National Cancer Data Base survey of breast cancer management for patients from low income zip codes

BACKGROUND The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), a joint project of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society, is a cancer management and outcomes data base for health care organizations. It provides a comparative summary of patient care that is used by participating hospitals and communities for self‐assessment. The most current (1995–1996) breast cancer data on patients from low income zip codes are described here. METHODS Since 1989, eight Calls for Data have been issued, yielding a total of 191,714 reports of non‐Hispanic white patients with breast cancer for the years analyzed, 1995–1996. A total of 1961 hospital cancer registries have participated in at least one of the Calls for Data. RESULTS A diverse range of breast cancer cases was reported from a variety of geographic locations and medical care environments. There were general similarities in the treatment of patients from the different income groups; however, some differences were reported. Among patients from lower income zip codes, 60.7% were age 60 years or older, compared with 55.1% from other income zip code groups. The AJCC stage distribution was reported as less favorable for patients from low income zip codes than for other patients. The percentage of patients from low income zip codes diagnosed as Stage 0 or I was 51.2%, compared with 55.9% of patients from the other income zip codes. Of patients from lower income zip codes, 12.1% were reported to have Stage III or IV disease, compared with 10.0% of patients from other income zip codes. Patients from low income zip codes received less tissue‐sparing surgery. Of patients from low income zip codes, 14.9% received partial mastectomy with or without radiation or systemic therapy, compared with 18.3% of patients from other income zip codes. The percentage of patients from low income zip codes who received a partial mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection was 23.3% for patients from other income zip codes, the percentage was 30.5%. Conversely, 49.8% of patients from lower income zip codes received a modified radical mastectomy, compared with 40.5% of patients from other income zip codes. CONCLUSIONS Further improvements in the early diagnosis and surgical treatment of low income patients can probably be achieved. Programmatic activities that further explain or reduce the apparent nonpreferred treatment of some low income patients should be encouraged. Cancer 2000;88:933–45. © 2000 American C