Search

Introduction: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only treatment to eradicate inhibitors in people with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors. Since the risk of inhibitor development is greater among Black and Hispanic persons, it has been hypothesized that race and ethnicity may influence ITI success. Limited studies have evaluated this hypothesis. Aim: To examine the success of ITI according to race and ethnicity. Methods: Participants who entered the Community Counts (CC) Registry between 2013 and 2017, were aged ≥3 years at study entry, and received ITI were included (n = 559). The proportion of participants with successful ITI was examined with adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: Among 559 participants, 56.9%, 19.1%, 18.1% and 4.3% were Non‐Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, Hispanic and Asian, respectively, and 1.7% were coded as other or missing. Approximately 80% of Hispanic, NH Black and NH White participants had good/very good prognosis, defined as having a pre‐ITI peak inhibitor of < 200 Bethesda Units per millilitre. Nearly 60% of participants (59.7%) achieved successful ITI, 20.7% and 19.5% experienced partially successful or failed ITI, respectively. Successful ITI was non‐significantly lower in NH Black (54.2%; aPR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.62–1.44) and Hispanic (55.4%; aPR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71–1.13) relative to NH White participants (62.6%). Conclusion: In this study, 60% of participants in the CC Registry had successful ITI, consistent with previous studies. The proportion with successful ITI was generally comparable across racial and ethnic groups with similar prognosis. These findings do not support the hypothesis that ITI response varies according to race or ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People with haemophilia's life expectancies have improved over time. Whether progress has been experienced equitably is unknown. Aim: To examine recorded haemophilia death (rHD) rates according to race and ethnicity in the United States (US). Methods: In this cohort study, rHDs were examined with US National Vital Statistics' 1999–2020 Multiple Cause‐of‐Death data. rHD was defined as having a haemophilia A (D66) or B (D67) ICD‐10 code in the death certificate (underlying or multiple causes of death). Age‐adjusted rHD rates were compared with age‐adjusted rate ratios (aRR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Results: There were 3115 rHDs in males with an rHD rate of 0.98 per 1 million males. Between 1999 and 2020, rHD rates declined by 46% in NH (Non‐Hispanic) White, 44% in NH Black (aRR = 0.56, 95%CI 0.43, 0.74), and 42% in Hispanic (aRR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.39, 0.88) males. However, rHD rates remained higher and were on average 30% greater in NH Black versus NH White males (aRR = 1.30 95% CI 1.16, 1.46). Among males with rHD, the median age at death rose from 54.5 to 65.5 years between 1999 and 2020 and was 12 years lower in NH Black (56 years) versus NH White (68 years) males in 2010–2020. There were 930 females with rHD, with an age‐adjusted rate of 0.22 per 1 million females, which was consistent between 1999 and 2020. Conclusion: Reported haemophilia‐death rates improved in males across all race/ethnicities, but rates were higher Black versus White males. Given the inherent limitations of the current study's data source, further investigation of survival rates and disparities in haemophilia are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies using data from the early 2000s demonstrated that patients who were uninsured were more likely to present with late‐stage disease and had worse short‐term survival after cancer diagnosis in the United States. In this report, the authors provide comprehensive data on the associations of health insurance coverage type with stage at diagnosis and long‐term survival in individuals aged 18–64 years who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with 19 common cancers from the National Cancer Database, with survival follow‐up through December 31, 2019. Compared with privately insured patients, Medicaid‐insured and uninsured patients were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late‐stage (III/IV) cancer for all stageable cancers combined and separately. For all stageable cancers combined and for six cancer sites—prostate, colorectal, non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, oral cavity, liver, and esophagus—uninsured patients with Stage I disease had worse survival than privately insured patients with Stage II disease. Patients without private insurance coverage had worse short‐term and long‐term survival at each stage for all cancers combined; patients who were uninsured had worse stage‐specific survival for 12 of 17 stageable cancers and had worse survival for leukemia and brain tumors. Expanding access to comprehensive health insurance coverage is crucial for improving access to cancer care and outcomes, including stage at diagnosis and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.Objective: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR).Design: Cohort study.Setting: United States, 2015 to 2019.Participants: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR.Measurements: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT.Results: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively.Limitations: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up.Conclusion: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness.Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survivors represent a population with high health care needs. If and how cancer survivors were affected by the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are largely unknown.Methods: Using data from the nationwide, population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2020), the authors investigated changes in health-related measures during the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer survivors and compared them with changes among adults without a cancer history in the United States. Sociodemographic and health-related measures such as insurance coverage, employment status, health behaviors, and health status were self-reported. Adjusted prevalence ratios of health-related measures in 2020 versus 2017-2019 were calculated with multivariable logistic regressions and stratified by age group (18-64 vs. ≥65 years).Results: Among adults aged 18-64 years, the uninsured rate did not change significantly in 2020 despite increases in unemployment. The prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, such as insufficient sleep and smoking, decreased in 2020, and self-rated health improved, regardless of cancer history. Notably, declines in smoking were larger among cancer survivors than nonelderly adults without a cancer history. Few changes were observed for adults aged ≥65 years.Conclusions: Further research is needed to confirm the observed positive health behavior and health changes and to investigate the role of potential mechanisms, such as the national and regional policy responses to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance. As polices related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of longer term effects of the pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--The incidence of prostate cancer with Gleason scores 2 through 4 has been decreasing for decades, largely because of evolving criteria for Gleason scores, including the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology recommendation that scores of 2 through 4 should rarely, if ever, be diagnosed based on needle biopsy. Whether trends in assigning Gleason scores 2 through 4 vary by facility type and patient characteristics is unknown. Objective.--To assess trends in prostate cancer grading among various categories of treatment facilities. Design.--Analyses of National Cancer Database records from 1990 through 2013 for 434 612 prostate cancers diagnosed by core needle biopsy, including multivariable regression for 106 331 patients with clinical T1c disease diagnosed from 2004 through 2013. Results.--The proportion of prostate core needle biopsies with Gleason scores 2 through 4 declined from 11 476 of 53 850 (21.3%) (1990-1994) to 96 of 43 566 (0.2%) (2010-2013). The proportions of American Joint Committee on Cancer category T1c needle biopsies assigned Gleason scores 2 through 4 were 416 of 12 796 (3.3%) and 9 of 7194 (0.1%) during 2004 and 2013, respectively. Declines occurred earliest at National Cancer Institute--designated programs and latest at community programs. A multivariable logistic model adjusting for patient demographic and clinical variables and restricted to T1c cancers diagnosed in needle biopsies from 2004 through 2013 showed that facility type is independently associated with the likelihood of cancers in such specimens being assigned Gleason scores of 2 through 4, with community centers having a statistically significant odds ratio of 5.99 relative to National Cancer Institute-designated centers. Conclusions.--These results strongly suggest differences in Gleason grading by pathologists practicing in different facility categories and variations in their promptness of adopting International Society of Urological Pathology recommendations. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1686-1696; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0611-OA), Histologic grade is a valuable factor used in assessing prognosis and selecting treatment for patients with many forms of cancer, and this is especially true regarding the Gleason score for [...]

