Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Racial Differences in Survival From Breast Cancer: Results of the National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study

Eley, J. William·1994·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of recognized prognostic factors for breast cancer to account for the observed poorer survival in blacks compared with their white counterparts. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Subjects included 1130 women (612 blacks and 518 whites) aged 20 to 79 years residing in metropolitan Atlanta, Ga, New Orleans, La, or San Francisco/Oakland, Calif, who were diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer. Information on stage, tumor characteristics, treatment, comorbid conditions, and sociodemographic factors was obtained from personal interview, physician and hospital records, and a pathology review of biopsy and surgical specimens. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Multivariable survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (relative risk of mortality) for blacks compared with whites, adjusting for various combinations of potential explanatory factors. RESULTS: After controlling for geographic site and age, the risk of dying was 2.2 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 2.8) greater for blacks than whites. Adjustment for stage reduced the risk from 2.2 to 1.7; further adjustment for sociodemographic variables had no effect. Treatment was not a contributing factor once stage and tumor pathology were in the model. After adjusting for stage, treatment, comorbid illness, and pathologic and sociodemographic variables, blacks continued to demonstrate a slightly increased, but not statistically significant, risk of death (hazard ratio = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 75% of the racial difference in survival was explained by the prognostic factors studied. Sociodemographic variables appeared to act largely through racial differences in stage at diagnosis, which may be amenable to change through improved access to and use of screening for black women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03520120057031

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 531

Metadata

Authors
Eley, J. W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1994-09-28
Volume
272
Issue
12
Pages
947
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2131228118
Cited by
531
References
0
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Racial Differences in Survival From Breast Cancer: Results of the National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1994.03520120057031
The paper
Eley, J. W. (1994). Racial Differences in Survival From Breast Cancer: Results of the National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520120057031

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.