Incarceration History and Access to and Receipt of Health Care in the US.

Importance: People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. Objective: To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. Main Measures and Outcomes: Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self-reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. Results: A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care.

Association of Historical Housing Discrimination and Colon Cancer Treatment and Outcomes in the United States.

PURPOSE: In the 1930s, the federally sponsored Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) used racial composition in its assessment of areas worthy of receiving loans. Neighborhoods with large proportions of Black residents were mapped in red (ie, redlining) and flagged as hazardous for mortgage financing. Redlining created a platform for systemic disinvestment in these neighborhoods, leading to barriers in access to resources that persist today. We investigated the association between residing in areas with different HOLC ratings and receipt of quality cancer care and outcomes among individuals diagnosed with colon cancer-a leading cause of cancer deaths amenable to early detection and treatment. METHODS: Individuals who resided in zip code tabulation areas in 196 cities with HOLC rating and were diagnosed with colon cancer from 2007 to 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database and assigned a HOLC grade (A, best; B, still desirable; C, definitely declining; and D, hazardous and mapped in red). Multivariable logistic regression models investigated association of area-level HOLC grade and late stage at diagnosis and receipt of guideline-concordant care. The product-limit method evaluated differences in time to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models investigated differences in overall survival (OS). RESULTS: There were 149,917 patients newly diagnosed with colon cancer with a median age of 68 years. Compared with people living in HOLC A areas, people living in HOLC D areas were more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.12]). In addition, people living in HOLC B, C, and D areas had 8%, 16%, and 24% higher odds of not receiving guideline-concordant care, including lower receipt of surgery, evaluation of ≥12 lymph nodes, and chemotherapy. People residing in HOLC B, C, or D areas also experienced delays in initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. People residing in HOLC C (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.13]) and D (aHR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.18]) areas had worse OS, including 13% and 20% excess risk of death for individuals diagnosed with early- and 6% and 8% for late-stage disease for HOLC C and D, respectively. CONCLUSION: Historical housing discrimination is associated with worse contemporary access to colon cancer care and outcomes.

Reducing the Environmental Impact of Health Care Conferences: A Study of Emissions and Practical Solutions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the impact of different conference formats (in-person, virtual, and hybrid) of the ASCO conference on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to recommend sustainable options for future conferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data on the number of attendees, their departure locations, and the type of attendance (in-person v virtual) provided by ASCO between 2019 and 2022. The GHG emissions resulting from air and ground travel, remote connectivity, conference space utilization, hotel stays, distributed conference materials, and electricity use were estimated for each year. Emissions were stratified by attendee country of origin, type of attendance, and year. Simulations were conducted to evaluate how changes in conference size, location, and format impact emissions, as well as estimate the resulting mitigations from adopting the proposed changes. RESULTS: The highest estimated GHG emissions, calculated in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), were associated with the 2019 in-person conference (37,251 metric tons of CO2e). Although international attendees had the largest contribution to emissions in all years (>50%), location optimization models, which selected conference locations that most minimized GHG emissions, yielded only minimal reductions (approximately 3%). Simulations examining changes to the conference format, location, and attendance percentage suggested that hub-and-spoke, where multiple conference locations are selected by global region, or hybrid models, with both in-person and virtual components, are likely to cause the largest drops in emissions (up to 86%). CONCLUSION: Using historical conference data, this study identifies key aspects that can be modified to reduce emissions and consequently promote more sustainable and equitable conference attendance. Hybrid conferences may be the best solution to maintain the networking opportunities provided by conferences while balancing out their environmental footprint.

Effects of Wildfire Events on California Radiation Oncology Clinics and Patients.

Purpose: The effect of climate-driven events, such as wildfires, on health care delivery and cancer care is a growing concern. Patients with cancer undergoing radiation therapy are particularly vulnerable to treatment interruptions, which have a direct effect on survival. We report the results of a study characterizing the effect of wildfires on radiation oncology clinics and their patients. Methods and Materials: A survey of California radiation oncologists was used to evaluate emergency preparedness and the effect of wildfires on the delivery of radiation therapy services between 2017 and 2022. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's χ2 tests were performed to investigate potential relationships between provider characteristics, practice settings, and perceptions of the effect of wildfire events. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection data were employed to map the geographic distribution of wildfires to clinic locations. Results: Response rate was 12.3% (51/415 radiation oncologists), representing 25% of clinics (43/176) in 41% (24/58) of California counties. Sixty-one percent (31/51) of respondents reported being affected by a wildfire, 2 of which are rural clinics (100%, 2/2) and 29 are (59%, 29/49) metropolitan practices. Of these, 18% (9/51) reported a clinic closure, and 29% (15/51) reported staffing shortages. Respondents reported effects on patients, including having to evacuate (55%, 28/51), cancel/reschedule treatments (53%, 27/51), and experiencing physical, mental, or financial hardship due to wildfires (45%, 23/51). Respondents described effects on clinical operations, including being forced to transfer patients (24%, 12/51), transportation interruptions (37%, 19/51), regional/community evacuations (35%, 18/51), and physical/mental health effects (27%, 14/51) on clinic personnel. Less than half of the respondents (47%, 24/51) reported their workplace had a wildfire emergency preparedness plan. Additionally, geographic analysis revealed that 100% (176/176) of clinics were located within 25 miles of a wildfire. Conclusions: This study highlights the effects of wildfires on radiation oncology clinics and patients and underscores the need for emergency preparedness planning to minimize the consequences of such disasters.

The Intersectionality of Climate Change and Post-Stroke Aphasia.

Persons with communication disabilities including persons with post-stroke aphasia (PWAs) possess a vulnerability to climate change as a result of their communication impairments. The disproportionate effects of climate change are likely to exacerbate preexisting inequities in social determinants of health. Communication disability intersecting with other characteristics subject to discrimination (e.g., race, age, sex, income) may lead to inequities in climate-related adaptive capacity. This article echoes earlier concerns related to climate change and further educates healthcare professionals about the impact of climate change on the global human population, with particular consideration of PWAs. The aims of this article are the following: (1) to broaden the understanding of aphasiologists and clinicians caring for PWAs about climate change and the contributions of human activity (anthropogenic) to this crisis; (2) to describe climate change and its impact on health; (3) to detail the intersectionality of climate and health; (4) to explore climate change and its potential effects on PWAs; and (5) to offer hope through emissions reduction, adaptation, resilience, and immediate change.

Association of area-level mortgage denial and guideline-concordant non-small-cell lung cancer care and outcomes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Racial and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are well described. However, no previous studies have evaluated the association between mortgage denial rates and receipt of timely and guideline-concordant care for NSCLC and patient outcomes. METHODS: We identified individuals ≥18 years diagnosed with NSCLC between 2014 and 2019 from the National Cancer Database. Using the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database, we calculated the proportion of denied home loans to total loans at the zip-code level and categorized them into quintiles. Our outcomes included receipt of guideline-concordant care based on clinical and pathologic stage at diagnosis and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, time from surgery to chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 629,288 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (median age 69; IQR 61-76 years, 49.1% female), 47.8% did not receive guideline-concordant care. Residing in areas with higher mortgage denial rates and lower income was associated with worse guideline-concordant care overall (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.25-1.32) and for each cancer treatment modality, worse receipt of timely chemotherapy (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.11-1.17) and worse overall survival (aHR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.19-1.22), compared with residing in areas with the lowest mortgage denial rate and highest income. CONCLUSIONS: Area-level mortgage denial rate was associated with worse receipt of timely and guideline-concordant NSCLC care and survival. This highlights the critical need to understand and address systemic practices, such as mortgage denial, that limit access to resources and are associated with worse access to quality cancer care and outcomes.

Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act and Early Mortality Following Lung Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is associated with gains in health insurance coverage, earlier stage diagnosis, and improved survival among patients with cancer. Objective: To examine the association of Medicaid expansion with changes in early mortality among adults undergoing surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a setting in which access to care is a major determinant of survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the National Cancer Database to identify 14 984 adults 45 to 64 years of age who underwent surgical resection of NSCLC between 2008 and 2019. Analysis was conducted between March 28, 2021, and September 1, 2023. Exposure: State of residence Medicaid expansion status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to compare study population characteristics by Medicaid expansion status of patients' state of residence. Difference-in-differences analyses were used to evaluate the association between Medicaid expansion and postoperative mortality before implementation of the ACA (2008-2013) vs after (2014-2019). Results: Among 14 984 adults included, the mean (SD) age was 56.3 (5.1) years, 54.6% were women, and 62.1% lived in Medicaid expansion states. Both 30-day (from 0.97% to 0.26%) and 90-day (from 2.63% to 1.32%) postoperative mortality decreased from before the ACA to after among patients residing in Medicaid expansion states (both P < .001) but not in nonexpansion states (30-day mortality before the ACA, 0.75% vs after the ACA, 0.68%; P = .74; and 90-day mortality before the ACA, 2.43% vs after the ACA, 2.20%; P = .57), leading to a difference-in-differences of -0.64 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.08; P = .03) for 30-day mortality and -1.08 percentage points (95% CI, -2.08 to -0.08; P = .03) for 90-day mortality. The difference-in-differences for in-hospital mortality was not significant (P = .34) between expansion states (1.41% before the ACA to 0.77% after the ACA; 0.63 percentage point decrease; P = .004) and nonexpansion states (1.49% before the ACA to 1.20% after the ACA; 0.30 percentage point decrease; P = .29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with NSCLC, Medicaid expansion was associated with declines in 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality following hospital discharge. These findings suggest that Medicaid expansion may be an effective strategy for improving access to care and cancer outcomes in this population.

Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

Assessment of Changes in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in access to health care, including cancer care. The extent of changes in receipt of cancer treatment is unclear. Objective: To evaluate changes in the absolute number, proportion, and cancer treatment modalities provided to patients with newly diagnosed cancer during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older diagnosed with any solid tumor between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were identified using the National Cancer Database. Data analysis was conducted from September 19, 2022, to July 28, 2023. Exposure: First year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The expected number of procedures for each treatment modality (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and hormonal therapy) in 2020 were calculated using historical data (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019) with the vector autoregressive method. The difference between expected and observed numbers was evaluated using a generalized estimating equation under assumptions of the Poisson distribution for count data. Changes in the proportion of different types of cancer treatments initiated in 2020 were evaluated using the additive outlier method. Results: A total of 3 504 342 patients (1 214 918 in 2018, mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.6] years; 1 235 584 in 2019, mean [SD] age, 64.8 [13.6] years; and 1 053 840 in 2020, mean [SD] age, 64.9 [13.6] years) were included. Compared with expected treatment from previous years' trends, there were approximately 98 000 fewer curative intent surgical procedures performed, 38 800 fewer chemotherapy regimens, 55 500 fewer radiotherapy regimens, 6800 fewer immunotherapy regimens, and 32 000 fewer hormonal therapies initiated in 2020. For most cancer sites and stages evaluated, there was no statistically significant change in the type of cancer treatment provided during the first year of the pandemic, the exception being a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of patients receiving breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with a simultaneous statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy for treatment of stage I breast cancer during the first months of the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large national cohort study, a significant deficit was noted in the number of cancer treatments provided in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data indicated that this deficit in the number of cancer treatments provided was associated with decreases in the number of cancer diagnoses, not changes in treatment strategies.

Changes in cancer incidence rates by stage during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to health care disruptions and declines in cancer diagnoses in the United States. However, the impact of the pandemic on cancer incidence rates by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity is unknown. This cross-sectional study calculated delay- and age-adjusted incidence rates, stratified by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity, and rate ratios (RRs) comparing changes in year-over-year incidence rates (eg, 2020 vs 2019) from 2016 to 2020 for 22 cancer types based on data obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 22-registry database. From 2019 to 2020, the incidence of local-stage disease statistically significantly declined for 19 of the 22 cancer types, ranging from 4% (RR = 0.96; 95%CI, 0.93-0.98) for urinary bladder cancer to 18% for colorectal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.81-0.84) and laryngeal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.78-0.88) cancers, deviating from pre-COVID stable year-over-year changes. Incidence during the corresponding period also declined for 16 cancer types for regional-stage and six cancer types for distant-stage disease. By race and ethnicity, the decline in local-stage incidence for screening-detectable cancers was generally greater in historically marginalized populations. The decline in cancer incidence rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred mainly for local- and regional-stage diseases across racial and ethnic groups. Whether these declines will lead to increases in advanced-stage disease and mortality rates remain to be investigated with additional data years. Nevertheless, the findings reinforce the importance of strengthening the return to preventive care campaigns and outreach for detecting cancers at early and more treatable stages.

Derailing Carcinogens-Oncologists and the Ohio Train Derailment.

This Viewpoint discusses how oncologists can support environmental strategies to reduce dependence on petrochemicals, which are associated with cancer risk.

Climate change and cancer: the Environmental Justice perspective.

Despite advances in cancer control-prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship-racial disparities in cancer incidence and survival persist and, in some cases, are widening in the United States. Since 2020, there's been growing recognition of the role of structural racism, including structurally racist policies and practices, as the main factor contributing to historical and contemporary disparities. Structurally racist policies and practices have been present since the genesis of the United States and are also at the root of environmental injustices, which result in disproportionately high exposure to environmental hazards among communities targeted for marginalization, increased cancer risk, disruptions in access to care, and worsening health outcomes. In addition to widening cancer disparities, environmental injustices enable the development of polluting infrastructure, which contribute to detrimental health outcomes in the entire population, and to climate change, the most pressing public health challenge of our time. In this commentary, we describe the connections between climate change and cancer through an Environmental Justice perspective (defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all racialized groups, nationalities, or income, in all aspects, including development, implementation, and enforcement, of policies and practices that affect the environment and public health), highlighting how the expertise developed in communities targeted for marginalization is crucial for addressing health disparities, tackling climate change, and advancing cancer control efforts for the entire population.

