» Articles » PMID: 37947333

Adapting a Model of Cervical Carcinogenesis to Self-identified Black Women to Evaluate Racial Disparities in the United States

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2023 Nov 10
PMID 37947333
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

Trentham-Dietz A, Corley D, Del Vecchio N, Greenlee R, Haas J, Hubbard R J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2023; 2023(62):246-254.

PMID: 37947335 PMC: 11009506. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad025.


Using simulation modeling to guide policy to reduce disparities and achieve equity in cancer outcomes: state of the science and a road map for the future.

Mandelblatt J, Meza R, Trentham-Dietz A, Heckman-Stoddard B, Feuer E J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2023; 2023(62):159-166.

PMID: 37947330 PMC: 11009490. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad033.

References
1.
Smith H, Tiffany M, Qualls C, Key C . The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States--a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78(2):97-105. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5826. View

2.
Campos N, Burger E, Sy S, Sharma M, Schiffman M, Rodriguez A . An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180(5):545-55. PMC: 4143081. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu159. View

3.
Falk D, Foley K, Weaver K, Jones B, Cubbin C . An Evaluation of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Outcomes in an Education and Patient Navigation Program in Rural and Border Texas. J Cancer Educ. 2020; 37(4):1043-1052. PMC: 8096853. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01918-8. View

4.
Sorlie P, ROGOT E, Johnson N . Validity of demographic characteristics on the death certificate. Epidemiology. 1992; 3(2):181-4. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00018. View

5.
Munshi V, Perkins R, Sy S, Kim J . Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 226(2):228.e1-228.e9. PMC: 8810618. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.09.012. View