Background: Triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been associated with a more aggressive histology, poorer prognosis, and nonresponsiveness to hormone therapy. It is imperative that cancer research identify factors that drive disparities and focus on prevention.Methods: Using the United States Cancer Statistics database, the authors examined differences between TNBCs compared with all other breast cancers with regard to age, race/ethnicity, and stage at diagnosis.Results: A total of 1,151,724 cases of breast cancer were identified from 2010 through 2014, with the triple‐negative phenotype accounting for approximately 8.4% of all cases. In unadjusted analyses, non‐Hispanic black women (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% CI, 2.23‐2.31) and Hispanic women (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.19‐1.25) had higher odds of diagnosis when compared with non‐Hispanic white women. Women aged <40 years had the highest odds of diagnosis compared with women aged 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.90‐2.01). Diagnosis at American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III and beyond conferred higher odds of the diagnosis of TNBC (OR for stage III, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.68‐1.72]; and OR for stage IV, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.43‐1.51]). Results varied slightly in adjusted analyses.Conclusions: The results of the current study demonstrated that there is a significant burden of disease in TNBC diagnosed among women of color, specifically non‐Hispanic black women, and younger women. Additional studies are needed to determine drivers of disparities between race, age, and stage of disease at diagnosis.

Studies have found a variety of evidence regarding the association between residential segregation measures and health outcomes in the United States. Some have focused on any individuals living in residentially segregated places, whereas others have examined whether persons of specific races or ethnicities living in places with high segregation of their own race or ethnicity have differential outcomes. This article compares and contrasts these two approaches in the study of predictors of late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses in a cross-national study. We argue that it is very important when interpreting results from studies like this to carefully consider the geographic scope of the analysis, which can significantly change the context and meaning of the results. We use US Cancer Statistics Registry data from 40 states to identify late-stage diagnoses among over 500,000 CRC cases diagnosed during 2004-2009. We pool data over the states and estimate a multilevel model with person, county, and state levels and a random intercepts specification to ensure robust effect estimates. The isolation index of residential segregation is defined for racial and ethnic groups at the county level using Census 2000 data. The association between isolation indices and late-stage CRC diagnosis was measured by (1) anyone living in minority-segregated areas (place-centered approach) and by (2) individuals living in areas segregated by one's own racial or ethnic peers (person-centered approach). Findings from the place-centered approach suggest that living in a highly segregated African American community is associated with lower likelihood of late-stage CRC diagnosis, whereas the opposite is true for people living in highly segregated Asian communities, and living in highly segregated Hispanic communities has no significant association. Using the person-centered approach, we find that living in places segregated by one's racial or ethnic peers is associated with lower likelihood of late-stage CRC diagnosis. In a model that covers a large geographic area across the nation, the place-centered approach is most likely picking up geographic disparities that may be deepened by targeted interventions in minority communities. By contrast, the person-centered approach provides a national average estimate suggesting that residential isolation may confer community cohesion or support that is associated with better CRC prevention.

The gap between how health information is communicated and what people understand and can use to make informed health decisions is called health literacy. This gap was exacerbated by the rapidly changing and excessive volume of information, misinformation, and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. People with lower health literacy may not have understood the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for themselves or for their communities. Our aim was to understand health literacy levels within Fulton County, Georgia, and their relationship to vaccine prevalence. Fulton county residents ages 18 and over (n = 425) completed an on-line Health Literacy Questionnaire. Individual, organizational, functional, interactive, and critical health literacy scales were created. Vaccination prevalence data were collected from the Georgia Vaccine Distribution Dashboard. All data were divided into one of three county areas. There were statistically significant variations in vaccine prevalence χ²(3) = 29.325, p < 0.001 among the three county areas. All levels of health literacy predicted overall county vaccination prevalence F (4,420) = 85.941, p < 0.001, There were significant differences in health literacy levels among two of the three county area pairs; the lowest resourced county area had the lowest vaccination prevalence and health literacy rates. This is the first example of relating direct health literacy measures across a major metropolitan US county with vaccine prevalence data.

In the US, about one-third of new breast cancers (BCs) are diagnosed at a late stage, where morbidity and mortality burdens are higher. Health outcomes research has focused on the contribution of measures of social support, particularly the residential isolation or segregation index, on propensity to utilize mammography and rates of late-stage diagnoses. Although inconsistent, studies have used various approaches and shown that residential segregation may play an important role in cancer morbidities and mortality. Some have focused on any individuals living in residentially segregated places (place-centered), while others have focused on persons of specific races or ethnicities living in places with high segregation of their own race or ethnicity (person-centered). This paper compares and contrasts these two approaches in the study of predictors of late-stage BC diagnoses in a cross-national study. We use 100% of U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) Registry data pooled together from 40 states to identify late-stage diagnoses among ~1 million new BC cases diagnosed during 2004–2009. We estimate a multilevel model with person-, county-, and state-level predictors and a random intercept specification to help ensure robust effect estimates. Person-level variables in both models suggest that non-White races or ethnicities have higher odds of late-stage diagnosis, and the odds of late-stage diagnosis decline with age, being highest among the <age 50 group. After controlling statistically for all other factors, we examine place-centered isolation and find for anyone living in an isolated Asian community there is a large beneficial association (suggesting lower odds of late-stage diagnosis) while for anyone living in an isolated White community there is a large detrimental association (suggesting greater odds of late-stage diagnosis). By contrast, living in neighborhoods among others of one’s own race or ethnicity (person-centered isolation) is associated with greater odds of late-stage diagnosis, as this measure is dominated by Whites (the majority). At the state level, living in a state that allows unfettered access to a specialist is associated with a somewhat lower likelihood of being diagnosed at a late stage of BC. Geographic factors help explain the likelihood of late-stage BC diagnosis, which varies considerably across the U.S. as heterogeneous compositional and contextual factors portray very different places and potential for improving information and outcomes. The USCS database is expanding to cover more states and is expected to be a valuable resource for ongoing and future place-based cancer outcomes research.