| Title |
Comparing treatment and outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ among women in Missouri by race
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-016-4030-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chinwe C. Madubata, Ying Liu, Melody S. Goodman, Shumei Yun, Jennifer Yu, Min Lian, Graham A. Colditz |
| Abstract |
To investigate whether treatment (surgery, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy) contributes to racial disparities in outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The analysis included 8184 non-Hispanic White and 954 non-Hispanic Black women diagnosed with DCIS between 1996 and 2011 and identified in the Missouri Cancer Registry. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of treatment for race. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of ipsilateral breast tumor (IBT) and contralateral breast tumor (CBT) for race. There was no significant difference between Black and White women in utilization of mastectomy (OR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.99-1.35) or endocrine therapy (OR 1.19; 95 % CI 0.94-1.51). Despite no significant difference in underutilization of radiation therapy (OR 1.14; 95 % CI 0.92-1.42), Black women had higher odds of radiation delay, defined as at least 8 weeks between surgery and radiation (OR 1.92; 95 % CI 1.55-2.37). Among 9138 patients, 184 had IBTs and 326 had CBTs. Black women had a higher risk of IBTs (HR 1.69; 95 % CI 1.15-2.50) and a comparable risk of CBTs (HR 1.19; 95 % CI 0.84-1.68), which were independent of pathological features and treatment. Racial differences in DCIS treatment and outcomes exist in Missouri. This study could not completely explain the higher risk of IBTs in Black women. Future studies should identify differences in timely initiation and completion of treatment, which may contribute to the racial difference in IBTs after DCIS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 26% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 35% |
| Psychology | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,395,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,300
of 4,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,382
of 315,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#37
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.