American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023.

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021.

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism.

Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: A blueprint for practice, research, and policy.

Although cancer mortality rates declined in the United States in recent decades, some populations experienced little benefit from advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship care. In fact, some cancer disparities between populations of low and high socioeconomic status widened during this period. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths continue to occur, and disadvantaged populations bear a disproportionate burden. Reducing the burden of cancer and eliminating cancer-related disparities will require more focused and coordinated action across multiple sectors and in partnership with communities. This article, part of the American Cancer Society's Cancer Control Blueprint series, introduces a framework for understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity and presents actionable recommendations for practice, research, and policy. The article aims to accelerate progress toward eliminating disparities in cancer and achieving health equity.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection: The New Frontier in Cancer Early Detection.

The new generation of cancer early detection tests holds remarkable promise for revolutionizing and changing the paradigm of cancer early detection. Dozens of cancer early detection tests are being developed and evaluated. Some are already commercialized and available for use, most as a complement to and not in place of existing recommended cancer screening tests. This review evaluates existing single- and multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs), discussing their performance characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy. It also critically looks at the potential harms that could result from these tests, including false positive and negative results, the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, psychological and economic harms, and the risk of widening cancer inequities. We also review the large-scale, population-based studies that are being launched in the United States and United Kingdom to determine the impact of MCEDs on clinically relevant outcomes and implications for current practice.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

How Referring Providers Choose Specialists for Their Patients: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Physician referrals are a critical step in directing patients to high-quality specialists. Despite efforts to encourage referrals to high-volume hospitals, many patients receive treatment at low-volume centers with worse outcomes. We aimed to determine the most important factors considered by referring providers when selecting specialists for their patients through a systematic review of medical and surgical literature. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched from January 2000 to July 2021 using terms related to referrals, specialty, surgery, primary care, and decision-making. We included survey and interview studies reporting the factors considered by healthcare providers as they refer patients to specialists in the USA. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Quality was assessed using the CASP Checklist. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize common decision factors across studies. RESULTS: We screened 1,972 abstracts and identified 7 studies for inclusion, reporting on 1,575 providers. Thematic analysis showed that referring providers consider factors related to the specialist's clinical expertise (skill, training, outcomes, and assessments), interactions between the patient and specialist (prior experience, rapport, location, scheduling, preference, and insurance), and interactions between the referring physician and specialist (personal relationships, communication, reputation, reciprocity, and practice or system affiliation). Notably, studies did not describe how providers assess clinical or technical skills. CONCLUSIONS: Referring providers rely on subjective factors and assessments to evaluate quality when selecting a specialist. There may be a role for guidelines and objective measures of quality to inform the choice of specialist by referring providers.

The association between sexual orientation, BMI, obesity diagnosis, and provider recommendation for weight management.

BACKGROUND: National data show that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to be obese compared to straight women. However little is known about whether provider recommendation for weight management varies across these populations. Furthermore, health care providers have explicit and implicit preferences for straight people in comparison to lesbian or gay people. There is little research that exists depicting how this preference affects quality of patient care. The purpose of the study is: to compare, among lesbian, bisexual, and straight females with BMIs ≥ 30: (1) the average Body Mass Index (BMI); (2) receipt of a diagnostic code for obesity; and (3) receipt of a provider recommendation for weight management. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 534 patient records from four outpatient academic internal medicine practices at the University of Pennsylvania between January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 to determine variations in average BMI, proportion of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes for obesity, and proportion of weight management recommendations offered by providers among lesbian, bisexual and straight females with BMIs ≥ 30. We classified provider recommendations as definite, possible, and absent. Multivariable median (BMI outcome only) or logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between sexual orientation and each of the following outcomes: BMI, receipt of obesity diagnosis, and weight management recommendations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in BMI, receipt of obesity diagnoses, or weight management recommendations between lesbian, bisexual, and straight females with BMIs ≥ 30. However, only about half the patients with BMIs ≥ 30, regardless of sexual orientation, received a weight management recommendation as recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. CONCLUSION: We did not observe disparities in BMI, receipt of obesity diagnoses, or receipt of weight management recommendations between sexual orientation minority and heterosexual females among this sample from an urban population of patients receiving care in a university medical system. However, provider recommendation for weight management was suboptimal in all the groups.

Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: reducing the disparity through educational outreach to the underserved.

PURPOSE: Poor health literacy and awareness are thought to be some of the major contributors to existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to breast reconstruction after mastectomy. This study aimed to determine whether physician led, community-based educational symposium improves understanding of breast cancer care and breast reconstruction in underserved populations. METHODS: Annual educational symposiums were held between 2017 and 2019 in underserved communities in the greater Philadelphia area. The symposium consisted of a series of short lectures on breast health, cancer screening, surgical management and reconstruction, patient testimonials, a Q&A panel, and an exhibitor fair. Attendees were given pre- and post-symposium surveys that evaluated knowledge of breast cancer care and reconstruction on a 0-100 scale based on percentage of correct answers. RESULTS: Of 169 individuals, 92%, 91%, and 83% completed pre-symposium, post-symposium, and both surveys, respectively. Median age was 60 years, and 92% were Black. Knowledge/understanding survey scores significantly improved after the symposium (50 vs. 87, p < 0.01). Of all respondents, 92% found the symposium to be useful, 89% were introduced to resources that they were not previously aware of, 90% would recommend the symposium to others, and 91% would pass along the information they learned. CONCLUSION: This study presents an effective and reproducible strategy to increase community awareness and understanding of general breast cancer concepts and breast reconstruction options. Through community outreach and education, physicians can help underserved populations have a better understanding of their potential options for breast reconstruction and ultimately reduce this well documented but inadequately addressed disparity in cancer care.

Interventions to Mitigate Financial Toxicity in Adult Patients with Cancer in the United States: A Scoping Review.

Financial toxicity adversely affects quality of life and treatment outcomes for patients with cancer. This scoping review examined interventions aimed at mitigating financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer and their effectiveness. We utilized five bibliographical databases to identify studies that met our inclusion criteria. The review included studies conducted among adult patients with cancer in the United States and published in English between January 2011 to March 2023. The review identified eight studies that met the inclusion criteria. Each of the studies discussed the implementation of interventions at the patient/provider and/or health system level. Collectively, the findings from this scoping review highlight both the limited number of published studies that are aimed at mitigating financial toxicity and the need to create and assess interventions that directly impact financial toxicity in demographically diverse populations of adult patients with cancer.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients.

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

Executing plans to enhance diversity across cancer centers in the United States: Opportunities and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Lack of diversity in the cancer research workforce persists which the new requirement for all NCI-designated cancer centers to have a Plan to Enhance Diversity (PED) seeks to address. However, it is not well understood how different cancer centers are approaching the development and execution of these plans. Our objective was to assess how cancer centers are establishing and pursuing their PED. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Cancer Center DEI Network which includes all NCI-designated cancer centers and several emerging centers. 62 cancer centers (75% of those invited), including 58 NCI-designated cancer centers (81% of those with this designation), participated and completed a questionnaire that assessed PED leadership, major challenges, implementation strategies, and approach to evaluate PED progress. RESULTS: The most common PED challenge identified is recruiting diverse faculty (68% of centers) and the most common strategy currently used to address this is reviewing and revising faculty recruitment practices (67%). The most common approach centers are using to measure PED progress are shifts in demographics (68%), and data on the demographics of faculty, leadership, and trainees are available at 79%, 81%, and 75% of centers, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): While almost all centers have established a PED leadership structure, there is considerable variation in the approaches used to realize PED goals, and in the resources provided to support PED work. Realizing opportunities to share and implement common best practices and exemplar programs has the potential to elevate the impact of PED efforts nationally.

CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy in Minority Patients with Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Administration of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART19) immunotherapy for large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), a subset of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), involves high costs and access to specialized tertiary care centers. We investigated whether minority health populations (MHPs) have equal access to CART19 and whether their outcomes are similar to those of non-MHPs. METHODS: We analyzed the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients treated with commercial CART19 at two geographically and socioeconomically different institutions: the Abramson Cancer Center (ACC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and the Knight Cancer Institute (KCI, Portland, Oregon). RESULTS: In the ACC catchment area, 8956 patients were diagnosed with NHL between 2015 and 2019 (latest available data from the state registry), including 17.9% MHPs. In the ACC, between 2018 and 2022 (CART became available in 2018), 1492 patients with LBCL were treated, and 194 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 15.7% for the entire LBCL cohort but only 6.7% for the CART19 cohort. During the same time, in the KCI catchment area, 4568 patients were diagnosed with NHL, including 4.2% MHPs. In the KCI, 396 patients with LBCL were treated, and 47 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 6.6% for the entire LBCL cohort and 4.2% for the CART19 cohort. The 3-month response, survival, and toxicities after CART19 infusion showed similar results, although the number of patients who were treated was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the access of MHPs to tertiary centers for LBCL care was preserved but appeared reduced for commercial CART19 immunotherapy. Although clinical outcomes of MHPs seemed similar to those of non-MHPs, the small sample size precludes drawing firm conclusions. Further studies are needed. (Funded by the Laffey McHugh Foundation and others.).

Financial toxicity in prostate cancer survivors: A national cross-sectional assessment of subjective financial burden.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (CaP) survivorship, subjective financial burden (SFB), an aspect of financial toxicity, has not been studied using a national sample. Our goal was to explore and identify factors associated with patient-reported SFB in CaP survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 264 adult individuals with a history of CaP that completed the AHRQ - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Household Component and Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire Supplement in 2016 or 2017. Primary outcomes were the presence of cancer-related SFB and the severity of this burden. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the severity of SFB and different domains of burden. RESULTS: Most participants were non-Hispanic white, had 3 or more comorbidities and had a median age of 72 years. 62.1% of survivors indicated SFB associated with their CaP care and long-term effects. 49.2% of CaP survivors indicated coping SFB, 27.7% psychological, and 29.2% material. Older (OR: 0.95, 95%CI 0.92-0.98) was associated with less SFB. Low-income level (OR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.01-4.36) was associated with higher SFB. Hispanic survivors (OR: 2.8 95%CI 1.1-7.4) indicated more psychologic SFB. Presence of a caregiver was noted as a predictor of material (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.45-4.49) and psychological (OR: 2.2, 95%CI 1.13-3.91) SFB. CONCLUSIONS: Many CaP survivors experience SFB and associated factors differ in domain of financial burden. This provides evidence and groundwork for understanding financial burden and improving the quality of counseling and care for this population.

Factors Associated With Primary Care Physician Decision-making When Making Medication Recommendations vs Surgical Referrals.

Importance: Although objective data are used routinely in prescription drug recommendations, it is unclear how referring physicians apply evidence when making surgeon or hospital recommendations for surgery. Objective: To compare the factors associated with the hospital or surgeon referral decision-making process with that used for prescription medication recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study comprised interviews conducted between April 26 and May 18, 2021, of a purposive sample of 21 primary care physicians from a large primary care network in the Northeast US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the factors considered when making prescription medication recommendations vs referral recommendations to specific surgeons or hospitals for surgery. Results: All 21 participant primary care physicians (14 women [66.7%]) reported use of evidence-based decision support tools and patient attributes for prescription medication recommendations. In contrast, for surgeon and hospital referral recommendations, primary care physicians relied on professional experience and training, personal beliefs about surgical quality, and perceived convenience. Primary care physicians cited perceived limitations of existing data on surgical quality as a barrier to the use of such data in the process of making surgical referrals. Conclusions and Relevance: As opposed to the widespread use of objective decision support tools for guidance on medication recommendations, primary care physicians relied on subjective factors when making referrals to specific surgeons and hospitals. The findings of this study highlight the potential to improve surgical outcomes by introducing accessible, reliable data as an imperative step in the surgical referral process.