scholarly journals Erratum: Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: Implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer

Cancer ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3426-3426
Cancer ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (17) ◽  
pp. 2649-2656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Helvie ◽  
Joanne T. Chang ◽  
R. Edward Hendrick ◽  
Mousumi Banerjee

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18800-e18800
Author(s):  
Leah Elson ◽  
Nadeem Bilani ◽  
Hong Liang ◽  
Elizabeth Blessing Elimimian ◽  
Diana Saravia ◽  
...  

e18800 Background: As oncology treatment has evolved to become more individualized, prognostic rationale has also undergone important changes. In breast cancer, disease staging was historically based upon anatomic features of the primary tumor, in combination with involvement of adjacent/distant tissues. However, as the understanding of molecular/genomic involvement became more advanced, staging definitions were redefined to incorporate receptors, histologic grade, and genetic expression. In this analysis, we use autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) forecasting to understand how AJCC updates to prognostic definitions have contributed to stage migration, and to comment on whether better detection, or definitional changes, may be responsible for the increasing incidence in early stage breast cancer. Methods: In this time series forecast, ARIMA models, per stage (early: stage I/II vs. late: stage III/IV) were constructed based on 2004-2016 historic breast cancer incidence rates, as reported by the NCDB. Multiple models were generated, using differing autoregressive parameters; the most predictive model was chosen using the lowest Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) to ensure best fit. Similar methodology has already been published to predict prostate cancer incidence. The best fit models were applied to forecast annual incidence, in the NCDB, in 2017. These data were compared to the real-world data captured in 2017. Statistics were performed using modeling systems in SPSS, version 27. Results: n=1,661,971 cases were included for these models, and 12 years of pre-AJCC updated NCDB breast cancer data were used. Using ARIMA modeling, best fit, stationary averages were identified, with autoregressive and difference terms which contributed to the lowest BIC, and MAPE < 5%, for both models. The best fit models forecasted 2017 incidence, by stage, without AJCC updates to staging criteria, and this data is compared to actual 2017 incidence with current updated AJCC 8th staging criteria (Table). Conclusions: During 2017, the first year of AJCC staging updates, there was an observed decrease in late stage diagnoses, and increase in early stage diagnoses, when compared with incidence rates that were forecasted using the old, anatomic AJCC criteria. Therefore, part of the stage migration noted may be a product of staging semantics, using updated definitions. Confirming appropriate improvement in long-term outcomes, based on new staging would be helpful. It is also important for clinicians and public health officials to bear this in-mind when interpreting epidemiologic data, for allocating resources, as shifts in staging may be a product of guideline changes, and not necessarily screening efficacy or early detection only.[Table: see text]


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
Austin R Rogers ◽  
Sue-Min Lai ◽  
John Keighley ◽  
Jessica Jungk

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer disparities by disability status are poorly understood. While previous studies have shown increased odds of late stage at diagnosis, it is unclear whether the incidence of breast cancer varies by disability status. METHODS: To assess cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis among disabled and nondisabled Medicare beneficiaries in Kansas, a retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked Medicare enrollment and Kansas Cancer Registry data from 2007 to 2009. Disability status was determined by the indicator for the original reason for Medicare eligibility. RESULTS: Among the 651,337 Medicare beneficiaries included in the cohort, there were 2,384 cases of breast cancer. The age-adjusted incidence was 313 per 100,000 among female beneficiaries with disabilities and 369 per 100,000 among nondisabled female beneficiaries. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.93 (95% CI 0.73-1.18). When assessing stage at diagnosis, there was no difference in the odds of late stage at diagnosis by disability status (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.68-1.50). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in incidence or stage at diagnosis was identified among this cohort. The use of Medicare eligibility to define disability status presented a number of limitations. Future studies should seek alternate definitions of disability to assess disparities in breast cancer incidence, including definitions using Medicare claims data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document