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.     

Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies

Prostate cancer screening may detect nonprogressive cancers, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The potential for overdiagnosis can be assessed from the reservoir of prostate cancer in autopsy studies that report incidental prostate cancer rates in men who died of other causes. We aimed to estimate the age‐specific incidental cancer prevalence from all published autopsy studies. We identified eligible studies by searches of Medline and Embase, forward and backward citation searches and contacting authors. We screened the titles and abstracts of all articles; checked the full‐text articles for eligibility and extracted clinical and pathology data using standardized forms. We extracted mean cancer prevalence, age‐specific cancer prevalence and validity measures and then pooled data from all studies using logistic regression models with random effects. The 29 studies included in the review dated from 1948 to 2013. Incidental cancer was detected in all populations, with no obvious time trends in prevalence. Prostate cancer prevalence increased with each decade of age, OR = 1.7 (1.6–1.8), and was higher in studies that used the Gleason score, OR = 2.0 (1.1–3.7). No other factors were significantly predictive. The estimated mean cancer prevalence increased in a nonlinear fashion from 5% (95% CI: 3–8%) at age <30 years to 59% (95% CI: 48–71%) by age >79 years. There was substantial variation between populations in estimated cancer prevalence. There is a substantial reservoir of incidental prostate cancer which increases with age. The high risk of overdiagnosis limits the usefulness of prostate cancer screening.     

Timely follow‐up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium

Timely follow‐up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow‐up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer‐specific recommendations for times to follow‐up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow‐up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow‐up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low‐resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199–216 . © 2018 American Cancer Society .     

Association of social determinants of health with late diagnosis and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer

BackgroundPancreatic cancer disparities have been described. However, it is unknown if they contribute to a late diagnosis and survival of patients with metastatic disease. Identifying their role is important as it will open the door for interventions. We hypothesize that social determinants of health (SDH) such as income, education, race, and insurance status impact (I) stage of diagnosis of PC (Stage IV vs. other stages), and (II) overall survival (OS) in Stage IV patients.MethodsUsing the National Cancer Database, we evaluated a primary outcome of diagnosis of Stage IV PC and a secondary outcome of OS. Primary predictors included race, income, education, and insurance. Covariates included age, sex and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. Univariate, multivariable logistic regression models evaluated risk of a late diagnosis. Univariate, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model examined OS. 95% confidence intervals were used.Results230,877 patients were included, median age of 68 years (SD 12.1). In univariate analysis, a better education, higher income, and insurance decreased the odds of Stage IV PC, while Black race increased it. In multivariable analysis, education [>93% high-school completion (HSC) vs. <82.4%, OR 0.96 (0.93–0.99)] and insurance [private vs. no, OR 0.72 (0.67–0.74)] significantly decreased the risk of a late diagnosis, whereas Black race increased the odds [vs. White, OR 1.09 (1.07–1.12)]. In univariate Cox analysis, having a higher income, insurance and better education improved OS, while Black race worsened it. In multivariable Cox, higher income [>$63,333 (vs. <$40,277), HR 0.87 (0.85–0.89)] and insurance [private vs. no, HR 0.77 (0.74–0.79)] improved OS.ConclusionsSDH impacted the continuum of care for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, including stage at diagnosis and overall survival.     

A population-based breast cancer screening programme: conducting a comprehensive survey to explore adherence determinants

This research examines several important individual and environmental variables that can predict breast cancer screening practices among Portuguese women aged 45-69 years old, under a population-based programme. A cross-sectional study was conducted to a convenience sample with 805 women in Aveiro municipality. Survey interviews were applied to adherents and non-adherents in two different settings (health centre, home places). A combination of bivariate (chi-squared test) and multivariate analysis [decision tree by the chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) algorithm] was performed to determine differences between the groups and predict the variables. Findings showed that there is a significant association between almost all 29 indicators with adherence and non-adherence. Younger women (<50 years) with 'concordant' Behaviour Profile to the guidelines are those who adhere more in comparison with the other age groups. On the other hand, those with non-adherent behaviour need to have a 'good' attendance of healthcare providers for becoming adherents to the screening programme. Multiple strategies that combine enhancing primary health care access, individual behaviour and knowledge must be addressed to uptake adherence. In this way, the health teams must act in accordance with the guidelines, targeting more effective health education practices to achieve the goals of the breast cancer screening.     

Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen‐positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age‐standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21–65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two‐ to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.     

