Racial disparities in diabetes care among incident breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a SEER Medicare study

Assessment of Social Vulnerabilities of Care and Prognosis in Adult Ocular Melanomas in the US

BACKGROUND

Prior works have studied the impact of social determinants on various cancers but there is limited analysis on eye-orbit cancers. Current literature tends to focus on socioeconomic status and race, with sparse analysis of interdisciplinary contributions. We examined social determinants as measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), quantifying eye and orbit melanoma disparities across the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 15,157 patients diagnosed with eye-orbit cancers in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1975 to 2017 was performed, extracting 6139 ocular melanomas. SVI scores were abstracted and matched to SEER patient data, with scores generated by weighted averages per population density of county's census tracts. Primary outcome was months survived, while secondary outcomes were advanced staging, high grading, and primary surgery receipt.

RESULTS

With increased total SVI score, indicating more vulnerability, we observed significant decreases of 23.1% in months survival for melanoma histology (p < 0.001) and 19.6-39.7% by primary site. Increasing total SVI showed increased odds of higher grading (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.43) and decreased odds of surgical intervention (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.96). Of the four themes, higher magnitude contributions were observed with socioeconomic status (26.0%) and housing transportation (14.4%), while lesser magnitude contributions were observed with minority language status (13.5%) and household composition (9.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing social vulnerability, as measured by the CDC SVI and its subscores, displayed significant detrimental trends in prognostic and treatment factors for adult eye-orbit melanoma. Subscores quantified which social determinants contributed most to disparities. This lays groundwork for providers to target the highest-impact social determinant for non-clinical factors in patient care.

Achieving Health Equity in the Care of Patients with Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the prevailing racial and ethnic disparities in heart failure (HF) care by identifying barriers to equitable care and proposing solutions for achieving equitable outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Throughout the entire spectrum of HF care, from prevention to implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy and advanced interventions, racial and ethnic disparities exist. Factors such as differential distribution of risk factors, poor access to care, inadequate representation in clinical trials, and discrimination from healthcare clinicians, among others, contribute to these disparities. Recent data suggests that despite improvements, disparities prevail in several aspects of HF care, hindering our progress towards equity in HF care. This review highlights the urgent need to address racial and ethnic disparities in HF care, emphasizing the importance of a multifaceted approach involving policy changes, quality improvement strategies, targeted interventions, and intentional community engagement. Our proposed framework was derived from existing research and emphasizes integrating equity into routine quality improvement efforts, tailoring interventions to specific populations, and advocating for policy transformation. By acknowledging these disparities, implementing evidence-based strategies, and fostering collaborative efforts, the HF community can strive to reduce disparities and achieve equity in HF care.

Excess risk of chronic health conditions in Black adolescent and young adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

The US population of adolescent and young adult (age 15-39 years at diagnosis) cancer survivors is growing. Previous studies have identified racial and ethnic disparities in survival and health outcomes in racially minoritized survivors, including Black survivors, compared with White survivors. However, comparisons should be made between those of the same race or ethnicity with and without a history of AYA cancer to fully understand the association of a cancer diagnosis with socioeconomic status (SES) and health outcomes within a minoritized population.

METHODS

Non-Hispanic Black AYA cancer survivors and non-Hispanic Black age- and sex-matched controls were identified from self-reported data from the National Health Interview Survey (2009-2018). SES factors and chronic health conditions prevalence were compared between survivors and controls using chi-square tests. Survey-weighted logistic regression models were used to determine odds of chronic conditions by SES factors within and between survivors and controls. Interactions between each variable and cancer group were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 445 survivors and 4450 controls were included. Survivors were less likely than controls to be married, have family income >45K/year, have completed a bachelor's degree or higher, and have private insurance. Survivors had higher odds than controls of having at least one (odds ratio (OR): 7.02, p<0.001) and ≥3 (OR: 4.44, p<0.001) chronic conditions. Survivors had higher odds of each chronic condition assessed including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Survivors had higher odds of having chronic health conditions compared with controls across all SES variables.

CONCLUSIONS

A cancer diagnosis during adolescence and young adulthood is associated with poor SES outcomes and increased odds of comorbidities within the Black population, thus further exacerbating existing disparities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Black AYA cancer survivors have a very high risk of developing chronic health conditions after cancer treatment and interventions are needed to improve long-term health outcomes for this population.

Suboptimal Cardiology Follow-Up Among Patients With and Without Cancer Hospitalized for Heart Failure

Many patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) do not receive recommended follow-up cardiology care, and non-White patients are less likely to receive follow-up than White patients. Poor HF management may be particularly problematic in patients with cancer because cardiovascular co-morbidity can delay cancer treatments. Therefore, we sought to describe outpatient cardiology care patterns in patients with cancer hospitalized for HF and to determine if receipt of follow-up varied by race/ethnicity. SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) data from 2007 to 2013 linked to Medicare claims from 2006 to 2014 were used. We included patients aged 66+ years with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, and preexisting HF. Patients with cancer were matched to patients in a noncancer cohort that included individuals with HF and no cancer. The primary outcome was receipt of an outpatient, face-to-face cardiologist visit within 30 days of HF hospitalization. We compared follow-up rates between cancer and noncancer cohorts, and stratified analyses by race/ethnicity. A total of 2,356 patients with cancer and 2,362 patients without cancer were included. Overall, 43% of patients with cancer and 42% of patients without cancer received cardiologist follow-up (p = 0.30). After multivariable adjustment, White patients were 15% more likely to receive cardiology follow-up than Black patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.30). Black patients with cancer were 41% (95% CI 1.11 to 1.78) and Asian patients with cancer were 66% (95% CI 1.11 to 2.49) more likely to visit a cardiologist than their noncancer counterparts. In conclusion, less than half of patients with cancer hospitalized for HF received recommended follow-up with a cardiologist, and significant race-related differences in cardiology follow-up exist. Future studies should investigate the reasons for these differences.

