Cancer screening utilization by residence and sexual orientation

Discrimination in the medical setting among LGBTQ+ adults and associations with cancer screening

PURPOSE

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals experience disparities in cancer screening. We examined whether experience of LGBTQ+ -related discrimination in medical settings was associated with cancer screening disparities.

METHODS

Participants were recruited via social media for a cross-sectional survey study. Those who self-reported as LGBTQ+ , being 40+ years of age, and residing in the US were eligible. Participants reported their clinical and demographic characteristics, cancer screening history, and experiences of discrimination in a medical setting. We examined the odds (OR) of ever undergoing cancer screening by experienced discrimination, stratified by sex assigned at birth.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 310) were on average 54.4 ± 9.0 years old and primarily White (92.9%). Most identified as lesbian (38.1%) or gay (40.0%) while 17.1% were transgender or gender diverse. Nearly half (45.5%) reported experiencing LGBTQ+ -related discrimination in the medical setting. Participants assigned female at birth with discriminatory experiences had significantly lower odds of ever undergoing colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy compared to those without discriminatory experiences (OR: 0.37; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.15-0.90). No significant differences in colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy uptake were observed in those assigned male at birth by discriminatory experiences (OR: 2.02; 95% CI 0.59-6.91). Pap tests, mammogram, and stool colorectal cancer screening did not differ by discriminatory experience.

CONCLUSION

Discrimination in medical settings was commonly reported by LGBTQ+ individuals in this study. When treating LGBTQ+ patients, clinicians should ask about prior experiences and continue to promote cancer screening. Future studies should examine discrimination as a key driver of LGBTQ+ disparities in cancer screening.

Cancer prevention in females with and without obesity: Does perceived and internalised weight bias determine cancer prevention behaviour?

BACKGROUND

Women with obesity are not only at higher risk of developing cancer such as gynaecological malignancies but are also less likely to attend cancer prevention screenings (CPS). In this study, we aimed to obtain a better database for Germany and to investigate whether women with obesity are less likely to undergo CPS compared to women without obesity. Moreover, we aimed to identify factors that determine CPS behaviour.

METHODS

A quantitative cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted that assessed data of 1003 females in the general public with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; n = 500) and without obesity (BMI < 30 kg/m²; n = 503). We assessed participants' utilisation of cervical, breast, and colorectal CPS. Group differences were investigated by using Chi-Square tests, whereas influencing factors that might determine CPS behaviour were examined by multivariate logistic regression analyses. Therefore, logistic regression models for (a) the full sample and (b) the obese sample were conducted. Explanatory factors (i.e., cancer awareness, the internalisation of weight bias (WBIS) and perceived weight-based discrimination) were included. Confounding factors such as sociodemographic variables were included in the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Women with obesity were less likely to undergo Pap smear (χ²(1) = 13.90, p < 0.001) and clinical breast examination (χ²(4) = 14.41, p < 0.01) compared to women without obesity. In contrast, the utilisation of all other CPS methods did not differ between women with and without obesity. Logistic regression analyses revealed neither an association between CPS behaviour and WBI nor perceived weight bias. Instead, previous cancer diagnoses and knowledge about CPS forms were found to reinforce CPS behaviour.

CONCLUSION

Although data did not suggest that internalised or perceived weight bias deter women with obesity from undergoing CPS, the role of weight bias has not yet been conclusively clarified. Future studies should address potential methodological limitations and evaluate the effectiveness of most recently established cancer prevention programs and in particular how they affect CPS behaviour in women with obesity.

The association of sexual orientation with prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis

PURPOSE

Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among lesbians/gays and bisexuals (LGBs) is lacking. Recent studies showed that LGBs have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts. Few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We, therefore, investigated the association between sexual orientation and prevalent sex-specific cancer including prostate (PCa), breast (BC), and cervical (CC) cancer.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18 + from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database between 2017 and 2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and LGB men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers.

RESULTS

Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 LGB men and women, respectively. LGBs were younger and less likely to be screened for PCa, BC, and CC than heterosexuals. A higher proportion of heterosexual women than lesbian and bisexual women were screened for CC with pap smears (95.36% vs. 90.48% and 86.11%, p ≤ 0.001) and BC with mammograms (80.74% vs. 63.81% and 45.37%, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, a higher proportion of heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men were screened for PCa with PSA blood tests (41.27% vs. 30.53% and 27.58%, p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There were more heterosexuals than LGBs screened for CC, BC, and PCa. However, no association between sexual orientation and cancer diagnosis was found. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to improve cancer screening among LGBs.

