Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Aug;122(3):873-8.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0737-y. Epub 2010 Jan 20.

Socioeconomic disparities in the decline in invasive breast cancer incidence

Brian L Sprague  1 , Amy Trentham-Dietz, Elizabeth S Burnside
Affiliations

Socioeconomic disparities in the decline in invasive breast cancer incidence

Brian L Sprague et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Aug.

Abstract

Breast cancer incidence in the United States has declined dramatically since the year 2002. To improve our understanding of the underlying factors driving breast cancer trends, we explored potential socioeconomic disparities in the recent decline in incidence. We examined the decline in breast cancer incidence according to county-level socioeconomic indicators using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. Since socioeconomic status is associated with mammography screening, we also examined the relation between incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS; a strong marker of mammography utilization) and the decline in invasive breast cancer. The reduction in invasive breast cancer incidence between 1998-2001 and 2003-2006 in the SEER 9 registries was greatest among women living in counties with higher median household income (-16% change for > or = $85,000 vs. -4% for <$35,000; P(trend) < 0.01) and a higher percentage of adults aged 25 years or older with a bachelor's degree (-13% change for > or = 40% vs. -8% for <15%; P(trend) < 0.01). Counties with higher DCIS incidence during 1985-2001 had a larger decrease in invasive breast cancer incidence (absolute decrease 1.7 percentage points greater per 5 per 100,000 increase in DCIS incidence; P = 0.01). This association was present for both ER-positive and ER-negative invasive cancers (P < 0.05). In summary, the decline in breast cancer incidence has been largest in areas with high socioeconomic status and high screening utilization rates. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that a saturation of screening mammography utilization contributed to the overall decline in breast cancer incidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Invasive breast cancer incidence in the SEER 9 registries during both 1998–2001 (dashed line) and 2003–2006 (solid line) is positively associated with year 2000 county-level median household income (A) and percent of adults aged 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree (B).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The percent decline invasive breast cancer incidence (solid line) was largest among women living in counties with higher median household income (A) and counties with a higher percent of adults aged 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree (B). These same socioeconomic indicators were positively associated with incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS; dashed line) during 1985–2001. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The percent decline in invasive breast cancer incidence tended to be largest in counties with the highest incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) during 1985–2001. Circle sizes are proportional to the year 2000 county population. The Pearson correlation coefficient was −0.18 (P = 0.01).
Figure 4
Figure 4
The association between incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ and the percent decline in invasive breast cancer was similar for both estrogen receptor (ER) positive (A) and ER-negative breast cancers (B). Circle sizes are proportional to the year 2000 county population. The Pearson correlation coefficients were −0.22 (P = 0.002) and −0.15 (P = 0.04) for ER-positive and ER-negative cancers, respectively.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, et al. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(16):1670–1674. - PubMed
    1. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2006. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2009. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/, based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
    1. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9084):1047–1059. - PubMed
    1. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321–333. - PubMed
    1. Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Wan PC, Pike MC. Effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk: estrogen versus estrogen plus progestin. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(4):328–332. - PubMed

Publication types