Search

Objective: Despite Australia's National Cervical Screening Program, Indigenous women have a disproportionately high burden of cervical cancer. We describe temporal and area-level patterns in prevalence of histologically conformed high-grade cervical abnormalities (hHGA) among cytologically screened women by Indigenous status. Methods: This was a population-based study of 2,132,925 women, aged 20–69, who underwent cervical screening between 2008 and 2017, in Queensland, Australia. Of these, 47,136 were identified as Indigenous from linked hospital records. Overall patterns in hHGA prevalence by Indigenous status were quantified using prevalence rate ratios (PrRR) from negative binomial models. Bayesian spatial models were used to obtain smoothed prevalence estimates of hHGA across 528 small areas compared to the state average. Results are presented as maps and graphs showing the associated uncertainty of the estimates. Results: Overall, screened Indigenous women had significantly higher hHGA prevalence than non-Indigenous women. However, the magnitude of the difference reduced over time (p < 0.001). Adjusted for age and area-level variables, Indigenous women had 36% higher hHGA prevalence (PrRR 1.36, 95% confidence interval [1.21–1.52]) than non-Indigenous women between 2013 and 2017. The overall effect of age decreased over time (p = 0.021). Although there was evidence of moderate spatial variation in 10-year prevalence estimates for both groups of women, the high levels of uncertainty for many estimates, particularly for Indigenous women, limited our ability to draw definitive conclusions about the spatial patterns. Conclusions: While the temporal reduction in Indigenous: non-Indigenous differential in hHGA prevalence is encouraging, further research into the key drivers of the continuing higher risk among Indigenous women is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) provides culturally appropriate primary care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. The population of North Queensland has a higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, a greater population coverage of ACCHOs, and higher cervical screening participation than the Rest of Queensland. The association between regional differences in the use of ACCHOs for cervical screening and variations in screening participation among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women is currently unknown. Methods: This is a population-based study of 1,107,233 women, aged 20–69 years who underwent cervical screening between 2013 and 2017. Of these women, 132,972 (12%) were from North Queensland, of which 9% were identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (2% Rest of Queensland) through linkage to hospital records. Regional differentials in screening by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status were quantified using participation rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from negative binomial regression models. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women being screened at ACCHOs. Results: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from North Queensland (versus) Rest of Queensland had higher odds of screening at ACCHOs after adjusting for age and area-level variables. After adjustment for non-ACCHO variables, the regional differential in screening among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women was significantly higher (PRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20–1.37) than that among other Australian women [PRR = 1.11 (1.02–1.18)], but was attenuated on further adjustment for ACCHO variables, [PRR = 1.15, (1.03–1.28)] to become similar to the corresponding point estimate for other Australian women [PRR = 1.09, (1.01–1.20)]. However, the significant interaction between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status and region (p < 0.001) remained, possibly reflecting the large cohort size. Screening participation increased with better access to health services for all women. Conclusions: Improving access to primary health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, especially through ACCHOs, may reduce existing disparities in cervical screening participation. Further gains will require greater levels of local community engagement and understanding of the experiences of screened Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to inform effective interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage and course completion rates for Indigenous adolescents in four Australian states and territories.Participants, Setting: Adolescents who were 12 years old in 2015 and received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (three doses: 0, 2, 6 months) as part of the National HPV Vaccination Program in 2015 or 2016 in New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory, or the Australian Capital Territory.Main Outcome Measures: Estimated HPV vaccination coverage by dose and by Indigenous status and sex, based on National HPV Vaccination Program Register data; vaccination course completion rates (proportion of dose 1 recipients who received dose 3) for 12-year-olds vaccinated during 2013-2016, by sex, jurisdiction, and