Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups
By K. Yost, C. Perkins, Richard Cohen, C. Morris, W. Wright. Cancer Causes and Control, 2001
939 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Oncology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eda547f995876cd278835e09e94ccc39d866b952
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Oncology
Citations in the corpus
- Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative, progesterone receptor (PR)‐negative, and HER2‐negative invasive breast cancer, the so‐called triple‐negative phenotype (2007, methodology): “from the 2000 US census.(20) SES was assigned at the census block group level (2000 US census) and based on address at time of initial diagnosis as reported in the medical record.”
- Increasing burden of melanoma in the United States (2009, neutral): “This small-area measure has been used previously to predict cancer and other health outcomes (Yost et al., 2001; Clarke et al., 2005).”
- Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. (2007, background): “The incidence of the most common noncutaneous cancer in women, breast cancer, has also been shown to be increased in women of higher socioeconomic status ( 14 ).”
- Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study (2008, result): “The racial/ethnic patterns in cancer incidence based on this linkage study are generally consistent with those obtained from the cross-sectional SEER data in California for the period 1979–1998 [42].”
- Early discontinuation and non-adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy are associated with increased mortality in women with breast cancer (2010, methodology): “Socioeconomic status of patients’ neighborhood of residence was estimated by geocoding patients’ addresses, assigning a census tract code, linking the data to Census 2000 information on education, poverty, income, and housing costs to derive a composite score; each patient was assigned a neighborhoo”