Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Influence of Primary Care on Breast Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Richard G. Roetzheim, Jeanne M. Ferrante, Ji-Hyun Lee, Ren Chen, Kymia M. Love-Jackson, Eduardo C. Gonzalez, Kate J. Fisher and Ellen P. McCarthy
The Annals of Family Medicine September 2012, 10 (5) 401-411; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1398
Richard G. Roetzheim
1Department of Family Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
2H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
MD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rroetzhe@health.usf.edu
Jeanne M. Ferrante
3Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
4Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ji-Hyun Lee
2H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
DrPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ren Chen
1Department of Family Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kymia M. Love-Jackson
1Department of Family Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eduardo C. Gonzalez
1Department of Family Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate J. Fisher
2H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ellen P. McCarthy
5Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Characteristics of Women With a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer (N=105,105)

    CharacteristicValue
    Total ambulatory primary care physician visits, n (%)
     0–121,469 (20.4)
     2–419,355 (18.4)
     5–1033,364 (31.7)
     ≥1130,917 (29.4)
    Total ambulatory non–primary care physician visits, n (%)
     0–139,031 (37.1)
     2–423,308 (22.2)
     5–1023,230 (22.1)
      ≥1119,536 (18.6)
    Age at diagnosis, y (%)
     67–7551,290 (48.8)
     76–8542,913 (40.83)
      ≥8610,902 (10.37)
    Race/ethnicity, n (%)
     White, non-Hispanic90,372 (86.0)
     Black, non-Hispanic6,694 (6.4)
     Hispanic3,931 (3.7)
     Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander3,425 (3.3)
     Other683 (0.7)
    Marital status, n (%)
     Single (never married)7,564 (7.2)
     Married43,030 (40.9)
     Separated/divorced6,913 (6.6)
     Widowed43,280 (41.2)
     Unknown4,318 (4.1)
    MSA of residence, n (%)
     Large metropolitan60,122 (57.2)
     Metropolitan29,272 (27.9)
     Urban6,360 (6.1)
     Less urban7,632 (7.3)
     Rural1,714 (1.6)
    Year of diagnosis, n (%)
     1994–199724,139 (23.0)
     1998–200023,597 (22.5)
     2001–200557,369 (54.6)
    Histologic type, n (%)
     Ductal74,760 (71.1)
     Lobular17,176 (16.3)
     Ductal/lobular347 (0.3)
     Favorable5,961 (5.7)
     Unfavorable1,315 (1.3)
     Undefined5,546 (5.3)
    Estrogen receptors, n (%)
     Positive/borderline49,010 (46.6)
     Negative9,147 (8.7)
     Missing46,948 (44.7)
    Progesterone receptor, n (%)
     Positive/borderline40,265 (38.3)
     Negative17,027 (16.2)
     Missing47,813 (45.5
    Tumor size, mm
     Mean (SD)20.2 (20.6)
     Median (minimum-maximum)15 (0–990)
    AJCC stage at diagnosis, n (%)
     0 (in situ)14,568 (13.9)
     I42,830 (40.8)
     II27,602 (26.3)
     III6,012 (5.7)
     IV3,399 (3.2)
     Unknown10,694 (10.2)
    Charlson comorbidity index, n (%)a
     061,466 (58.5)
     124,979 (23.8)
      ≥218,660 (17.8)
    Influenza vaccination, n (%)
     No46,673 (44.4)
     Yes58,432 (55.6)
    • AJCC = American Joint Commission on Cancer; MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

    • ↵a Scored on a range from 3–35, where higher scores indicate increased morbidity.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Predictors of Mammography (n = 90,537)

