Scarlett Lin Gomez

Objective: To study the impact of rising bilateral mastectomy rates among neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) recipients in California. Background: NAC for operable breast cancer (BC) can downstage disease and facilitate breast conservation. We assessed trends in NAC use and surgical procedures in California from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2012 using statewide population-based cancer registry data. Methods: A total of 236,797 females diagnosed with stage I–III BC were studied. Information regarding NAC, adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT), breast conserving surgery (BCS), bilateral mastectomy (BLM), and unilateral mastectomy (ULM) was abstracted from the medical records. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) of receiving NAC and of type of surgery after NAC. Results: Approximately, 40.1% (94,980) of patients received chemotherapy: 87% (82,588) aCT and 13.0% (12,392) NAC. NAC use more than doubled over time and increased with stage (Stage I, 0.7%; Stage III, 29.9%). Multivariable predictors of NAC treatment were stage (III), younger age (<40 yrs), Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity versus non-Hispanic White (OR 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.16), and care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated center (OR 1.70, CI 1.58–1.82). Most NAC recipients (68.4%) had mastectomies, and 14.3% of them underwent BLM. In contrast, 47.9% aCT patients had mastectomies with 7.3% BLM. The only independent predictor of BCS after NAC was care at a NCI-designated center (OR 1.28, CI 1.10–1.49), and of BLM, age <40 years versus 50 to 64 years (OR 2.59, CI 2.21–3.03), or residence in the highest socioeconomic neighborhood quintile versus lowest (OR 2.10, CI 1.67–2.64). Conclusions: NAC use remains low. Predictors of surgery type after NAC were sociodemographic rather than clinical, raising concern for disparities in care access.

Latinos born in the US, 36 million, comprise 65% of all US Latinos. Yet their cancer experience is nearly always analyzed together with their foreign-born counterparts, 19 million, who constitute a steady influx of truly lower-risk populations from abroad. To highlight specific cancer vulnerabilities for US-born Latinos, we compare their cancer mortality to the majority non-Latino white (NLW) population, foreign-born Latinos, and non-Latino blacks. We analyzed 465,751 cancer deaths from 2008 to 2012 occurring among residents of California and Texas, the two most populous states, accounting for 47% of US Latinos. This cross-sectional analysis, based on granular data obtained from death certificates on cause of death, age, race, ethnicity and birthplace, makes use of normal standardization techniques and negative binomial regression models. While Latinos overall have lower all-cancers-combined mortality rates than NLWs, these numbers were largely driven by low rates among the foreign born while mortality rates for US-born Latinos approach those of NLWs. Among Texas males, rates were 210 per 100,000 for NLWs and 166 for Latinos combined, but 201 per 100,000 for US-born Latinos and 125 for foreign-born Latinos. Compared to NLWs, US-born Latino males in California had mortality rate ratios of 2.83 (95% CI: 2.52–3.18) for liver cancer, 1.44 (95% CI: 1.30–1.61) for kidney cancer, and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17–1.34) for colorectal cancer (CRC). Texas results showed a similar site-specific pattern. Specific cancer patterns for US-born Latinos, who have relatively high cancer mortality, similar overall to NLWs, are masked by aggregation of all Latinos, US-born and foreign-born. While NLWs had high mortality for lung cancer, US-born Latinos had high mortality for liver, kidney and male colorectal cancers. HCV testing and reinforcement of the need for CRC screening should be a priority in this specific and understudied population. The unprecedented proximity of overall rates between NLWs and US-born Latino populations runs counter to the prevailing narrative of Latinos having significantly lower cancer risk and mortality. Birthplace data are critical in detecting meaningful differences among Latinos; these findings merit not only clinical but also public health attention.

Background: Neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) has been found to be associated with breast cancer risk. It remains unclear whether this association applies across racial/ethnic groups independent of individual-level factors and is attributable to other neighborhood characteristics. Methods: We examined the independent and joint associations of education and nSES with odds of breast cancer. Residential addresses were geocoded for 2,838 cases and 3,117 controls and linked to nSES and social and built environment characteristics. We estimated ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using multilevel logistic regression controlling for individual-level breast cancer risk factors and assessed the extent to which nSES associations were due to neighborhood characteristics. Results: Women living in the highest versus lowest nSES quintile had a nearly 2-fold greater odds of breast cancer, with elevated odds (adjusted ORs, 95% CI) for non-Hispanic whites (NHWs; 2.27; 1.45–3.56), African Americans (1.74; 1.07–2.83), U.S.-born Hispanics (1.82; 1.19–2.79), and foreign-born Hispanics (1.83; 1.06–3.17). Considering education and nSES jointly, ORs were increased for low education/high nSES NHWs (1.83; 1.14–2.95), high education/high nSES NHWs (1.64; 1.06–2.54), and high education/high nSES foreign-born Hispanics (2.17; 1.52–3.09) relative to their race/ethnicity/nativity-specific low education/low nSES counterparts. Adjustment for urban and mixed-land use characteristics attenuated the nSES associations for most racial/ethnic/nativity groups except NHWs. Conclusions: Our study provides empirical evidence for a role of neighborhood environments in breast cancer risk, specifically social and built environment attributes. Impact: Considering the role of neighborhood characteristics among diverse populations may offer insights to understand racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(4); 541–52. ©2017 AACR.

