates than their White counterparts, which remained in multivariable analysis.
Higher rates of triple-negative breast cancer in the Delta Region may help explain the Region’s mortality disparity. Further, an important area of future research is to determine what unaccounted for individual-level or social area-level factors contribute to the elevated breast cancer incidence rate among Black women in the Delta Region.
KeywordsBreast cancer Triple-negative Cancer disparities
These data are based on the NAACCR December 2015 data submission. Support for cancer registries is provided by the state, province, or territory in which the registry is located. In the U.S., registries also participate in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) or both. In Canada, all registries submit data to the Canadian Cancer Registry maintained by Statistics Canada.
- 1.Delta Regional Authority (2017) Today’s Delta: a research tool for the region: 3rd edition. http://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/DRA_Todays_Delta_2016.pdf Accessed 9 Aug 2017
- 2.Delta Regional Authority (2016) Promoting a healthy Delta. http://dra.gov/initiatives/promoting-a-healthy-delta/. Accessed 5 Nov 2016
- 8.Phipps A, Li CI (2010) Breast cancer biology and clinical characteristics. In: Li CI (ed) Breast cancer epidemiology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 10.Akinyemiju T, Moore JX, Ojesina AI, Waterbor JW, Altekruse SF (2016) Racial disparities in individual breast cancer outcomes by hormone-receptor subtype, area-level socio-economic status and healthcare resources. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157(3):575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3840-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Llanos AA, Chandwani S, Bandera EV, Hirshfield KM, Lin Y, Ambrosone CB et al (2015) Associations between sociodemographic and clinicopathological factors and breast cancer subtypes in a population-based study. Cancer Causes Control 26(12):1737–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-015-0667-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kohler BA, Sherman RL, Howlader N, Jemal A, Ryerson AB, Henry KA et al (2015) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(6):djv048. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer 109(9):1721–1728. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Sineshaw HM, Gaudet M, Ward EM, Flanders WD, Desantis C, Lin CC et al (2014) Association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer subtypes in the National Cancer Data Base (2010-2011). Breast Cancer Res Treat 145(3):753–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2976-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.SEER*Stat Database: NAACCR Incidence Data—CiNA Analytic File, 1995-2014, for NHIAv2 Origin, Custom File With County, Zahnd—Disparities in breast ca subtype (3-year increments) (which includes data from CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), CCCR’s Provincial and Territorial Registries, and the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Registries), certified by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) as meeting high-quality incidence data standards for the specified time periods, submitted December 2016Google Scholar
- 22.United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html. Accessed 9 Jan 2018
- 23.United States Department of Agriculture. 2016 Rural Urban Continuum Codes. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2018
- 24.National Cancer Institute. Mammography prevalence within 2 years (Age 40+)—small area estimates. https://sae.cancer.gov/nhis-brfss/estimates/mammography.html. Accessed 9 Jan 2018
- 25.Area Health Resources Files (AHRF). 2014-2015. Rockville, MD.: US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health WorkforceGoogle Scholar
- 30.Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R (2002) Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter?: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol 156(5):471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Delta Regional Authority (2017) About. http://dra.gov/about-dra/mission-and-vision/. Accessed 9 Aug 2017
- 36.Danielle K (2011) Cities where women are having the most babies. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/21/cities-where-women-are-having-the-most-babies. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
- 42.Geronimus AT, Hicken MT, Pearson JA, Seashols SJ, Brown KL, Cruz TD (2010) Do US black women experience stress-related accelerated biological aging?: a novel theory and first population-based test of black-white differences in telomere length. Hum Nat 21(1):19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9078-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Finerman R, Williams C, Bennett L (2010) Health disparities and engaged medical anthropology in the United States Mid-South. Urban Anthropol Stud Cult Syst World Econ Dev 39(3):265–297Google Scholar
- 47.Boscoe FP, Sherman C (2006) On socioeconomic gradients in cancer registry data quality. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(6):551Google Scholar
- 50.Institute of Medicine National Cancer Policy Forum (2009) Ensuring quality cancer care through the oncology workforce: sustaining care in the 21st century: workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar