4.7 Article

Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy Use Among Insured, Low-Income Women With Breast Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 21, 页码 3445-3451

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.2419

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01-CA121317-3]
  2. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Use of adjuvant hormonal therapy, which significantly decreases breast cancer mortality, has not been well described among poor women, who are at higher risk of cancer-related death. Here we explore use of adjuvant hormonal therapy in an insured, low-income population. Methods A North Carolina Cancer Registry-Medicaid linked data set was used. Women with hormone receptor-positive or unknown, nonmetastatic breast cancer, diagnosed between 1998 and 2002, were included. Main outcomes were (1) prescription fill within 1 year of diagnosis, (2) adherence (medication possession ratio), and (3) persistence (absence of a 90-day gap in prescription fills over 12 months). Results The population consisted of 1,491 women (mean age, 67 years). Sixty-four percent filled prescriptions. Predictors of prescription fill included the following: older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; P = .017), greater number of prescription medications (OR, 1.06; P < .001), nonmarried status (OR, 1.82; P = .001), higher stage (OR, 1.83; P < .001), positive hormone receptor status (positive v unknown, OR, 1.98; P < .001), not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 1.74; P = .001), receipt of adjuvant radiation (OR, 1.55; P = .004), and treatment in a small hospital (OR, 1.49; P = .024). Adherence and persistence rates were 60% and 80%, respectively. Nonmarried status predicted greater adherence (OR, 1.90; P = .006) and persistence (OR, 1.75; P = .031). Conclusion Prescription fill, adherence, and persistence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among socioeconomically disadvantaged women are low. Improving use of adjuvant hormonal therapy may lead to lower breast cancer-specific mortality in this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据