    CharacteristicAdjusted ORa95% Wald CLP Value
    Total ambulatory primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.00––
     2–42.782.65, 2.92<.001
     5–103.673.51, 3.83<.001
      ≥114.043.86, 4.23<.001
    Total ambulatory non– primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.00––
     2–41.721.65, 1.78<.001
     5–102.152.06, 2.23<.001
      ≥113.313.16, 3.46<.001
    Age at diagnosis
     67–75 y (referent)1.00
     76–85 y0.610.59, 0.63<.001
      ≥86 y0.250.24, 0.27<.001
    Race/ethnicity
     White, non-Hispanic (referent)1.00––
     Black, non-Hispanic1.010.95, 1.08.66
     Hispanic0.800.73, 0.86<.001
     Asian/American Indian/Pacific0.730.66, 0.81<.001
     Islander
     Other0.950.79, 1.15.62
    Marital status
     Married (referent)1.00––
     Never married0.770.72, 0.81<.001
     Separated/divorced0.710.67, 0.75<.001
     Widowed0.720.69, 0.74<.001
     Unknown0.730.67, 0.79<.001
    Education level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.00––
     Quintile 21.040.99, 1.090.17
     Quintile 31.161.10, 1.23<.001
     Quintile 41.231.16, 1.30<.001
     Quintile 51.341.25, 1.43<.001
    Income level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.00––
     Quintile 20.990.94, 1.04.71
     Quintile 30.970.92, 1.02.26
     Quintile 40.950.90, 1.01.13
     Quintile 50.960.90, 1.03.28
    MSA of residence
     Large metropolitan (referent)1.00––
     Metropolitan1.010.97, 1.06.55
     Urban0.990.92, 1.06.73
     Less urban0.930.86, 1.00.04
     Rural1.050.92, 1.19.48
    Year of diagnosis
     1994–1997 (referent)1.00––
     1998–20001.351.29, 1.41<.001
     2001–20051.641.58, 1.71<.001
    Charlson comorbidity index
     0 (referent)1.00––
     10.740.72, 0.77<.001
      ≥20.490.47, 0.51<.001
    Influenza vaccination
     No (referent)1.00––
     Yes1.691.64, 1.75<.001
    • CL=confidence limits; MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

    • Note: Patients with stage 0 carcinoma (in situ) were excluded.

    • ↵a The multivariable logistic models also included indicator variables for specific cancer registry (data not presented).

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Adjusted Associations of Late-Stage Diagnosis (AJCC III, IV) of Breast Cancer (n = 79,843)

    CharacteristicAdjusted ORa95% Wald CLP Value
    Total ambulatory primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.00––
     2–40.570.53, 0.61<.001
     5–100.490.46, 0.52<.001
      ≥110.500.47, 0.53<.001
    Total ambulatory non– primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.00––
     2–40.620.58, 0.66<.001
     5–100.550.51, 0.58<.001
      ≥110.460.42, 0.49<.001
    Age at diagnosis
     67–75 (referent)1.00––
     76–851.211.15, 1.27<.001
      ≥861.671.55, 1.79<.001
    Race/ethnicity
     White, non-Hispanic (referent)1.00––
     Black, non-Hispanic1.381.27, 1.50<.001
     Hispanic1.321.19, 1.48<.001
     Asian/American Indian/Pacific0.840.72, 0.98.03
     Islander
     Other0.760.53, 1.08.13
    Marital status
     Married (referent)1.00––
     Never married1.381.27, 1.50<.001
     Separated/divorced1.251.14, 1.37<.001
     Widowed1.241.18, 1.31<.001
     Unknown1.231.08, 1.39.001
    Education level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.00––
     Quintile 20.980.91, 1.05.54
     Quintile 30.940.86, 1.02.12
     Quintile 40.870.79, 0.95.002
     Quintile 50.810.73, 0.90<.001
    Income level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.00––
     Quintile 21.000.93, 1.08.90
     Quintile 31.050.97, 1.14.22
     Quintile 41.080.99, 1.19.09
     Quintile 51.060.95, 1.18.28
    MSA of residence
     Large metropolitan (referent)1.00––
     Metropolitan0.970.91, 1.04.42
     Urban0.960.86, 1.08.49
     Less urban0.840.75, 0.95.004
     Rural0.830.68, 1.00.06
    Year of diagnosis
     1994–1997 (referent)1.00––
     1998–20000.900.84, 0.97.004
     2001–20051.091.02, 1.16.01
    Charlson comorbidity index
     0 (referent)1.00––
     11.020.96, 1.08.52
      ≥21.211.13, 1.29<.001
    Influenza vaccination
     No (referent)1.00––
     Yes0.720.69, 0.76<.001
    • AJCC = American Joint Commission on Cancer; CL = confidence limits; MSA = metropolitan statistical area; PCP = primary care physician.

