ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early detection of lung cancer reduces cancer mortality; yet uptake for lung cancer screening (LCS) has been limited in Washington State. Geographic disparities contribute to low uptake, but do not wholly explain gaps in access for underserved populations. Other factors, such as an adequate workforce to meet population demand and the capacity of accredited screening facility sites, must also be considered. RESEARCH QUESTION: What proportion of the eligible population for LCS has access to LCS facilities in Washington State? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) model to evaluate how geographic accessibility in addition to availability of LCS imaging centers contribute to disparities. We used available data on radiologic technologist volume at each American College of Radiology (ACR)-accredited screening facility site to estimate the capacity of each site to meet potential population demand. Spearman rank correlation coefficients of the spatial access ratios were compared with the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and area deprivation index quintiles to identify characteristics of populations at risk for lung cancer with greater and lesser levels of access. RESULTS: A total of 549 radiologic technologists were identified across the 95 ACR-accredited screening facilities. We observed that 95% of the eligible population had proximate geographic access to any ACR facility. However, when we incorporated the E2SFCA method, we found significant variation of access for eligible populations. The inclusion of the availability measure attenuated access for most of the eligible population. Furthermore, we observed that rural areas were substantially correlated, and areas with greater socioeconomic disadvantage were modestly correlated, with lower access. INTERPRETATION: Rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas face significant disparities. The E2SFCA models demonstrated that capacity is an important component and how geographic access and availability jointly contribute to disparities in access to LCS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The historic morbidity and mortality rates of anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery are reported as 3-21% and 0.2-0.5%, respectively. These data come from either large national/population level or small institutional studies, with the former focusing on broad 30-day outcomes while lacking granular data on complications and their severity. Institutional studies tend to focus on long-term and quality of life outcomes. Our objective is to describe and evaluate the incidence of 30 and 90-day morbidity and mortality in a large, single institution dataset. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed 2342 cases of anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery from 2003-2020 for intra-operative complications causing post-operative sequelae, as well as morbidity and mortality within 90 days. All complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) Grading System. The highest-grade of complication was used per patient during 30-day and 31-90-day intervals. RESULTS: Out of 2342 patients, the overall 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were 18.2% (427/2342) and 0.2% (4/2342), respectively. Most of the complications were CD<3a at 13.1% (306/2342). In the 31-90-day post-operative period, morbidity and mortality rates decreased to 3.1% (78/2338) and 0.09% (2/2338). CD<3a complications accounted for 1.9% (42/2338). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery are safe operations with rare mortality and modest rates of morbidity. However, the majority of complications patients experience are minor (CD<3a) and are easily managed. A minority of patients will experience major complications (CD≥3a) that require additional procedures and management to secure a safe outcome. These data are helpful to inform patients of the risks of surgery, and guide physicians for optimal consent.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality among American Indian and Alaska Native populations. American Indian and Alaska Native people use commercial tobacco products at higher rates compared with all other races and ethnicities. Moreover, they show lower adherence to cancer screening guidelines. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do American Indian and Alaska Native adults perceive and use lung cancer screening? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a study in which we recorded and transcribed data from three focus groups consisting of American Indian and Alaska Native adults. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling at a national health conference. Transcripts were analyzed by inductive coding. RESULTS: Participants (n = 58) of 28 tribes included tribal Elders, tribal leaders, and non-Native volunteers who worked with tribal communities. Limited community awareness of lung cancer screening, barriers to lung cancer screening at health care facilities, and health information-seeking behaviors emerged as key themes in discussions. Screening knowledge was limited except among people with direct experiences of lung cancer. Cancer risk factors such as multigenerational smoking were considered important priorities to address in communities. Limited educational and diagnostic resources are significant barriers to lung cancer screening uptake in addition to limited discussions with health care providers about cancer risk. INTERPRETATION: Limited access to and awareness of lung cancer screening must be addressed. American Indian and Alaska Native adults use several health information sources unique to tribal communities, and these should be leveraged in designing screening programs. Equitable partnerships between clinicians and tribes are essential in improving knowledge and use of lung cancer screening.
