Liver cancer disparities in New York City: A neighborhood view of risk and harm reduction factors

© 2018 Kamath, Taioli, Egorova, Llovet, Perumalswami, Weiss, Schwartz, Ewala and Bickell. Introduction: Liver cancer is the fastest increasing cancer in the United States and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in New York City (NYC), with wide disparities among neighborhoods. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe liver cancer incidence by neighborhood and examine its association with risk factors. This information can inform preventive and treatment interventions. Materials and methods: Publicly available data were collected on adult NYC residents (n = 6,407,022). Age-adjusted data on liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer came from the New York State Cancer Registry (1) (2007-2011 average annual incidence); and the NYC Vital Statistics Bureau (2015, mortality). Data on liver cancer risk factors (2012-2015) were sourced from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: (1) Community Health Survey, (2) A1C registry, and (3) NYC Health Department Hepatitis surveillance data. They included prevalence of obesity, diabetes, diabetic control, alcohol-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits, hepatitis B and C rates, hepatitis B vaccine coverage, and injecting drug use. Results: Liver cancer incidence in NYC was strongly associated with neighborhood poverty after adjusting for race/ethnicity (β = 0.0217, p = 0.013); and with infection risk scores (β = 0.0389, 95% CI = 0.0088-0.069, p = 0.011), particularly in the poorest neighborhoods (β = 0.1207, 95% CI = 0.0147-0.2267, p = 0.026). Some neighborhoods with high hepatitis rates do not have a proportionate number of hepatitis prevention services. Conclusion: High liver cancer incidence is strongly associated with infection risk factors in NYC. There are gaps in hepatitis prevention services like syringe exchange and vaccination that should be addressed. The role of alcohol and metabolic risk factors on liver cancer in NYC warrants further study

Cancer beliefs and screening behaviors: The impact of neighborhood and other social determinants of health

BackgroundBeliefs about cancer influence breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behavior. Screening rates for these cancers differ in the contiguous neighborhoods of East Harlem (EH), Central Harlem (CH), and the Upper East Side (UES), which have distinct socio-demographic compositions. We assessed the belief-screening behavior relationship in these neighborhoods.MethodsThe 2019 Community Cancer Needs Survey included adults eligible for breast and/or colorectal cancer screening. Raking was used to generate neighborhood-specific distribution estimates. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square tests. Stepwise logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between cancer beliefs and screening.ResultsOur weighted sample included 147,726 respondents. Screening was 75% in CH, 81% in EH, and 90% in the UES for breast cancer, and 71%, 76%, and 92% for CRC, respectively. The fatalistic belief “There’s not much you can do to lower your chances of getting cancer” differed by neighborhood with screening more likely in CH respondents (breast OR =1.45 and colorectal OR =1.11), but less likely in EH (OR= 0.77 and 0.37, respectively). UES ORs were not generated due to too few unscreened respondents.ConclusionsCancer beliefs were inconsistently associated with breast and CRC screening across three NYC neighborhoods. This suggests that a given belief may either motivate or deter screening, depending upon context or interpretation. Once access is addressed, efforts seeking to enhance screening rates should consider implications of communities’ varying beliefs

Socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival: relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and race

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies have documented lower breast cancer survival among women with lower socioeconomic status (SES) in the United States. In this study, I examined the extent to which socioeconomic disparity in breast cancer survival was explained by stage at diagnosis, treatment, race and rural/urban residence using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women diagnosed with breast cancer during 1998-2002 in the 13 SEER cancer registry areas were followed-up to the end of 2005. The association between an area-based measure of SES and cause-specific five-year survival was estimated using Cox regression models. Six models were used to assess the extent to which SES differences in survival were explained by clinical and demographical factors. The base model estimated the hazard ratio (HR) by SES only and then additional adjustments were made sequentially for: 1) age and year of diagnosis; 2) stage at diagnosis; 3) first course treatment; 4) race; and 5) rural/urban residence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An inverse association was found between SES and risk of dying from breast cancer (p < 0.0001). As area-level SES falls, HR rises (1.00 → 1.05 → 1.23 → 1.31) with the two lowest SES groups having statistically higher HRs. This SES differential completely disappeared after full adjustment for clinical and demographical factors (p = 0.20).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Stage at diagnosis, first course treatment and race explained most of the socioeconomic disparity in breast cancer survival. Targeted interventions to increase breast cancer screening and treatment coverage in patients with lower SES could reduce much of socioeconomic disparity.</p