    • Note: Patients with stage 0 carcinoma (in situ) or missing were excluded.

    • ↵a Odds ratios indicate odds of late-stage (AJCC stages III, IV) diagnosis of breast cancer relative to early stage (AJCC stages I, II). Logistic models also include indicator variables for cancer registry (data not presented).

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Adjusted Hazard Ratios for Breast Cancer Mortality (n = 90,537)

    CharacteristicUnadjusted Hazard Ratio (95% CI)Adjusted Excluding Stage and Tumor Sizea Hazard Ratio (95% CI)Adjusted Including Stage and Tumor Sizea Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
    Total ambulatory primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.001.001.00
     2–40.55 (0.52–0.59)0.68 (0.64–0.73)0.89 (0.82–0.95)
     5–100.50 (0.47–0.53)0.61 (0.58–0.65)0.83 (0.77–0.89)
      ≥110.50 (0.47–0.53)0.59 (0.55–0.63)0.80 (0.74–0.86)
    Total ambulatory non– primary care physician visits
     0–1 (referent)1.001.001.00
     2–40.62 (0.58–0.65)0.72 (0.68–0.76)0.87 (0.81–0.93)
     5–100.56 (0.53–0.59)0.66 (0.62–0.72)0.83 (0.77–0.89)
      ≥110.55 (0.51–0.58)0.60 (0.56–0.64)0.83 (0.76–0.89)
    Age at diagnosis
     67–75 y (referent)1.001.00
     76–85 y1.36 (1.30–1.43)1.28 (1.21–1.35)
      ≥86 y2.19 (2.05–2.33)1.85 (1.71–2.00)
    Race/ethnicity
     White, non-Hispanic (referent)1.001.00
     Black, non-Hispanic1.15 (1.06–1.25)1.03 (0.94–1.14)
     Hispanic1.03 (0.93–1.16)0.91 (0.80–1.03)
     Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander0.86 (0.74–1.01)0.97 (0.81–1.15)
     Other0.52 (0.36–0.77)1.09 (0.94–1.26)
    Marital status
     Married (referent)1.001.00
     Never married1.36 (1.25–1.48)1.22 (1.11–1.35)
     Separated/divorced1.35 (1.24–1.48)1.27 (1.14–1.40)
     Widowed1.33 (1.26–1.40)1.21 (1.14–1.28)
     Unknown1.15 (1.03–1.29)1.09 (0.94–1.26)
    Education level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.001.00
     Quintile 21.02 (0.95–1.09)1.08 (0.99–1.16)
     Quintile 30.94 (0.87–1.01)0.97 (0.89–1.06)
     Quintile 40.92 (0.84–1.00)0.98 (0.89–1.08)
     Quintile 50.88 (0.80–0.97)0.92 (0.82–1.03)
    Income level of residence
     Quintile 1 (lowest) (referent)1.001.00
     Quintile 21.00 (0.93–1.07)0.97 (0.90–1.05)
     Quintile 31.02 (0.95–1.11)0.96 (0.88–1.05)
     Quintile 41.00 (0.92–1.09)0.98 (0.89–1.08)
     Quintile 51.03 (0.93–1.14)1.03 (0.92–1.16)
    MSA of residence
     Large metropolitan (referent)1.001.00
     Metropolitan0.99 (0.92–1.06)0.98 (0.90–1.06)
     Urban0.95 (0.85–1.06)0.97 (0.86–1.10)
     Less urban0.92 (0.82–1.02)0.96 (0.84–1.09)
     Rural0.78 (0.65–0.94)0.81 (0.66–1.00)
    Year of diagnosis
     1994–1997 (referent)1.001.00
     1998–20001.05 (0.99–1.11)0.97 (0.91–1.04)
     2001–20051.06 (1.00–1.13)0.93 (0.87–1.00)
    Histology type
     Ductal (referent)1.001.00
     Lobular0.79 (0.74–0.84)0.88 (0.82–0.94)
     Ductal/lobular1.09 (0.78–1.51)1.18 (0.83–1.68)
     Favorable0.29 (0.24–0.34)0.45 (0.38–0.54)
     Unfavorable1.98 (1.78–2.21)1.10 (0.89–1.35)
     Undefined0.88 (0.78–1.00)1.09 (0.95–1.25)
    Tumor grade
     Well differentiated (referent)1.001.00
     Moderately differentiated2.16 (1.96–2.39)1.66 (1.49–1.85)
     Poorly differentiated4.62 (4.19–5.10)2.78 (2.50–3.10)
     Undifferentiated4.73 (4.04–5.53)2.71 (2.28–3.23)
     Unknown5.07 (4.58–5.62)2.23 (1.98–2.51)
    Estrogen receptor status
     Positive/borderline (referent)1.001.00
     Negative1.52 (1.41–1.64)1.62 (1.49–1.75)
     Unknown1.36 (1.13–1.64)1.37 (1.09–1.71)
    Progesterone receptor status
     Positive/borderline (referent)1.001.00
     Negative1.40 (1.31–1.50)1.37 (1.27–1.47)
     Unknown1.21 (1.00–1.46)1.01 (0.81–1.27)
    Tumor size (continuous, mm)1.006 (1.006–1.006)
    Stage at diagnosis
     I (referent)–1.00
     II–3.38 (3.13–3.64)
     III–8.90 (8.12–9.75)
     IV–32.34 (29.51–35.43)
     Unknown–3.60 (3.25–4.00)
    Charlson comorbidity index
     0 (referent)1.001.00
     11.15 (1.08–1.21)1.20 (1.13–1.28)
      ≥21.51 (1.42–1.60)1.53 (1.43–1.64)
    Influenza vaccination
     No (referent)1.001.00
     Yes0.79 (0.76–0.83)0.92 (0.87–0.97)
    • MSA = metropolitan statistical area; SEER = Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results.

