Disparities in outcomes and access to therapy options in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. These social determinants of health (SDH) lead to disparities in access to care and outcomes. We aim to understand the relationship between SDH and survival and locoregional treatment options in HCC. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated survival and access locoregional treatments including non-transplant surgery, liver transplant (LT), and liver-directed radiation therapy (LDRT) in patients with HCC diagnosed between 2004 and 2017. Variables including clinical stage, age, sex, race, income, rurality, year of diagnosis, facility type (FT), Charlson-Deyo score (CD), and insurance were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression and dominance analyses were used for analyses. RESULTS: In total, 140 340 patients were included. Worse survival was seen with advanced stage, older age, Black race, rurality, public insurance, treatment at a nonacademic center, and lower income. The top predictors for survival included stage, age, and income. Completion of non-transplant surgery was best predicted by stage, FT, and insurance type, whereas LT was predicted by age, year of diagnosis, and CD score. LDRT utilization was most associated with year of diagnosis, FT, and CD score. CONCLUSION: For patients with HCC, survival was predicted primarily by stage, age, and income. The primary sociodemographic factors associated with access to surgical treatments, in addition to FT, were insurance and income, highlighting the financial burdens of health care. Work is needed to address disparities in access to care, including improved insurance access, addressing financial inequities and financial toxicities of treatments, and equalizing care opportunities in community centers.

The Current State of Departmental Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Within US Academic Radiation Oncology Departments.

PURPOSE: Promoting a diverse workforce of health care professionals that delivers equitable patient care is an important goal in oncology, as in all of medicine. Although most medical schools have a diversity office and associated initiatives, little is known about radiation oncology (RO) department-level efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). We describe the current state of DEI leadership and initiatives in RO departments in the US to guide future policies and programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 124 US RO departments affiliated with a medical school were contacted to identify departmental DEI leadership. Identified DEI leaders were asked to complete an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of their departmental DEI leadership, committee/organizational structure, activities, and perceived barriers to, and effect of, their work. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Among 85 RO departments that responded (68.5% response rate), 48 (56.5%) reported having a departmental DEI leader. Thirty-four DEI leaders completed the survey (70.8%). Of those who answered each survey question, most DEI leaders were assistant or associate professors (n = 24, 82.8%), women (n = 19, 73.1%), and identified with at least one non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity (n = 15, 53.6%). Nineteen (57.6%) had an associated departmental DEI committee; with 10 of these starting in 2020 or later. Few DEI leaders had administrative support (38.2%), funding (29.4%), protected time (23.5%), or increased compensation for added duties Fifteen (50.0%) believed their DEI-focused efforts were considered for promotion. The most reported initiatives included offering programming/education, supporting students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, improving recruitment practices/hiring, and implementing pipeline/pathway projects. The perceived impact of DEI initiatives included an increased culture of respect (89.7%), improved health care disparity awareness (75.9%), and improved systemic/structural racism awareness (79.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Departmental DEI efforts are increasingly common within RO, however, the structure, resources, and recognition associated with DEI work are variable. Additional dedicated resources and recognition for these efforts will help ensure a culture of inclusive excellence for the RO workforce and patients.

Social determinants of health, workforce diversity, and financial toxicity: A review of disparities in cancer care.

Disparities in cancer care and outcomes between racial and ethnic groups, urban and rural populations, and socioeconomic classes are well documented and represent one of the greatest forms of injustice throughout the United States. Despite the development of increasingly efficacious treatments, survival disparities have widened over time, with known impacts based on both medical factors and social determinants of health including education, neighborhood, factors, and access to care, among others. In this review, we discuss current state of inequities in access to cancer services, treatment-related financial toxicity, and disparities within the oncology workforce, all of which significantly impact the ability of clinicians to provide high quality, equitable, and guideline-compliant care for all people with cancer.

Social Media and the Quest for Equity and Diversity in Oncology: On Safe Spaces and the Concept of the Public Physician.

Despite their increased enrollment into medical school, women still face systemic barriers in medicine, whether in an academic or nonacademic setting. Those from Under-Represented Minority (URM) groups face similar issues, which may affect their desire to enter, pursue, and/or maintain a career in medicine. Social media provides unique opportunities for peer-to-peer support among members of URM communities and for amplification of their voices calling for social justice-here defined as a redistribution of power and the quest for equity in access to opportunities, including access to mentorship, professional development, and timely promotion in academic rank. These issues are relevant to oncologists especially as we strive for diversity, equity, and inclusion and to ensure that our patients have equal access to care, regardless of their circumstances. In this article, we review current literature that highlights issues faced by women and historically URM groups in medicine, particularly in oncology. We also discuss the physician's role as a social justice advocate and the concept of the public physician.

Mortgage Lending Bias and Breast Cancer Survival Among Older Women in the United States.

PURPOSE: The objective was to examine the relationship between contemporary redlining (mortgage lending bias on the basis of property location) and survival among older women with breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A redlining index using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data (2007-2013) was linked by census tract with a SEER-Medicare cohort of 27,516 women age 66-90 years with an initial diagnosis of stage I-IV breast cancer in 2007-2009 and follow-up through 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between redlining and both all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality, accounting for covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 34% of non-Hispanic White, 57% of Hispanic, and 79% of non-Hispanic Black individuals lived in redlined tracts. As the redlining index increased, women experienced poorer survival. This effect was strongest for women with no comorbid conditions, who comprised 54% of the sample. For redlining index values of 1 (low), 2 (moderate), and 3 (high), as compared with 0.5 (least), hazard ratios (HRs) (and 95% CIs) for all-cause mortality were HR = 1.10 (1.06 to 1.14), HR = 1.27 (1.17 to 1.38), and HR = 1.39 (1.25 to 1.55), respectively, among women with no comorbidities. A similar pattern was found for breast cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: Contemporary redlining is associated with poorer breast cancer survival. The impact of this bias is emphasized by the pronounced effect even among women with health insurance (Medicare) and no comorbid conditions. The magnitude of this neighborhood level effect demands an increased focus on upstream determinants of health to support comprehensive patient care. The housing sector actively reveals structural racism and economic disinvestment and is an actionable policy target to mitigate adverse upstream health determinants for the benefit of patients with cancer.