Front. Oncol. Frontiers in Oncology Front. Oncol. 2234-943X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fonc.2022.1087022 Oncology Correction Cancer screening and breast cancer family history in Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latina women in California TamayoLizeth I. 1 PerezFabian 2 PerezAngelica 2 HernandezMiriam 3 MartinezAlejandra 4 HuangXiaosong 2 ZavalaValentina A. 2 ZivElad 5 NeuhausenSusan L. 6 Carvajal-CarmonaLuis G. 7 8 DuronYsabel 9 FejermanLaura 2 8 * 1Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States 2Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States 3Vision y Compromiso, Los Angeles, CA, United States 4Promoters for Better Health, Pomona, CA, United States 5Department of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States 6Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States 7Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States 8Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States 9The Latino Cancer Institute, San Jose, CA, United States

Edited and Reviewed by: Jennie L. Williams, Stony Brook University, United States

*Correspondence: Laura Fejerman, lfejerman@ucdavis.edu

This article was submitted to Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

 06 01 2023 2022 12 1087022 01 11 2022 17 11 2022 Copyright © 2023 Tamayo, Perez, Perez, Hernandez, Martinez, Huang, Zavala, Ziv, Neuhausen, Carvajal-Carmona, Duron and Fejerman 2023 Tamayo, Perez, Perez, Hernandez, Martinez, Huang, Zavala, Ziv, Neuhausen, Carvajal-Carmona, Duron and Fejerman

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on: Cancer screening and breast cancer family history in Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latina women in California. By Tamayo LI, Perez F, Perez A, Hernandez M, Martinez A, Huang X, Zavala VA, Ziv E, Neuhausen SL, Carvajal-Carmona LG, Duron Y and Fejerman L (2022) Front. Oncol. 12:940162. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.940162 breast cancer health disparities hereditary breast cancer cancer education Hispanic/Latina cancer family history

In the original article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. The percentages for Table 2 “Due for Pap. Test (never or 3+ years ago)” for Los Angeles and Sacramento were incorrect. The count and percentage for San Francisco were incorrect. The corrected Table 2 and its caption appear below.

Screening behavior and interest in breast cancer genetics among ‘Tu Historia Cuenta’ study participants (N=1,042) overall and by recruitment area.

Interest and awareness, N (%) Overall Los Angeles Sacramento San Francisco P-value
Number of Participants 1,042 (100) 530 (50.9) 264 (25.3) 248 (23.8)
Interest in learning about genetics and BC
 No Interest 14 (1.3) 11 (2.1) 0 (0.0) 3 (1.2) <0.001
 Some Interest 220 (21.1) 149 (28.1) 23 (8.7) 48 (19.4)
 Very Interested 801 (76.9) 364 (68.7) 240 (90.9) 197(79.4)
 Missing 7 (0.7) 6 (1.1) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
Genetic Testing Awareness
 Yes 489 (46.9) 224 (42.3) 109 (41.3) 156 (62.9) <0.001
 No 544 (52.2) 297 (56.0) 155 (58.7) 92(37.1)
 Missing 9 (0.9) 9 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Cancer Screening
 Breast Cancer Screening (Ages 40 to 74) 636 356 160 120
 Up to date with mammogram (<2 years ago) 357 (56.1) 187 (52.5) 97 (60.6) 73 (60.8) 0.200
 Due for mammogram (never or 2+ years ago) 272 (42.8) 162 (45.5) 63 (39.4) 47 (39.2)
 Missing 7 (1.1) 7 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Connected to EWC Program (of those due for mammogram) 64 (23.5) 53 (32.7) 10 (15.9) 1 (2.1) <0.001
 Cervical Cancer Screening (Ages 21 to 65) 1012 512 261 239
 Ever had a pap smear 831 (82.1) 380 (74.2) 233 (89.3) 218 (91.2) <0.001
 Up to date with pap smear 742 (73.3) 332 (64.8) 207 (79.3) 203 (84.9) 0.103
 Due for Pap. Test (never or 3+ years ago) 250 (24.7) 165 (32.2) 52 (19.9) 33 (13.8)
 Missing 19 (1.9) 14 (2.7) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.3)
 Colorectal Cancer Screening (Age 50+) 264 158 56 50
 Up to date with colonoscopy 62 (23.5) 33 (20.9) 14 (25.0) 15 (30.0) 0.355
 Due for colonoscopy 189 (71.6) 116 (73.4) 42 (75.0) 31 (62.0)
 Missing 13 (4.9) 9 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 4 (8.0)

Furthermore, there was also an error in Table 4 as published. The measurement of association should be RRR. An asterisk has also been added to the bottom of the table. The corrected Table 4 and its caption appear below.

Multivariate multinomial logistic regression model testing the association between breast cancer screening behavior and demographic factors among ‘Tu Historia Cuenta’ participants ages 40 to 74 (N=587, 42 excluded from 629 due to missing data).

Variable RRR* L95%CI H95%CI P-value
Never had mammography (reference)
Mammography up to date
Age 1.17 1.12 1.22 <0.001
Years residing in the US 0.98 0.95 1.01 0.175
Immigration status (US born vs. foreign born) 0.95 0.34 2.61 0.917
Educational Attainment (ref: no schooling)
 Elementary 2.56 1.00 6.53 0.050
 Middle school 1.54 0.52 4.53 0.435
 High school 3.00 1.10 8.20 0.032
 Associate degree 2.07 0.66 6.48 0.211
 University degree 2.28 0.68 7.62 0.182
Region of residence (ref: Los Angeles)
 Sacramento 2.16 1.23 3.81 0.008
 San Francisco 1.08 0.58 2.03 0.801
Insurance Status (ref: no insurance)
 Public 1.58 0.98 2.57 0.062
 Private 3.19 1.46 6.98 0.004
English Fluency (ref: monolingual)
 Limited English Use 2.38 1.14 4.99 0.021
 Conversational 2.16 1.10 4.25 0.026
 Fully Bilingual 1.84 0.69 4.91 0.225
Number of people in the household 0.90 0.78 1.02 0.102
Mammography more than 2 years ago
Age 1.18 1.12 1.25 <0.001
Years in the US 0.97 0.94 1.01 0.118
Immigration status 0.94 0.23 3.79 0.927
Educational Attainment (ref: no schooling)
 Elementary 1.41 0.45 4.48 0.555
 Middle school 2.05 0.55 7.63 0.283
 High school 2.38 0.69 8.25 0.171
 Associate degree 2.43 0.60 9.84 0.214
 University degree 2.13 0.48 9.49 0.319
Region of residence (ref: Los Angeles)
 Sacramento 2.33 1.14 4.75 0.020
 San Francisco 0.84 0.36 1.94 0.678
Insurance Status (ref: no insurance)
 Public 0.99 0.54 1.84 0.987
 Private 1.63 0.61 4.33 0.329
English Fluency (ref: monolingual Spanish)
 Limited English Use 1.60 0.65 3.98 0.307
 Conversational 1.18 0.51 2.76 0.694
 Fully Bilingual 0.42 0.10 1.71 0.226
Number of people in the household 0.84 0.70 0.99 0.039

*Relative Risk Ratio.

In addition, there were also errors in Table 5 as published. The sublabels under English Fluency have been updated to match the ones previously used. Furthermore, Insurance status, English fluency and Number of people in household for those with cervical screening 3 years ago were cut off from the table and have been added back in. The corrected Table 5 and its caption appear below.

Multivariate multinomial logistic regression model testing the association between cervical cancer screening behavior and demographic factors among ‘Tu Historia Cuenta’ participants ages 21 to 65 (N=932, 80 excluded from 1012 due to missing data).

Variable RRR* L95% H95% P-Value
Never had cervical cancer screening Reference
Cervical cancer screening up to date
Age 1.00 0.98 1.03 0.929
Years residing in the US 1.01 0.99 1.04 0.314
Immigration status (US born vs. foreign born) 0.56 0.26 1.23 0.150
Educational Attainment (ref: no schooling)
 Elementary 1.37 0.64 2.93 0.424
 Middle school 1.37 0.56 3.40 0.492
 High school 2.03 0.88 4.70 0.099
 Associate degree 1.24 0.48 3.20 0.663
 University degree 1.31 0.50 3.41 0.583
Region of residence (ref: Los Angeles)
 Sacramento 2.57 1.56 4.22 <0.001
 San Francisco 3.71 2.05 6.71 <0.001
Insurance Status (ref: no insurance)
 Public 1.06 0.70 1.62 0.776
 Private 3.73 1.67 8.34 0.001
English Fluency (ref: monolingual)
 Limited English Use 1.21 0.65 2.28 0.548
 Conversational 1.46 0.83 2.55 0.184
 Fully Bilingual 0.64 0.29 1.40 0.264
Number of people in the household 1.06 0.96 1.17 0.259
Cervical cancer screening 3 years ago
Age 1.02 0.98 1.06 0.419
Years residing in the US 1.03 0.99 1.07 0.158
Immigration status (US born vs. foreign born) 0.55 0.17 1.80 0.324
Educational Attainment (ref: no schooling)
 Elementary 1.16 0.30 4.49 0.828
 Middle school 2.26 0.51 9.96 0.281
 High school 2.82 0.69 11.54 0.150
 Associate degree 3.65 0.80 16.73 0.095
 University degree 1.41 0.27 7.24 0.683
Region of residence (ref: Los Angeles)
 Sacramento 2.58 1.27 5.26 0.009
 San Francisco 3.20 1.32 7.74 0.010
Insurance Status (ref: no insurance)
 Public 0.36 0.19 0.69 0.002
 Private 0.77 0.25 2.33 0.638
English Fluency (ref: monolingual)
 Limited English Use 1.25 0.48 3.22 0.645
 Conversational 0.86 0.35 2.13 0.747
 Fully Bilingual 0.78 0.23 2.57 0.678
Number of people in the household 1.13 0.98 1.30 0.088

*Relative Risk Ratio.

Lastly, there was also an error in Table 6 as published. The sublabels under English Fluency have been updated to match the ones previously used. The corrected Table 6 and its caption appear below.

Multivariate logistic regression model testing the association between colorectal screening behavior and demographic factors among ‘Tu Historia Cuenta’ participants ages 50+ (N=240, 24 excluded from 264 due to missing data).

Never Colonoscopy as reference OR L95% H95% P-Value
Age 1.04 0.98 1.11 0.165
Years residing in the US 1.00 0.97 1.03 0.882
Immigration status (US born vs. foreign born) 0.98 0.24 3.98 0.980
Educational Attainment (ref: no schooling)
 Less than High School 2.78 1.24 6.47 0.015
 High School or more 6.40 2.21 19.37 0.001
Region of residence (ref: Los Angeles)
 Sacramento 1.24 0.52 2.93 0.621
 San Francisco 0.99 0.40 2.37 0.974
Insurance Status (ref: no insurance)
 Public 1.24 0.52 2.93 0.621
 Private 0.99 0.40 2.37 0.974
English Fluency (ref: monolingual)
 Limited English Use 0.79 0.26 2.54 0.681
 Conversational 1.02 0.35 3.14 0.971
 Fully Bilingual 1.47 0.39 5.83 0.571
Number of people in the household 0.81 0.66 0.99 0.042

The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.