    • Note: Patients with stage 0 carcinoma (in situ) were excluded in the multivariable analysis.

    • ↵a Multivariable Cox proportional models also included indicator variables for SEER Registry location (data not presented).

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Richard G. Roetzheim , and colleagues

    Background Despite the important role played by primary care physicians in preventive care, the actual effect of primary care on cancer outcomes has not been well studied. This study looks at the relationship between primary medical care and breast cancer outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.

    What This Study Found Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer who make more visits to primary care physicians in the 2 years before their diagnosis have better breast cancer outcomes, including greater use of mammography, reduced odds of late-stage diagnosis, and lower overall and breast cancer mortality. Among 105,000 female Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer, those with 10 or more office visits are 50 percent less likely to have late-stage cancer diagnosed. They have 41 percent lower breast cancer mortality and 27 percent lower overall mortality, compared with women having 1 or no visit.

    Implications

    • Improved outcomes are partly explained by greater use of mammography and resultant earlier stage diagnosis.
    • Access to primary medical care may be an important factor in achieving optimal outcomes for breast cancer patients.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (5)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (5)
Vol. 10, Issue 5
September/October 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Influence of Primary Care on Breast Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
17 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Influence of Primary Care on Breast Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries
Richard G. Roetzheim, Jeanne M. Ferrante, Ji-Hyun Lee, Ren Chen, Kymia M. Love-Jackson, Eduardo C. Gonzalez, Kate J. Fisher, Ellen P. McCarthy
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2012, 10 (5) 401-411; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1398

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Influence of Primary Care on Breast Cancer Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries
Richard G. Roetzheim, Jeanne M. Ferrante, Ji-Hyun Lee, Ren Chen, Kymia M. Love-Jackson, Eduardo C. Gonzalez, Kate J. Fisher, Ellen P. McCarthy
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2012, 10 (5) 401-411; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1398
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • In This Issue: Local+Familiar=Healthier
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Person groups:
    • Older adults
    • Women's health
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Access

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine