RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Women are the fastest growing veteran group in the US and the number of women veterans (WVs) with cancer is rising; however, little is known about this population. Cancer care for WVs is complex and it is essential to understand their unique needs and care coordination challenges to provide evidence-based care. The purpose of this review is to map the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of literature describing cancer and its treatment among WVs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) from inception through January, 2024. Publications were eligible that reported gender-specific data on any aspect of cancer care among WVs. Data was abstracted by a single investigator with over-reading. RESULTS: Forty-six reports were included; 44 were observational and 19 had a women-only sample. There were no interventional reports and no qualitative reports had a patient sample. Breast cancer was the most commonly addressed (n = 19). There were six additional reports on sex-specific cancers. Many reports used large VA databases or previous trial data, creating the potential for patient overlap between reports. Among VA-specific areas of interest, only three reports evaluated the potential implications of racial differences and only two included a transgender population. No reports examined the effects of toxic exposures on cancer. Within the NCI Cancer Control Continuum, crosscutting areas were more commonly represented; over half (25) of the reports addressed epidemiology. There were few reports on focus areas and little overlap between focus and crosscutting areas. DISCUSSION: Existing literature provides an inadequate understanding of the population of WVs with cancer. There is scant information regarding the population of WVs with cancer, their care preferences or experiences, or how to best identify and address unmet healthcare needs. It is imperative to expand research to provide evidence-based care for this population.
RESUMEN
MINI ABSTRACT: Equity-focused evaluations of existing healthcare system-level policies, clinical practices, and interventions are needed to identify factors that may narrow, or unintentionally widen, the racial disparity in cancer outcomes. We focus here on the evaluation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and their potential to promote equity in cancer care and outcomes.
RESUMEN
Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that poses significant health risks to humans, including increased risk of lung cancer. This study investigates the association of neighborhood-level socioeconomic variables with radon testing and radon exposure levels in North Carolina between 2010 and 2020. Our analysis of the two largest commercial household radon tests reveals that 67% of census tracts had testing rates below 10 tests per 1000 population, indicating low testing prevalence. Low radon levels (<2 pCi/L) were detected in 74.1% of the tracts (n = 1626), while medium levels of 2-4 pCi/L and ≥4 pCi/L were observed in 17.2% (n = 378) and 1.6% (n = 36) of the tracts. A generalized spatial regression model was employed to analyze the association between neighborhood-level socioeconomic variables and radon testing rates (per 1000 households), controlling for median radon testing results. The results show a positive correlation (P-value <0.001) of testing rate with various indicators of neighborhood affluence including education level, income, and occupation. In contrast, neighborhood disadvantage, including poverty, unemployment, and public assistance, was associated with a lower radon-testing rate (P-value <0.001). These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to address socioeconomic disparities in radon testing and promote awareness and access to testing resources in lower socio-economic neighborhoods. Improving testing rates can effectively address radon-related health risks in North Carolina and across the U.S.
Asunto(s)
Contaminantes Radiactivos del Aire , Radón , Características de la Residencia , Factores Socioeconómicos , Radón/análisis , North Carolina , Humanos , Contaminantes Radiactivos del Aire/análisis , Monitoreo de Radiación/métodos , Contaminación del Aire Interior/análisis , Contaminación del Aire Interior/estadística & datos numéricos , Disparidades Socioeconómicas en SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The American Indian (AI) population in North Carolina has limited access to the Indian Health Service. Consequently, cancer burden and disparities may differ from national estimates. We describe the AI cancer population and examine AI-White disparities in cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: We identified cancer cases diagnosed among adult AI and White populations between 2014 and 2018 from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. We estimated incidence and mortality rate ratios (IRR and MRR) by race. In addition, between the AI and White populations, we estimated the ratio of relative frequency differences [RRF, with 95% confidence limits (CL)] of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Finally, we evaluated the geographic distribution of incident diagnoses among AI populations. RESULTS: Our analytic sample included 2,161 AI and 204,613 White individuals with cancer. Compared with the White population, the AI population was more likely to live in rural areas (48% vs. 25%; RRF, 1.89; 95% CL, 1.81-1.97) and to have Medicaid (18% vs. 7%; RRF, 2.49; 95% CL, 2.27-2.71). Among the AI population, the highest age-standardized incidence rates were female breast, followed by prostate and lung and bronchus. Liver cancer incidence was significantly higher among the AI population than White population (IRR, 1.27; 95% CL, 1.01-1.59). AI patients had higher mortality rates for prostate (MRR, 1.72; CL, 1.09-2.70), stomach (MRR, 1.82; 95% CL, 1.15-2.86), and liver (MRR, 1.70; 95% CL, 1.25-2.33) cancers compared with White patients. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce prostate, stomach, and liver cancer disparities among AI populations in North Carolina, multi-modal interventions targeting risk factors and increasing screening and treatment are needed. IMPACT: This study identifies cancer disparities that can inform targeted interventions to improve outcomes among AI populations in North Carolina.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/etnología , Neoplasias/mortalidad , North Carolina/epidemiología , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Incidencia , Adulto , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricos , Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto Joven , Población Blanca/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing could exacerbate disparities in access to precision cancer therapies and survival-particularly in the context of lung cancer where genomic testing has been recommended for the past decade. However, prior studies assessing disparities in genomic testing have yielded mixed results. METHODS: We conducted a systemic review to examine racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among lung cancer patients in the United States. Two comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were conducted (September 2022, May 2023). Original studies that assessed rates of genomic testing by race or ethnicity were included. Findings were narratively synthesized by outcome. RESULTS: The search yielded 2739 unique records, resulting in 18 included studies. All but 1 study were limited to patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. Diagnosis years ranged from 2007 to 2022. Of the 18 studies, 11 found statistically significant differences in the likelihood of genomic testing by race or ethnicity; in 7 of these studies, testing was lower among Black patients compared with White or Asian patients. However, many studies lacked adjustment for key covariates and included patients with unclear eligibility for testing. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of studies, though not all, observed racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among patients with lung cancer. Heterogeneity of study results throughout a period of changing clinical guidelines suggests that minoritized populations-Black patients in particular-have faced additional barriers to genomic testing, even if not universally observed at all institutions.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/etnología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/etnología , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Pruebas Genéticas/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Etnicidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Etnicidad/genética , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/etnología , GenómicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Many women diagnosed with cancer as adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years) want biological children after cancer but lack information on the potential impact of their cancer history on future reproductive outcomes. We investigated the risk of adverse birth outcomes among AYA cancer survivors. METHODS: We identified insured women diagnosed with AYA breast cancer, thyroid cancer, gynecologic cancers, lymphoma, or melanoma from 2003 to 2016 in the state of North Carolina or the Kaiser Permanente health care systems in northern and southern California. Post-diagnosis births to cancer survivors were each matched with up to 5 births to women without cancer. Risk ratios for preterm birth (<37 completed weeks), very preterm birth (<34 completed weeks), low birth weight (<2500 g), and small for gestational age (SGA, <10th percentile of weight for gestational age) were estimated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 1648 births to 1268 AYA cancer survivors and 7879 births to 6066 women without cancer. Overall, risk of preterm birth, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and SGA did not significantly differ between births to women with and without cancer. However, births to women with gynecologic cancers had a significantly increased risk of low birth weight (risk ratio = 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 3.21) and suggested increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 2.54). Chemotherapy exposure was not associated with increased risk of adverse birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancers, but not other cancers, had an increased risk of adverse birth outcomes compared to women without cancer.