Indigenous status.Results: Dose 1 coverage exceeded 80% for all Indigenous status/jurisdiction/sex groups (range, 83.3-97.7%). Coverage was similar for Indigenous and non-Indigenous girls in Queensland (87.3% v 87.0%), lower for Indigenous girls in the ACT (88.7% v 97.7%) and the NT (91.1% v 97.0%), and higher in NSW (95.9% v 89.9%); it was similar for Indigenous and non-Indigenous boys in all jurisdictions except the NT (88.6% v 96.3%). Dose 3 coverage (range, 61.2-87.7%) was markedly lower for Indigenous than non-Indigenous 12-year-olds in all jurisdictions, except for girls in NSW (82.6% v 83.6%).Conclusion: HPV vaccine coverage is high, but course completion is generally lower for Indigenous adolescents. Strategies for improving completion rates for Indigenous Australians are needed to end the higher burden of cervical cancer among Indigenous than non-Indigenous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous women continue to experience a disproportionately higher burden of cervical cancer than non‐Indigenous women in Australia. The National Indigenous Cervical Screening Project used probabilistic record linkage to combine population‐based administrative databases and identify Indigenous women on Pap Smear Registers. This study aimed to quantify the spatial variation by local government areas (LGAs) for Indigenous and non‐Indigenous women in Queensland in cervical screening participation rates and related outcomes. Empirical Bayes local geostatistical smoothing was performed to reduce the likelihood of spurious variation between small areas. The cohort included 1,091,260 women (2 per cent Indigenous) aged 20 to 69 with 2,393,708 Pap smears between 2006 and 2011. Indigenous women had smoothed LGA‐specific 5‐year participation rates (interquartile range (IQR) 38.9–53.3 per 100 eligible women) consistently lower than non‐Indigenous women (IQR 80.7–85.3). The non‐overlapping confidence intervals of these rates suggest that the Indigenous differential was significant. Compared with Indigenous women, non‐Indigenous women had consistently lower and more stable prevalence rates of histologically confirmed high grade abnormalities (IQR 8.0–10.1 versus 15.0–21.3 per 1,000 screened women). Although the LGA‐specific rates also suggest that a higher proportion of non‐Indigenous women were followed‐up within two months of an abnormal screening result, the wide confidence intervals for these estimates limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions about spatial patterns for this outcome. These findings highlight the importance of continued monitoring and ongoing efforts to identify drivers of these patterns and develop effective strategies to improve participation and potentially reduce the cervical cancer burden among Indigenous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the impact of comorbidity on cervical cancer survival in Australian women, including whether Indigenous women’s higher prevalence of comorbidity contributes to their lower survival compared to non-Indigenous women. Methods: Data for cervical cancers diagnosed in 2003–2012 were extracted from six Australian state-based cancer registries and linked to hospital inpatient records to identify comorbidity diagnoses. Five-year cause-specific and all-cause survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Flexible parametric models were used to estimate excess cause-specific mortality by Charlson comorbidity index score (0,1,2+), for Indigenous women compared to non-Indigenous women. Results: Of 4,467 women, Indigenous women (4.4%) compared to non-Indigenous women had more comorbidity at diagnosis (score ≥1: 24.2% vs. 10.0%) and lower five-year cause-specific survival (60.2% vs. 76.6%). Comorbidity was associated with increased cervical cancer mortality for non-Indigenous women, but there was no evidence of such a relationship for Indigenous women. There was an 18% reduction in the Indigenous: non-Indigenous hazard ratio (excess mortality) when comorbidity was included in the model, yet this reduction was not statistically significant. The excess mortality for Indigenous women was only evident among those without comorbidity (Indigenous: non-Indigenous HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.9–3.4), indicating that factors other than those measured in this study are contributing to the differential. In a subgroup of New South Wales women, comorbidity was associated with advanced-stage cancer, which in turn was associated with elevated cervical cancer mortality. Conclusions: Survival was lowest for women with comorbidity. However, there wasn’t a clear comorbidity-survival gradient for Indigenous women. Further investigation of potential drivers of the cervical cancer survival differentials is warranted. Impact: The results highlight the need for cancer care guidelines and multidisciplinary care that can meet the needs of complex patients. Also, primary and acute care services may need to pay more attention to Indigenous Australian women who may not obviously need it (i.e. those without comorbidity). