Adapting a model of cervical carcinogenesis to self-identified Black women to evaluate racial disparities in the United States.

Jennifer C Spencer, Emily A Burger, Nicole G Campos, Mary Caroline Regan, Stephen Sy, Jane J Kim
{"title":"Adapting a model of cervical carcinogenesis to self-identified Black women to evaluate racial disparities in the United States.","authors":"Jennifer C Spencer, Emily A Burger, Nicole G Campos, Mary Caroline Regan, Stephen Sy, Jane J Kim","doi":"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-identified Black women in the United States have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality than the general population, but these differences have not been clearly attributed across described cancer care inequities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A previously established microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted to reflect demographic, screening, and survival data for Black US women and compared with a model reflecting data for all US women. Each model input with stratified data (all-cause mortality, hysterectomy rates, screening frequency, screening modality, follow-up, and cancer survival) was sequentially replaced with Black-race specific data to arrive at a fully specified model reflecting Black women. At each step, we estimated the relative contribution of inputs to observed disparities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimated (hysterectomy-adjusted) cervical cancer incidence was 8.6 per 100 000 in the all-race model vs 10.8 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (relative risk [RR] = 1.24, range = 1.23-1.27). Estimated all-race cervical cancer mortality was 2.9 per 100 000 vs 5.5 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (RR = 1.92, range = 1.85-2.00). We found the largest contributors of incidence disparities were follow-up from positive screening results (47.3% of the total disparity) and screening frequency (32.7%). For mortality disparities, the largest contributor was cancer survival differences (70.1%) followed by screening follow-up (12.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To reduce disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, it is important to understand and address differences in care access and quality across the continuum of care. Focusing on the practices and policies that drive differences in treatment and follow-up from cervical abnormalities may have the highest impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":73988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10637021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Self-identified Black women in the United States have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality than the general population, but these differences have not been clearly attributed across described cancer care inequities.

Methods: A previously established microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted to reflect demographic, screening, and survival data for Black US women and compared with a model reflecting data for all US women. Each model input with stratified data (all-cause mortality, hysterectomy rates, screening frequency, screening modality, follow-up, and cancer survival) was sequentially replaced with Black-race specific data to arrive at a fully specified model reflecting Black women. At each step, we estimated the relative contribution of inputs to observed disparities.

Results: Estimated (hysterectomy-adjusted) cervical cancer incidence was 8.6 per 100 000 in the all-race model vs 10.8 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (relative risk [RR] = 1.24, range = 1.23-1.27). Estimated all-race cervical cancer mortality was 2.9 per 100 000 vs 5.5 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (RR = 1.92, range = 1.85-2.00). We found the largest contributors of incidence disparities were follow-up from positive screening results (47.3% of the total disparity) and screening frequency (32.7%). For mortality disparities, the largest contributor was cancer survival differences (70.1%) followed by screening follow-up (12.7%).

Conclusion: To reduce disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, it is important to understand and address differences in care access and quality across the continuum of care. Focusing on the practices and policies that drive differences in treatment and follow-up from cervical abnormalities may have the highest impact.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将宫颈癌发生模型应用于自我认同的黑人女性,以评估美国的种族差异。
背景:在美国,自我认同的黑人女性的宫颈癌症发病率和死亡率高于普通人群,但这些差异并没有明确归因于所描述的癌症护理不公平。方法:采用先前建立的癌症微刺激模型来反映美国黑人女性的人口统计学、筛查和生存数据,并与反映所有美国女性数据的模型进行比较。每个模型输入的分层数据(全因死亡率、子宫切除率、筛查频率、筛查方式、随访和癌症生存率)依次替换为黑随机特异性数据,以获得反映黑人女性的完全指定模型。在每一步中,我们都估计了投入对观察到的差异的相对贡献。结果:估计(子宫切除术调整后)宫颈癌症发病率为8.6/100 000比10.8/100 000(相对风险[RR]=1.24,范围=1.23-12.7)。估计全种族癌症死亡率为2.9% 000对5.5/100 000(RR=1.92,范围=1.85-2.00)。我们发现,发病率差异的最大因素是阳性筛查结果的随访(占总差异的47.3%)和筛查频率(32.7%)。对于死亡率差异,最大的因素是癌症生存率差异(70.1%),其次是筛查随访(12.7%)。关注导致宫颈异常治疗和随访差异的做法和政策可能会产生最大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Imaging modalities for measuring body composition in patients with cancer: opportunities and challenges. Correction to: A health equity framework to support the next generation of cancer population simulation models. Data quality in a survey of registered medical cannabis users with cancer: nonresponse and measurement error. Item response theory analysis of benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer survivors. Overview of cancer patient perspectives on cannabis use during treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1