Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factors That Contributed to Black-White Disparities in Survival Among Nonelderly Women With Breast Cancer Between 2004 and 2013

Jemal, Ahmedin, Robbins, Anthony S., Lin, Chun Chieh, Flanders, W. Dana, DeSantis, Carol E., Ward, Elizabeth M., Freedman, Rachel A.·2018·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the contribution of differences in demographics, comorbidity, insurance, tumor characteristics, and treatment to the overall mortality disparity between nonelderly black and white women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Excess relative risk of all-cause death in black versus white women diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer, expressed as a percentage and stratified by hormone receptor status for each variable (demographics, comorbidity, insurance, tumor characteristics, and treatment) in sequentially, propensity-scored, optimally matched patients by using multivariable hazard ratios (HRs). Results: We identified 563,497 white and black women 18 to 64 years of age diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer from 2004 to 2013 in the National Cancer Data Base. Among women with hormone receptor–positive disease, who represented 78.5% of all patients, the HR for death in black versus white women in the demographics-matched model was 2.05 (95% CI, 1.94 to 2.17). The HR decreased to 1.93 (95% CI, 1.83 to 2.04), 1.54 (95% CI, 1.47 to 1.62), 1.30 (95% CI, 1.24 to 1.36), and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.31) when sequentially matched for comorbidity, insurance, tumor characteristics, and treatment, respectively. These factors combined accounted for 76.3% of the total excess risk of death in black patients; insurance accounted for 37.0% of the total excess, followed by tumor characteristics (23.2%), comorbidities (11.3%), and treatment (4.8%). Results generally were similar among women with hormone receptor–negative disease, although the HRs were substantially smaller. Conclusion: Matching by insurance explained one third of the excess risk of death among nonelderly black versus white women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer; matching by tumor characteristics explained approximately one fifth of the excess risk. Efforts to focus on equalization of access to care could substantially reduce ethnic/racial disparities in overall survival among nonelderly women diagnosed with breast cancer.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2017.73.7932

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Jemal, A., Robbins, A. S., Lin, C. C., Flanders, W. D., DeSantis, C. E., Ward, E. M., & Freedman, R. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
14-24
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2765942869
Cited by
181
References
3
FWCI
5.49
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: Factors That Contributed to Black-White Disparities in Survival Among Nonelderly Women With Breast Cancer Between 2004 and 2013. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2017.73.7932
The paper
Jemal, A., Robbins, A. S., Lin, C. C., Flanders, W. D., DeSantis, C. E., Ward, E. M., & Freedman, R. A. (2018). Factors That Contributed to Black-White Disparities in Survival Among Nonelderly Women With Breast Cancer Between 2004 and 2013. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.73.7932

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.