Cancer disparities among non-Hispanic urban American Indian and Alaska Native populations in the United States, 1999-2017.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer incidence have not been described for urban American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations. The purpose of the present study was to examine incidence rates (2008-2017) and trends (1999-2017) for leading cancers in urban non-Hispanic AI/AN (NH AI/AN) compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) populations living in the same urban areas. METHODS: Incident cases from population-based cancer registries were linked with the Indian Health Service patient registration database for improved racial classification of NH AI/AN populations. This study was limited to counties in Urban Indian Health Organization service areas. Analyses were conducted by geographic region. Age-adjusted rates (per 100,000) and trends (joinpoint regression) were calculated for leading cancers. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal, liver, and kidney cancers were higher overall for urban NH AI/AN compared to urban NHW populations. By region, rates of these cancers were 10% to nearly 4 times higher in NH AI/AN compared to NHW populations. Rates for breast, prostate, and lung cancer were lower in urban NH AI/AN compared to urban NHW populations. Incidence rates for kidney, liver, pancreatic, and breast cancers increased from 2% to nearly 7% annually between 1999 to 2017 in urban NH AI/AN populations. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents cancer incidence rates and trends for the leading cancers among urban NH AI/AN compared to urban NHW populations for the first time, by region, in the United States. Elevated risk of certain cancers among urban NH AI/AN populations and widening cancer disparities highlight important health inequities and missed opportunities for cancer prevention in this population.

COVID-19 Among Non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native People Residing in Urban Areas Before and After Vaccine Rollout-Selected States and Counties, United States, January 2020-October 2021.

Objectives. To evaluate COVID-19 disparities among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and non-Hispanic White persons in urban areas. Methods. Using COVID-19 case surveillance data, we calculated cumulative incidence rates and risk ratios (RRs) among non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons living in select urban counties in the United States by age and sex during January 22, 2020, to October 19, 2021. We separated cases into prevaccine (January 22, 2020-April 4, 2021) and postvaccine (April 5, 2021-October 19, 2021) periods. Results. Overall in urban areas, the COVID-19 age-adjusted rate among non-Hispanic AI/AN persons (n = 47 431) was 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36, 2.01) times that of non-Hispanic White persons (n = 2 301 911). The COVID-19 prevaccine age-adjusted rate was higher (8227 per 100 000; 95% CI = 6283, 10 770) than was the postvaccine rate (3703 per 100 000; 95% CI = 3235, 4240) among non-Hispanic AI/AN compared with among non-Hispanic White persons (2819 per 100 000; 95% CI = 2527, 3144; RR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.17, 1.48). Conclusions. This study highlights disparities in COVID-19 between non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons in urban areas. These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination and other public health efforts among urban AI/AN communities can reduce COVID-19 disparities in urban AI/AN populations. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(10):1489-1497. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306966).

Gastric Cancer Among American Indian and Alaska Native Populations in the United States, 2005-2016.

INTRODUCTION: American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations have higher gastric cancer rates than the general US population. This study provides a comprehensive overview of incidence rates among AI/AN persons during 2005-2016 compared with non-Hispanic whites (whites). METHODS: Population-based cancer registry data for 2005-2016 were linked with the Indian Health Service patient registration databases to address racial misclassification. Age-adjusted gastric cancer incidence rates were expressed per 100,000 per year. Incidence and trend analyses were restricted to purchased/referred care delivery area counties in 6 geographic regions, comparing gastric cancer incidence rates for AI/AN vs white populations in the United States. RESULTS: Gastric cancer rates were higher in the AI/AN compared with white populations in nearly every US region. Incidence rates for central/distal portions of the stomach were higher in AI/AN individuals compared with whites. Rates of later stage gastric cancer were higher in AI/AN populations overall and in every region except the Pacific Coast and East. Incidence rates decreased significantly over time in both populations. Declining rates in the AI/AN populations were driven by changes in the Pacific Coast and Northern Plains regions. DISCUSSION: AI/AN populations have a disproportionately high incidence of gastric cancer, especially in Alaska. High incidence in the central/distal portions of the stomach among AI/AN populations likely reflects a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in these populations. These data can be used to develop interventions to reduce risk factors and improve access to health services among AI/AN people at high risk for gastric cancer.

A Comparative Analysis of Telephone and In-Person Survey Administration for Public Health Surveillance in Rural American Indian Communities.

OBJECTIVE: Public health surveillance systems suffer from insufficient inclusion of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations. These health surveys have also gravitated to telephone administration because of the rising cost of face-to-face interviewing. Several studies have demonstrated that telephone surveys underrepresent people with low incomes, less educational attainment, and minorities. This study assessed the impact of administration mode upon survey participation in rural AI/AN tribes. DESIGN: Using a modified Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System instrument, the Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center partnered with 3 tribes to administer the survey to a target population of 900 AI/AN adults. Half of the sample was assigned to telephone survey administration and the other half was surveyed in-person by trained community interviewers. Significance testing was performed to assess differences in response rates, demographic characteristics, and costs by survey administration type. RESULTS: Several notable differences between the survey administration modes were observed. In-person administration yielded a higher response rate (68.8%) than the telephone survey (35.7%). Likewise, in-person participants were, on average, younger and had lower household incomes and educational attainment than those who completed the survey via telephone. In-person survey administration was also slightly more cost-effective than telephone administration ($192 vs $211 per completed survey) due to the low response rate of telephone administration. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study have important implications for public health surveillance with rural AI/AN populations, where telephone survey administration is unlikely to yield sufficient coverage of this underserved population. This discovery is particularly disconcerting, given the fact that face-to-face interviewing has largely been replaced by telephone interviewing (and increasingly mobile phones) for public health surveillance in the United States. Without change and innovation, the AI/AN population will continue to lack meaningful health data, further challenging capacity to document and address persistent disparities and inequities witnessed among AI/ANs nationwide.