Background: Although recommended lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high‐risk adults, annual screening rates remain low. This study complements a previous nationwide assessment of access to lung cancer screening within 40 miles by evaluating differences in accessibility across rural and urban settings for the population aged 50 to 80 years and a subset eligible population based on the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force LDCT lung screening recommendations. Methods: Distances from population centers to screening facilities (American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry) were calculated, and the number of individuals who had access within graduating distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, were estimated. Census tract results were aggregated to counties, and both geographies were classified with rural‐urban schemas. Results: Approximately 5% of the eligible population did not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility were observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there was a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. Although the rural population represented approximately 8% of the eligible population, the larger percentage of the rural population with no access was noteworthy and translated into a larger number of individuals with no access at longer distance thresholds (≥40 miles). Conclusions: Disparities in access should be examined as both percentages of the population and numbers of individuals with no access in order to tailor interventions to communities and increase access. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended to help to identify optimal focus areas and reach the most people. Lay Summary: As annual lung cancer screening rates remain low, this study examines access to lung cancer screening nationwide and across rural and urban settings.A geographic information system network analysis of census tract–level populations is used to estimate access at different distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, and the results are aggregated to counties.Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments.Across all distances and geographies, there is a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. This study uses geospatial analysis to examine access to lung cancer screening at graduating distances nationwide and across rural‐urban settings. Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural‐urban environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, US unemployment rates rose to historic highs, and they remain nearly double those of prepandemic levels. Employers are the most common source of health insurance among nonelderly adults. Thus, job loss may lead to a loss of health insurance and reduce access to cancer screening. This study examined associations between unemployment, health insurance, and cancer screening to inform the pandemic's potential impacts on early cancer detection. Methods: Up‐to‐date and past‐year breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening prevalences were computed for nonelderly respondents (aged <65 years) with 2000‐2018 National Health Interview Survey data. Multivariable logistic regression models with marginal probabilities were used to estimate unemployed‐versus‐employed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios. Results: Unemployed adults (2000‐2018) were 4 times more likely to lack insurance than employed adults (41.4% vs 10.0%; P <.001). Unemployed adults had a significantly lower up‐to‐date prevalence of screening for cervical cancer (78.5% vs 86.2%; P <.001), breast cancer (67.8% vs 77.5%; P <.001), colorectal cancer (41.9 vs 48.5%; P <.001), and prostate cancer (25.4% vs 36.4%; P <.001). These differences were eliminated after accounting for health insurance coverage. Conclusions: Unemployment was adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this was fully explained by a lack of health insurance. Ensuring the continuation of health insurance coverage after job loss may mitigate the pandemic's economic distress and future economic downturns' impact on cancer screening. Unemployment is adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this is fully explained by a lack of health insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer screening utilization steeply dropped at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. However, the effects on breast cancer screening in lower income populations are unknown. This study examined changes in breast cancer screening rates (BCSRs) during the pandemic among 32 community health centers (CHCs) that provided health care to lower income populations. Methods: Secondary data from 32 CHCs participating in an American Cancer Society grant program to increase breast cancer screening services were used. BCSRs were defined as the percentage of women aged 50 to 74 years who had a medical visit in the past 12 months (142,207 in 2018, 142,003 in 2019, and 150,630 in 2020) and received a screening mammogram within the last 27 months. BCSRs in July 2020, July 2019, and June 2018 were compared with screening rate ratios (SRRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: BCSRs significantly rose by 18% between 2018 and 2019 (from 45.8% to 53.9%; SRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.18) and then declined by 8% between 2019 and 2020 (from 53.9% to 49.6%; SRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.92‐0.93). If the 2018‐2019 BCSR trends had continued through 2020, 63.3% of women would have been screened in 2020 in contrast to the 49.6% who were; this potentially translated into 47,517 fewer mammograms and 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses in this population. Conclusions: In this study of 32 CHCs, BCSRs declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020, and this reversed an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. Declining BCSRs among CHCs during the COVID‐19 pandemic call for policies to support and resources to identify women in need of screening. In this study of 32 community health centers, breast cancer screening rates declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020. This reverses an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]