The intersection of sexual orientation with race and ethnicity in cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening is recommended for those with a cervix who are 21 to 65 years old, with specific timelines being dependent on individual risk. This study compared rates of ever undergoing Papanicolaou (Pap) testing at the intersection of self-reported sexual minority (SM) status and race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Data from the National Health Interview Survey (2015 and 2018) were used to examine cervical cancer screening disparities. Natal females without a history of hysterectomy who were 21 to 65 years old and had reported their sexual orientation and Pap testing history were included. Demographic and health characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. To adjust for differences in confounding variables between groups, propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed. IPTW-adjusted multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds of ever undergoing a Pap test by sexual orientation alone and with race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic).

RESULTS

SM persons (n = 877) had significantly reduced odds of ever undergoing Pap testing (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.70) in comparison with heterosexual persons (n = 17,760). When the intersection of sexual orientation and race/ethnicity was considered, non-Hispanic White SM participants and Hispanic SM participants had reduced odds of ever undergoing Pap testing in comparison with non-Hispanic White heterosexual participants. No significant differences were observed between non-Hispanic White heterosexual participants and participants of non-Hispanic Black SM or Hispanic heterosexual identities.

CONCLUSIONS

SM participants were significantly less likely to have ever undergone a Pap test in comparison with heterosexual participants, with Hispanic SM participants having the lowest uptake. Future studies should further examine the roles of systemic discrimination and other key drivers of these disparities.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Outcomes: Opportunities for Future Research

Cancer care disparities among rural populations are increasingly documented and may be worsening, likely because of the impact of rurality on access to state-of-the-art cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services, as well as higher rates of risk factors such as smoking and obesity. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology undertook an initiative to understand and address factors contributing to rural cancer care disparities. A key pillar of this initiative was to identify knowledge gaps and promote the research needed to understand the magnitude of difference in outcomes in rural vs nonrural settings, the drivers of those differences, and interventions to address them. The purpose of this review is to describe continued knowledge gaps and areas of priority research to address them. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by searching the PubMed (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English between 1971 and 2021 and restricted to primary reports from populations in the United States and abstracted data to synthesize current evidence and identify continued gaps in knowledge. Our review identified continuing gaps in the literature regarding the underlying causes of rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes. Rapid advances in cancer care will worsen existing disparities in outcomes for rural patients without directed effort to understand and address barriers to high-quality care in these areas. Research should be prioritized to address ongoing knowledge gaps about the drivers of rurality-based disparities and preventative and corrective interventions.

Citizenship and Social Responsibility in Surgery: A Review

Importance

Social determinants of health have been shown to be key drivers of disparities in access to surgical care and surgical outcomes. Though the concept of social responsibility has received growing attention in the medical field, little has been published contextualizing social responsibility in surgery. In this narrative review, we define social responsibility as it relates to surgery, explore the duty of surgeons to society, and provide examples of social factors associated with adverse surgical outcomes and how they can be mitigated.

Observations

The concept of social responsibility in surgery has deep roots in medical codes of ethics and evolved alongside changing views on human rights and the role of social factors in disease. The ethical duty of surgeons to society is based on the ethical principles of benevolence and justice and is grounded within the framework of the social contract. Surgeons have a responsibility to understand how factors such as patient demographics, the social environment, clinician awareness, and the health care system are associated with inequitable patient outcomes. Through education, we can empower surgeons to advocate for their patients, address the causes and consequences of surgical disparities, and incorporate social responsibility into their daily practice.

Conclusions and Relevance

One of the greatest challenges in the field of surgery is ensuring that surgical care is provided in an equitable and sustainable way. Surgeons have a duty to understand the factors that lead to health care disparities and use their knowledge, skills, and privileged position to address these issues at the individual and societal level.

Breast Cancer Disparities and the Impact of Geography

Neighborhood has significant implications for breast cancer screening, stage, treatment, and mortality. Patients residing in neighborhoods with high deprivation or rurality face barriers and challenges to accessing and receiving care. Consequently, they experience higher mortality rates than their financially affluent or urban counterparts. There are multiple gaps in the literature on the relationship between place of residence and the use of systemic therapies or emerging surgical strategies for disease management. As the management of breast cancer continues to evolve, additional studies are needed to understand the implications of place on the implementation and dissemination of new and emerging treatment modalities.