Racial Disparities in Diabetes-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations Among Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes receive less recommended diabetes care after cancer diagnosis than non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). We sought to determine whether racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes and cancer were at increased risk of diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations compared with NHW.

METHODS

Using SEER cancer registry data linked to Medicare claims from 2006 to 2014, we included Medicare beneficiaries age 66+ years diagnosed with incident nonmetastatic breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2012 who had diabetes. Our primary outcome was any diabetes-related ED visit or hospitalization 366-731 days after cancer diagnosis. Using Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models, we examined whether risk of ED visits or hospitalizations was higher for racial/ethnic minorities compared with NHW.

RESULTS

We included 40,059 beneficiaries with mean age 75.5 years (standard deviation 6.3), 45.6% were women, and 28.9% were non-White. Overall, 825 (2.1%) had an ED visit and 3,324 (8.3%) had a hospitalization related to diabetes in the 366-731 days after cancer diagnosis. Compared with NHW, Black individuals were more likely to have ED visits (2.9% v 2.0%; P < .0001) and hospitalizations (11.7% v 7.8%; P < .0001). Adjusting for potential confounders, Black (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.35) individuals had a higher risk of any ED visit or hospitalization compared with NHW.

CONCLUSION

Black individuals with diabetes and cancer were at increased risk for diabetes-related ED visits and hospitalizations in the second year after cancer diagnosis compared with NHW even after accounting for confounders.

Identifying ways to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments (INDICATE): protocol for a qualitative interview study with patients and clinicians

INTRODUCTION

A large and growing number of patients with cancer have comorbid diabetes. Cancer and its treatment can adversely impact glycaemic management and control, and there is accumulating evidence that suboptimal glycaemic control during cancer treatment is a contributory driver of worse cancer-related outcomes in patients with comorbid diabetes. Little research has sought to understand, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, how and why different aspects of cancer care and diabetes care can complicate or facilitate each other, which is key to informing interventions to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments. This study aims to identify and elucidate barriers and enablers to effective diabetes management and control during cancer treatments, and potential intervention targets and strategies to address and harness these, respectively.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative interviews will be conducted with people with diabetes and comorbid cancer (n=30-40) and a range of clinicians (n=30-40) involved in caring for this patient group (eg, oncologists, diabetologists, specialist nurses, general practitioners). Semistructured interviews will examine participants' experiences of and perspectives on diabetes management and control during cancer treatments. Data will be analysed using framework analysis. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, and related Theory and Techniques Tool and Behaviour Change Wheel, to facilitate examination of a comprehensive range of barriers and enablers and support identification of pertinent and feasible intervention approaches. Study dates: January 2021-January 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has approval from National Health Service (NHS) West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be presented to lay, clinical, academic and NHS and charity service-provider audiences via dissemination of written summaries and presentations, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings will be used to inform development and implementation of clinical, health services and patient-management intervention strategies to optimise diabetes management and control during cancer treatments.

Racial and ethnic differences in the utilization of autologous transplantation for lymphoma in the United States

Background

Racial/ethnic disparities in the utilization of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have been reported for patients with hematologic malignancies, but population‐based data are lacking for lymphoma patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether racial and ethnic disparities exist in the utilization of autologous HCT for lymphoma in the United States.

Method

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare fee‐for‐service claims. We included Medicare beneficiaries aged 66+ years with Hodgkin or Non‐Hodgkin lymphomas diagnosed between 2008 and 2015. The primary outcome was time‐to‐autologous HCT. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate racial/ethnic differences in utilization. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation with chained equations.

Results

We included 40,605 individuals with lymphoma. A total of 452 autologous transplants were performed. In the unadjusted model, Non‐Hispanic Black patients were 51% less likely to receive a transplant than Non‐Hispanic White patients (95% CI, 0.26–0.96; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age at diagnosis and sex, Non‐Hispanic Black patients were 61% less likely to receive a transplant (95% CI, 0.20–0.76; p = 0.01). However, observed differences attenuated and became non‐significant after adjustment for socioeconomic factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.32–1.21; p = 0.16) and disease‐specific factors (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.30–1.12; p = 0.11), separately. In the fully adjusted model, we also did not observe a statistically significant association between Non‐Hispanic Black race/ethnicity and receipt of transplant (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.05; p = 0.07).

Conclusion

In this population‐based cohort study of lymphoma patients, Non‐Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive autologous HCT compared to Non‐Hispanic White patients, but this difference was partially explained by socioeconomic and disease‐specific factors.