Charting the future of cancer health disparities research: A position statement from the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/1/caac21404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/2/caac21404.pd

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit ? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock ? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock ? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock ? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock ? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Cesarean section rate in Iran, multidimensional approaches for behavioral change of providers: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The cesarean section rate has been steadily rising from 35% in 2000 to 40% in 2005 in Iran. The objective of this study was to identify barriers of reduce the cesarean section rate in Iran, as perceived by obstetricians and midwives as the main behavioral change target groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study with purposive sampling was designed in which data were collected through in-depth interviews and document analyses. Hospitals were selected on the bases of being public and or private and their response to the ministry's C-section reduction interventions. The hospital director, obstetricians and midwives from each hospital were included in the study. The classification of barriers suggested by Grol and Wensing was used for the thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 26 in-depth interviews and document analyses, the barriers were identified as: financial, insurance and judicial problems at the <it>economic and political context </it>level; the type and ownership of hospitals, absence of an on call physician, absence of clear job-descriptions for obstetricians and midwives, too many interventions in the delivery process and shortage of human resources and facilities at the <it>organizational context </it>level; distrust and insufficient collaborations between obstetricians and midwives from macro to micro level at the <it>social context </it>level; attitudes toward complications of C-section, reduced capabilities of obstetricians, midwives and residents at the <it>individual professional </it>level; and finally, at the <it>innovation </it>level, vaginal delivery is time consuming, imposes high stress levels and is unpredictable.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Changing service providers' behavior is not possible through presentation of scientific evidence alone. A multi-level and multidisciplinary approach using behavior change theories is unavoidable. In future studies, the effect of the barriers should be determined to help policy makers recognize the most effective interventional package.</p

Improving breast cancer services for African-American women living in St. Louis

A mixed methods, community-based research study was conducted to understand how provider-level factors contribute to the African-American and white disparity in breast cancer mortality in a lower socioeconomic status area of North St. Louis. This study used mixed methods including: (1) secondary analysis of Missouri Cancer Registry data on all 885 African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2008 while living in the geographic area of focus; (2) qualitative interviews with a subset of these women; (3) analysis of data from electronic medical records of the women interviewed; and (4) focus group interviews with community residents, patient navigators, and other health care professionals. 565 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2008 in the geographic area were alive at the time of secondary data analysis; we interviewed (n = 96; 17 %) of these women. Provider-level obstacles to completion of prescribed treatment included fragmented navigation (separate navigators at Federally Qualified Health Centers, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, and no navigation services in surgical oncology). Perhaps related to the latter, women described radiation as optional, often in the same words as they described breast reconstruction. Discontinuous and fragmented patient navigation leads to failure to associate radiation therapy with vital treatment recommendations. Better integrated navigation that continues throughout treatment will increase treatment completion with the potential to improve outcomes in African Americans and decrease the disparity in mortality

Role of the general practitioner during the active breast cancer treatment phase: an analysis of health care use

PURPOSE: Little is known about the actual involvement of the general practitioner (GP) during the active breast cancer treatment phase. Therefore, this study explored (disease-specific) primary health care use among women undergoing active treatment for breast cancer compared with women without breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 185 women with a first diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer between 1998 and 2007 were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen and matched with a reference population of 548 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP. RESULTS: Since diagnosis, patients with breast cancer had twice as many face-to-face contacts compared with women from the reference population (median 6.0 vs 3.0/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001). The median number of drug prescriptions and referrals was also significantly higher among patients than among the reference population (11.0 vs 7.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001 and 1.0 vs 0.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts or were prescribed drugs for reasons related to breast cancer and its treatment, including gastrointestinal problems, psychological reasons and endocrine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: During the active breast cancer treatment phase, GPs are involved in the management of treatment-related side effects and psychological symptoms, as well as in the administration of endocrine therapy. Based on the findings of this study, interventions across the primary/secondary interface can be planned to improve quality of life and other outcomes in patients undergoing breast cancer treatment

Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p

Gender differences in the clinical management of patients with angina pectoris: a cross-sectional survey in primary care

Non peer reviewedPublisher PD