PURPOSE: The objective was to examine the relationship between contemporary redlining (mortgage lending bias on the basis of property location) and survival among older women with breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A redlining index using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data (2007-2013) was linked by census tract with a SEER-Medicare cohort of 27,516 women age 66-90 years with an initial diagnosis of stage I-IV breast cancer in 2007-2009 and follow-up through 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between redlining and both all-cause and breast cancer–specific mortality, accounting for covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 34% of non-Hispanic White, 57% of Hispanic, and 79% of non-Hispanic Black individuals lived in redlined tracts. As the redlining index increased, women experienced poorer survival. This effect was strongest for women with no comorbid conditions, who comprised 54% of the sample. For redlining index values of 1 (low), 2 (moderate), and 3 (high), as compared with 0.5 (least), hazard ratios (HRs) (and 95% CIs) for all-cause mortality were HR = 1.10 (1.06 to 1.14), HR = 1.27 (1.17 to 1.38), and HR = 1.39 (1.25 to 1.55), respectively, among women with no comorbidities. A similar pattern was found for breast cancer–specific mortality. CONCLUSION: Contemporary redlining is associated with poorer breast cancer survival. The impact of this bias is emphasized by the pronounced effect even among women with health insurance (Medicare) and no comorbid conditions. The magnitude of this neighborhood level effect demands an increased focus on upstream determinants of health to support comprehensive patient care. The housing sector actively reveals structural racism and economic disinvestment and is an actionable policy target to mitigate adverse upstream health determinants for the benefit of patients with cancer.

Purpose: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 trial, published in June 1999, demonstrated that tamoxifen after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduced the absolute occurrence of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer. We assessed the impact of B-24 on practice patterns at selected National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.Patients and Methods: Tamoxifen use after surgery was examined among 1,622 patients presenting for treatment of unilateral DCIS between July 1997 and December 2003 at eight NCCN centers. Associations of clinicopathologic and treatment factors with tamoxifen use were assessed in univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses.Results: Overall, 41% of patients (665 of 1,622) received tamoxifen. The proportion increased from 24% before July 1, 1999, to 46% on or after July 1, 1999. Factors significantly associated with receipt of tamoxifen included diagnosis on or after July 1, 1999 (odds ratio [OR], 3.85; P < .0001), BCS in patients younger than 70 years (OR, 3.21; P = .0073), no history of cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease (OR, 3.13; P = .0071), receipt of radiotherapy (OR, 1.82; P = .0009), and previous hysterectomy (OR, 1.34; P = .0459). Tamoxifen use varied significantly by center, from 34% to 74% after BCS and 17% to 53% after mastectomy (P < .0001).Conclusion: Tamoxifen use after surgery for DCIS at NCCN centers increased after presentation of the B-24 results. Rates varied substantially by institution, suggesting that physicians differ in how they weigh the modest reduction in breast cancer risk with tamoxifen against its potential adverse effects in this population.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine variations in delivery of several breast cancer processes of care that are correlated with lower mortality and disease recurrence, and to determine the extent to which hospital volume explains this variation.METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with stage I‐III unilateral breast cancer between 2007 and 2011 were identified within the National Cancer Data Base. Multiple logistic regression models were developed to determine whether hospital volume was independently associated with each of 10 individual process of care measures addressing diagnosis and treatment, and 2 composite measures assessing appropriateness of systemic treatment (chemotherapy and hormonal therapy) and locoregional treatment (margin status and radiation therapy).RESULTS: Among 573,571 women treated at 1755 different hospitals, 38%, 51%, and 10% were treated at high‐, medium‐, and low‐volume hospitals, respectively. On multivariate analysis controlling for patient sociodemographic characteristics, treatment year and geographic location, hospital volume was a significant predictor for cancer diagnosis by initial biopsy (medium volume: odds ratio [OR] = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05‐1.25; high volume: OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.14‐1.49), negative surgical margins (medium volume: OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06‐1.24; high volume: OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.13‐1.44), and appropriate locoregional treatment (medium volume: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07‐1.17; high volume: OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09‐1.24).CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of breast cancer before initial surgery, negative surgical margins and appropriate use of radiation therapy may partially explain the volume–survival relationship. Dissemination of these processes of care to a broader group of hospitals could potentially improve the overall quality of care and outcomes of breast cancer survivors. Cancer 2017;123:957–66. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND To date, the impact of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B‐24 trial reported in 1999 on the use of tamoxifen after surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is unknown. The current study was designed to evaluate the impact of NSABP B‐24 on current practices at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS The records of 350 consecutive patients with DCIS who were treated at the authors' institution between July 1999 and June 2002 were obtained from a prospective database and analyzed. Whether patients were offered tamoxifen, whether patients accepted tamoxifen, and the associated reasons were recorded along with tamoxifen‐related side effects and patient compliance with therapy. Clinical and pathologic factors were evaluated for their impact on recommendations regarding tamoxifen. Differences were assessed by chi‐square analysis. RESULTS Of the 350 patients, 73 were excluded because of evidence of invasive carcinoma on final pathology review. Of the remaining 277 patients, 166 patients (60%) were offered tamoxifen, and 90 patients (54%) chose to take tamoxifen. Of 111 patients who were not offered tamoxifen, 39 patients (35%) had documented explanations, which included bilateral mastectomy (n = 25 patients), medical reasons (n = 10 patients), and already received tamoxifen for other reasons at the time of diagnosis (n = 4 patients). Of 94 patients who received tamoxifen, 20 patients (21%) discontinued use because of side effects or complications. Tamoxifen was more likely to be recommended for women who underwent segmental resection compared with women who underwent total mastectomy (P = 0.002) and for women with smaller pathologic DCIS tumors (P = 0.001). In addition, these two factors were interrelated. CONCLUSIONS Physicians and patients remain cautious regarding the use of tamoxifen after local treatment for DCIS. The current findings have implications for current trials evaluating aromatase inhibitors and other chemopreventive agents for this disease. Cancer 2004;100:942–9. © 2004 American Cancer Society.