Impact of a National Cancer Prevention and Treatment Program on the Prevalence of Late-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnoses in Oklahoma

Overview

Journal J Okla State Med Assoc

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2016 Nov 26

PMID 27885306

Authors

Amanda Janitz

Aaron M Wendelboe

Ann F Chou

Summer Frank

Angela Watkins

David Thompson

Janis Campbell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In 2000, Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act (BCCPTA) to provide coverage through Medicaid to women who screened positive for breast and cervical cancer. We aimed to determine if late-stage breast cancer prevalence decreased among Oklahoma women after passage of BCCPTA. Data were obtained from the Oklahoma Central Cancer Registry during 2000-2011. We estimated prevalence proportion ratios (PPR) using modified Poisson regression between the proportion of women with late-stage breast cancer and timing of diagnosis related to BCCPTA. Among uninsured women, the probability of being diagnosed with late-stage cancer after enactment of the BCCPTA was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.96) times the probability before enactment. This was significant among uninsured women living in metro counties (PPR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.90) but not in non-metro counties (PPR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.56). These findings may be similar to other rural states with large uninsured populations.

References

Campbell J, Bursac Z, Yerkes A, Li P, Baker K . Self-reported mammography screening among Oklahoma women age 50 and older: Oklahoma Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 1997-2001. J Okla State Med Assoc. 2002; 95(10):646-52. View

Freeman H, Chu K . Determinants of cancer disparities: barriers to cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2005; 14(4):655-69, v. DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2005.06.002. View

Cronin K, Feuer E, Clarke L, Plevritis S . Impact of adjuvant therapy and mammography on U.S. mortality from 1975 to 2000: comparison of mortality results from the cisnet breast cancer base case analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006; (36):112-21. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgj015. View

Nuno T, Gerald J, Harris R, Martinez M, Estrada A, Garcia F . Comparison of breast and cervical cancer screening utilization among rural and urban Hispanic and American Indian women in the Southwestern United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2012; 23(8):1333-41. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-012-0012-0. View

Hunter C . Epidemiology, stage at diagnosis, and tumor biology of breast carcinoma in multiracial and multiethnic populations. Cancer. 2000; 88(5 Suppl):1193-202. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000301)88:5+<1193::aid-cncr3>3.3.co;2-4. View

Christensen L, Engholm G, Cortes R, Ceberg J, Tange U, Andersson M . Reduced mortality for women with mammography-detected breast cancer in east Denmark and south Sweden. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(16):2773-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.03.036. View

McLafferty S, Wang F, Luo L, Butler J . Rural - urban inequalities in late-stage breast cancer: spatial and social dimensions of risk and access. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2013; 38(4):726-740. PMC: 3547633. DOI: 10.1068/b36145. View

Bradley C, Given C, Roberts C . Late stage cancers in a Medicaid-insured population. Med Care. 2003; 41(6):722-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000065126.73750.D1. View

French C, True S, McIntyre R, Sciulli M, Maloy K . State implementation of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000: a collaborative effort among government agencies. Public Health Rep. 2004; 119(3):279-85. PMC: 1497624. DOI: 10.1016/j.phr.2004.04.007. View

10.

Jackson M, Davis W, Waldron W, McNeel T, Pfeiffer R, Breen N . Impact of geography on mammography use in California. Cancer Causes Control. 2009; 20(8):1339-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-009-9355-6. View

11.

Berry D, Cronin K, Plevritis S, Fryback D, Clarke L, Zelen M . Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(17):1784-92. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa050518. View

12.

Plescia M, Wong F, Pieters J, Joseph D . The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in the era of health reform: a vision forward. Cancer. 2014; 120 Suppl 16:2620-4. PMC: 4631222. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28826. View

13.

Monroe A, Ricketts T, Savitz L . Cancer in rural versus urban populations: a review. J Rural Health. 1992; 8(3):212-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.1992.tb00354.x. View

14.

Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(1):5-29. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21254. View

15.

Engelman K, Hawley D, Gazaway R, Mosier M, Ahluwalia J, Ellerbeck E . Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50(1):62-8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50009.x. View

16.

Lee N, Wong F, Jamison P, Jones S, Galaska L, Brady K . Implementation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: the beginning. Cancer. 2014; 120 Suppl 16:2540-8. PMC: 4481738. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28820. View

17.

Kakefuda I, Stallones L . Comparisons of Colorado women's cancer screening practices by residence: metropolitan, non-metropolitan, and farm. J Agric Saf Health. 2006; 12(1):59-69. DOI: 10.13031/2013.20201. View

18.

Doescher M, Jackson J . Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009; 15(3):200-9. DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a117da. View

19.

Coughlin S, Thompson T, Hall H, Logan P, Uhler R . Breast and cervical carcinoma screening practices among women in rural and nonrural areas of the United States, 1998-1999. Cancer. 2002; 94(11):2801-12. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10577. View

20.

Yancy B, Royalty J, Marroulis S, Mattingly C, Benard V, DeGroff A . Using data to effectively manage a national screening program. Cancer. 2014; 120 Suppl 16:2575-83. PMC: 4493934. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28821. View