Racial Disparities in Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Care for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Young individuals racialized as Black are more likely to die after a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis than individuals racialized as White in the United States. This study examined racial disparities in receipt of timely and guideline-concordant care among individuals racialized as Black and White with early-onset CRC. METHODS: Individuals age 18-49 years racialized as non-Hispanic Black and White (self-identified) and newly diagnosed with CRC during 2004-2019 were selected from the National Cancer Database. Patients who received recommended care (staging, surgery, lymph node evaluation, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) were considered to have received guideline-concordant care. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age and sex. The decomposition method was used to estimate the relative contribution of demographic characteristics (age and sex), comorbidities, health insurance, and facility type to the racial disparity in receipt of guideline-concordant care. The product-limit method was used to evaluate differences in time to treatment between patients racialized as Black and White. RESULTS: Of the 84,882 patients with colon cancer and 62,573 patients with rectal cancer, 20.8% and 14.5% were racialized as Black, respectively. Individuals racialized as Black were more likely to not receive guideline-concordant care for colon (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.18 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.22]) and rectal (aOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.33]) cancers. Health insurance explained 28.2% and 21.6% of the disparity among patients with colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Individuals racialized as Black had increased time to adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.32]) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer (HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.47]) compared with individuals racialized as White. CONCLUSION: Patients with early-onset CRC racialized as Black receive worse and less timely care than individuals racialized as White. Health insurance, a modifiable factor, was the largest contributor to racial disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant care in this study.

Changes in cancer diagnoses and stage distribution during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA: a cross-sectional nationwide assessment.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of COVID-19 disrupted health care, with consequences for cancer diagnoses and outcomes, especially for early stage diagnoses, which generally have favourable prognoses. We aimed to examine nationwide changes in adult cancer diagnoses and stage distribution during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by cancer type and key sociodemographic factors in the USA. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, adults (aged ≥18 years) newly diagnosed with a first primary malignant cancer between Jan 1, 2018, and Dec 31, 2020, were identified from the US National Cancer Database. We included individuals across 50 US states and the District of Columbia who were treated in hospitals that were Commission on Cancer-accredited during the study period. Individuals whose cancer stage was 0 (except for bladder cancer), occult, or without an applicable American Joint Committee on Cancer staging scheme were excluded. Our primary outcomes were the change in the number and the change in the stage distribution of new cancer diagnoses between 2019 (Jan 1 to Dec 31) and 2020 (Jan 1 to Dec 31). Monthly counts and stage distributions were calculated for all cancers combined and for major cancer types. We also calculated annual change in stage distribution from 2019 to 2020 and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, health insurance status, comorbidity score, US state, zip code-level social deprivation index, and county-level age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality in 2020. Separate models were stratified by sociodemographic and clinical factors. FINDINGS: We identified 2 404 050 adults who were newly diagnosed with cancer during the study period (830 528 in 2018, 849 290 in 2019, and 724 232 in 2020). Mean age was 63·5 years (SD 13·5) and 1 287 049 (53·5%) individuals were women, 1 117 001 (46·5%) were men, and 1 814 082 (75·5%) were non-Hispanic White. The monthly number of new cancer diagnoses (all stages) decreased substantially after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, although monthly counts returned to near pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2020. The decrease in diagnoses was largest for stage I disease, leading to lower odds of being diagnosed with stage I disease in 2020 than in 2019 (aOR 0·946 [95% CI 0·939-0·952] for stage I vs stage II-IV); whereas, the odds of being diagnosed with stage IV disease were higher in 2020 than in 2019 (1·074 [1·066-1·083] for stage IV vs stage I-III). This pattern was observed in most cancer types and sociodemographic groups, although was most prominent among Hispanic individuals (0·922 [0·899-0·946] for stage I; 1·110 [1·077-1·144] for stage IV), Asian American and Pacific Islander individuals (0·924 [0·892-0·956] for stage I; 1·096 [1·052-1·142] for stage IV), uninsured individuals (0·917 [0·875-0·961] for stage I; 1·102 [1·055-1·152] for stage IV), Medicare-insured adults younger than 65 years (0·909 [0·882-0·937] for stage I; 1·105 [1·068-1·144] for stage IV), and individuals living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0·931 [0·917-0·946] for stage I; 1·106 [1·087-1·125] for stage IV). INTERPRETATION: Substantial cancer underdiagnosis and decreases in the proportion of early stage diagnoses occurred during 2020 in the USA, particularly among medically underserved individuals. Monitoring the long-term effects of the pandemic on morbidity, survival, and mortality is warranted. FUNDING: None.