Screening mammography has contributed to a significant increase in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), raising concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Building on prior observations from lineage evolution analysis, we examined whether measuring genomic features of DCIS would predict association with invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). The long-term goal is to enhance standard clinicopathologic measures of low- versus high-risk DCIS and to enable risk-appropriate treatment. We studied three common chromosomal copy number alterations (CNA) in IBC and designed fluorescence in situ hybridization-based assay to measure copy number at these loci in DCIS samples. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the electronic medical records of Stanford Cancer Institute and linked to demographic data from the population-based California Cancer Registry; results were integrated with data from tissue microarrays of specimens containing DCIS that did not develop IBC versus DCIS with concurrent IBC. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to describe associations of CNAs with these two groups of DCIS. We examined 271 patients with DCIS (120 that did not develop IBC and 151 with concurrent IBC) for the presence of 1q, 8q24 and 11q13 copy number gains. Compared to DCIS-only patients, patients with concurrent IBC had higher frequencies of CNAs in their DCIS samples. On multivariable analysis with conventional clinicopathologic features, the copy number gains were significantly associated with concurrent IBC. The state of two of the three copy number gains in DCIS was associated with a risk of IBC that was 9.07 times that of no copy number gains, and the presence of gains at all three genomic loci in DCIS was associated with a more than 17-fold risk (P = 0.0013). CNAs have the potential to improve the identification of high-risk DCIS, defined by presence of concurrent IBC. Expanding and validating this approach in both additional cross-sectional and longitudinal cohorts may enable improved risk stratification and risk-appropriate treatment in DCIS.

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among Chinese Americans. A detailed examination of incidence trends by immigration status and histology may inform the etiology of lung cancer in this growing population. Methods: California Cancer Registry data were enhanced with data on patient nativity. Lung cancer incidence rates for Chinese males and females were computed for the years 1990–2010, and rates by immigration status and histology were computed for 1990–2004. Trends were assessed with annual percentage change (APC) statistics (two-sided P values) based on linear regression. Results: A total of 8,167 lung cancers were diagnosed among California Chinese from 1990 to 2010. Overall incidence increased nonstatistically among U.S.-born males (APC, 2.1; 95% CI, −4.9 to 9.7), but decreased significantly among foreign-born (APC, −1.7; 95% CI, −2.9 to −0.6). Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), specifically the squamous cell and large cell carcinoma subtypes among foreign-born males. Among females, incidence decreased nonsignificantly among U.S.-born (APC, −2.8; 95% CI, −9.1 to 4.0) but was stable among foreign-born (APC, −0.4; 95% CI, −1.7 to 1.0). A statistically significant decreasing trend was observed for squamous cell among foreign-born females. Conclusions: These data provide critical evidence base to inform screening, research, and public health priorities in this growing population. Impact: Given the low smoking prevalence among Chinese Americans, especially females, and few known lung cancer risk factors in U.S. never-smoker populations, additional research of etiologic genetic or biologic factors may elucidate knowledge regarding lung cancer diagnosed in never smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(8); 1157–64. ©2015 AACR.

Randomized trials have demonstrated similar survival for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation or with mastectomy.^1,2 However, older data show increasing use of mastectomy, and particularly bilateral mastectomy, among US patients with breast cancer.^3-5 Bilateral mastectomy represents both treatment (for the affected breast) and prevention (for the contralateral breast), with the uncommon exception of patients having bilateral tumors. The causes of the increasing use of bilateral mastectomy are unknown; one possibility is the dissemination of sensitive diagnostic tests such as breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing of BRCA1 (unigene cluster number Hs.194143) and BRCA2 (unigene cluster number Hs.34012).^4,6 Although it may be cited as a justification for bilateral mastectomy, evidence for a survival benefit appears limited to rare patient subgroups, including women with BRCA1/2 mutations or strong family history of cancer.^7-9

Introduction: Young women have poorer survival after breast cancer than do older women. It is unclear whether this survival difference relates to the unique distribution of hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-defined molecular breast cancer subtypes among adolescent and young adult (AYA) women aged 15 to 39 years. The purpose of our study was to examine associations between breast cancer subtypes and short-term survival in AYA women, as well as to determine whether the distinct molecular subtype distribution among AYA women explains the unfavorable overall breast cancer survival statistics reported for AYA women compared with older women. Methods: Data for 5,331 AYA breast cancers diagnosed between 2005 and 2009 were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. Survival by subtype (triple-negative; HR+/HER2-; HR+/HER2+; HR-/HER2+) and age-group (AYA versus 40- to 64-year-olds) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards regression with follow-up through 2010. Results: With up to 6 years of follow-up and a mean survival time of 3.1 years (SD = 1.5 years), AYA women diagnosed with HR-/HER + and triple-negative breast cancer experienced a 1.6-fold and 2.7-fold increased risk of death, respectively, from all causes (HR-/HER + hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 2.18; triple-negative HR: 2.75; 95% CI, 2.06 to 3.66) and breast cancer (HR-/HER + hazard ratio: 1.63; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.36; triple-negative hazard ratio: 2.71; 95% CI, 1.98 to 3.71) than AYA women with HR+/HER2- breast cancer. AYA women who resided in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods, had public health insurance, and were of Black, compared with White, race/ethnicity experienced worse survival. This race/ethnicity association was attenuated somewhat after adjusting for breast cancer subtypes (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.82). AYA women had similar all-cause and breast cancer-specific short-term survival as older women for all breast cancer subtypes and across all stages of disease. Conclusions: Among AYA women with breast cancer, short-term survival varied by breast cancer subtypes, with the distribution of breast cancer subtypes explaining some of the poorer survival observed among Black, compared with White, AYA women. Future studies should consider whether distribution of breast cancer subtypes and other factors, including differential receipt of treatment regimens, influences long-term survival in young compared with older women.