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lung cancer and cervical cancer are higher in incidence for Indigenous Australians and survival is worse compared with non-Indigenous Australians. Here we aim to determine if being Indigenous and/or other factors are associated with patients receiving 'suboptimal treatment' compared to 'optimal treatment' according to clinical guidelines for two cancer types. Methods Data were collected from hospital medical records for Indigenous adults diagnosed with cervical cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a frequency-matched comparison group of non-Indigenous patients in the Queensland Cancer Registry between January 1998 and December 2004. The two cancer types were analyzed separately. Results A total of 105 women with cervical cancer were included in the study, 56 of whom were Indigenous. Indigenous women had higher odds of not receiving optimal treatment according to clinical guidelines (unadjusted OR 7.1; 95% CI, 1.5-33.3), even after adjusting for stage (OR 5.7; 95% CI, 1.2-27.3). Of 225 patients with NSCLC, 198 patients (56% Indigenous) had sufficient information available to be analyzed. The odds of receiving suboptimal treatment were significantly higher for Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous NSCLC patients (unadjusted OR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6) and remained significant after adjusting for stage, comorbidity and age (adjusted OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.1). Conclusions The monitoring of treatment patterns and appraisal against guidelines can provide valuable evidence of inequity in cancer treatment. We found that Indigenous people with lung cancer or cervical cancer received suboptimal treatment, reinforcing the need for urgent action to reduce the impact of these two cancer types on Indigenous people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous Australian women have much higher incidence of cervical cancer compared to non-Indigenous women. Despite an organised cervical screening program introduced 25 years ago, a paucity of Indigenous-identified data in Pap Smear Registers remains. Prevalence of cervical abnormalities detected among the screened Indigenous population has not previously been reported. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of population-based linked health records for 1,334,795 female Queensland residents aged 20–69 years who had one or more Pap smears during 2000–2011; from linked hospital records 23,483 were identified as Indigenous. Prevalence was calculated separately for Indigenous and non-Indigenous women, for cytology-detected low-grade (cLGA) and high-grade abnormalities (cHGA), and histologically confirmed high-grade abnormalities (hHGA). Odds ratios (OR) were estimated from logistic regression analysis. In 2010–2011 the prevalence of hHGA among Indigenous women (16.6 per 1000 women screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.6–18.9) was twice that of non-Indigenous women (7.5 per 1000 women screened, CI 7.3–7.7). Adjusted for age, area-level disadvantage and place of residence, Indigenous women had higher prevalence of cLGA (OR 1.4, CI 1.3–1.4), cHGA (OR 2.2, CI 2.1–2.3) and hHGA (OR 2.0, CI 1.9–2.1). Our findings show that Indigenous women recorded on the Pap Smear Register have much higher prevalence for cLGA, cHGA and hHGA compared to non-Indigenous women. The renewed cervical screening program, to be implemented in 2017, offers opportunities to reduce the burden of abnormalities and invasive cancer among Indigenous women and address long-standing data deficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving the World Health Organisation (WHO) cervical cancer elimination target of fewer than four new cases per 100,000 woman-years requires scaling up HPV vaccination of girls, cervical screening, and pre-cancer and cancer treatment. We reviewed data from four high-income colonised countries (Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), and the United States (US)) to identify how each is currently performing compared to the cervical cancer incidence elimination and triple-intervention targets, nationally and in Indigenous women. We also summarise barriers and enablers to meeting targets for Indigenous women. To achieve elimination, cervical cancer incidence must be reduced by 74% in Indigenous women in Australia, and 63% in Maori women in NZ; data were not published in sufficient detail to compare incidence in Indigenous women in Canada or the US to the WHO target. Only Australia meets the vaccination coverage target, but uptake appears comparatively equitable within Australia, NZ and the US, whereas there appears to be a substantial gap in Canada. Screening coverage is lower for Indigenous women in all four countries though the differential varies by country. Currently, only Australia universally offers HPV-based screening. Data on pre-cancer and cancer treatment were limited in all countries. Large inequities in cervical cancer currently exist for Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, and elimination is not on track for all women in these countries. Current data gaps hinder improvements. These countries must urgently address their systemic failure to care and provide health care for Indigenous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]