Social inequities along the cervical cancer continuum: a structured review

ObjectiveTo reveal areas of research/knowledge related to social inequities and cervical cancer. Methods: A Medline search was performed looking for US based research on cervical cancer and social inequities since 1990. The papers found were organized into cells defined by a cancer disparities grid. Results: The majority of research published about cervical cancer and social inequities in the US, lies within the social domains of: race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position. Conflicting information exists as to whether race/ethnicity is a good predictor of screening and survival. Some research implied that differentials based on race/ethnicity are likely secondary to differentials in socioeconomic position. Some research about age, insurance status, and immigrant status and cervical cancer was found. Scarce information was found relating to sexuality, language, disability and geography and cervical cancer. Discussion: The cancer disparities grid facilitated a systematic and visual review of existing literature on social inequities and cervical cancer. The grid helped to elucidate uncontested existing social inequities, conflicting social inequities, and areas where social inequity data does not exist. The cancer disparities grid can be used as a research tool to help identify areas for future research, clinical programs, and political action related to cervical cancer and social inequities.Address correspondence to: Sara J. Newmann MD, MPH, 15 Massachusetts General Hospital, Vincent Gynecology and Obstetrics, 55Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.     

Breast and cervical cancer screening behaviours among colorectal cancer survivors in Nova Scotia

Purpose

We analyzed patterns and factors associated with receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening in a cohort of colorectal cancer survivors.

Methods

Individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia between January 2001 and December 2005 were eligible for inclusion. Receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening was determined using administrative data. General-population age restrictions were used in the analysis (breast: 40–69 years; cervical: 21–75 years). Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to first screen.

Results

Of 318 and 443 colorectal cancer survivors eligible for the breast and cervical cancer screening analysis respectively, 30.1% [95% confidence interval (ci): 21.2% to 39.0%] never received screening mammography, and 47.9% (95% ci: 37.8% to 58.0%) never received cervical cancer screening during the study period. Receipt of screening before the colorectal cancer diagnosis was strongly associated with receipt of screening after diagnosis (hazard ratio for breast cancer screening: 4.71; 95% ci: 3.42 to 6.51; hazard ratio for cervical cancer screening: 6.83; 95% ci: 4.58 to 10.16).

Conclusions

Many colorectal cancer survivors within general-population screening age recommendations did not receive breast and cervical cancer screening. Future research should focus on survivors who meet age recommendations for population-based cancer screening.     

Malnutrition screening tools in gastrointestinal cancer: A systematic review of concurrent validity

ObjectiveMalnutrition is a significant problem in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, and accurate screening and identification is essential to ensure appropriate nutrition intervention. This study aims to determine current evidence for concurrent validity of malnutrition screening tools in GI cancer.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines, using four databases. Studies investigating the concurrent validity of malnutrition screening tools against a reference standard of Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) or Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in adult patients with GI cancer were identified. Screening, quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Concurrent validity ratings were applied using predefined criteria.ResultsSix studies investigating concurrent validity of the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 criteria (NRS-2002) were included. There was variation in concurrent validity ratings ranging from poor-good for all tools, depending on treatment type, stage and population characteristics.ConclusionRecommendations regarding the use of one tool over another could not be made. However, in the absence of a clear recommendation specific to GI cancer, screening tools that are well validated in general clinical populations should be utilised. The MST can be recommended based on validity data against the PG-SGA and SGA from other oncology populations. If indicated, malnutrition screening should then be followed by thorough nutritional assessment.     

Social isolation and social connectedness among young adult cancer survivors: A systematic review

Background

Social isolation and connectedness are social determinants of health that have demonstrated effects on cancer-related outcomes. These constructs have been systematically evaluated among pediatric and older adult cancer populations. In this review, the authors evaluated the prevalence, correlates, and psychosocial implications of social isolation and connectedness among young adult (YA) cancer survivors aged 18–39 years.

Methods

Peer-reviewed articles published in English before June 2021 were identified from database searches and included articles' reference lists according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included articles described studies that assessed social isolation and/or connectedness among YA cancer survivors.

Results

In total, 5094 unique records were identified; 4143 were excluded after title/abstract screening, and 907 were excluded after full-text review. Forty-four articles were included. Few studies used validated measures or directly assessed social isolation or connectedness. Social isolation was similarly prevalent among YAs and older cancer survivors and noncancer populations. Demographic, clinical, and behavioral risk and protective factors for social isolation were identified. Social isolation was related to worse psychological well-being, whereas social connectedness was often, but not always, related to better psychological well-being.

Conclusions

This growing literature underscores the relevance of social isolation and connectedness as important health determinants among YA cancer survivors. The identified risk and protective factors can identify YAs who especially may benefit from screening for social isolation. Future studies are needed that directly, reliably, and validly evaluate social isolation and connectedness to inform the development of interventions to decrease isolation and increase connectedness.     

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.