Patient Location and Disparities in Access to Fertility Preservation for Women With Gynecologic or Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal Obstet Gynecol

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Apr 4

PMID 38574368

Authors

Alexa Kanbergs

Kirsten Jorgensen

Nuria Agusti

David Viveros-Carreno

Chi-Fang Wu

Roni Nitecki

John A Harris

Terri Woodard

Ryan Ramphul

Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of geographic factors on fertility-sparing treatment or assisted reproductive technology (ART) utilization among women with gynecologic or breast cancers.

Methods: We conducted a cohort study of reproductive-aged patients (18-45 years) with early-stage cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer or stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2015 using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between distance from fertility and gynecologic oncology clinics, as well as California Healthy Places Index score (a Census-level composite community health score), and ART or fertility-sparing treatment receipt.

Results: We identified 7,612 women with gynecologic cancer and 35,992 women with breast cancer. Among all patients, 257 (0.6%) underwent ART. Among patients with gynecologic cancer, 1,676 (22.0%) underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Stratified by quartiles, residents who lived at increasing distances from gynecologic oncology or fertility clinics had decreased odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q2, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63-0.93, P =.007; Q4, OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56-0.94, P =.016) (fertility clinics: Q3, OR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97, P =.025; Q4, OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, P =.004), whereas this relationship was not observed among women who resided within other quartiles (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q3, OR 0.81 95% CI, 0.65-1.01, P =.07; fertility clinics: Q2, OR 0.87 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, P =.15). Individuals who lived in communities with the highest (51 st -100 th percentile) California Healthy Places Index scores had greater odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.06-1.57, P =.01; OR 1.66, 95% CI, 1.35-2.04, P =.001, respectively). The relationship between California Healthy Places Index scores and ART was even more pronounced (Q2 OR 1.9, 95% CI, 0.99-3.64, P =.05; Q3 OR 2.86, 95% CI, 1.54-5.33, P <.001; Q4 OR 3.41, 95% CI, 1.83-6.35, P <.001).

Conclusion: Geographic disparities affect fertility-sparing treatment and ART rates among women with gynecologic or breast cancer. By acknowledging geographic factors, health care systems can ensure equitable access to fertility-preservation services.

References

Meernik C, Jorgensen K, Wu C, Murphy C, Baker V, Brady P . Disparities in the use of assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 198(1):149-158. PMC: 10184512. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06857-0. View

Villanueva C, Chang J, Bartell S, Ziogas A, Bristow R, Vieira V . Contribution of Geographic Location to Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Treatment. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17(11):1318-1329. PMC: 6839545. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7325. View

Toner J, Coddington C, Doody K, Voorhis B, Seifer D, Ball G . Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and assisted reproductive technology in the United States: a 2016 update. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(3):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.026. View

McGarity M, Herndon C, Harris J, Hobbs B . Impact of satellite clinics on geographic access to assisted reproductive technology services in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):928. PMC: 9295342. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08281-y. View

. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 586: Health disparities in rural women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(2 Pt 1):384-388. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000443278.06393.d6. View

Luke B, Brown M, Missmer S, Spector L, Leach R, Williams M . Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer. Hum Reprod. 2015; 31(1):183-9. PMC: 4677965. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev288. View

Avis N, Crawford S, Manuel J . Psychosocial problems among younger women with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2004; 13(5):295-308. DOI: 10.1002/pon.744. View

PENCHANSKY R, Thomas J . The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981; 19(2):127-40. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001. View

Fulton B . Health Care Market Concentration Trends In The United States: Evidence And Policy Responses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017; 36(9):1530-1538. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0556. View

10.

Berkowitz R, Mujahid M, Pearl M, Poon V, Reid C, Allen A . Protective Places: the Relationship between Neighborhood Quality and Preterm Births to Black Women in Oakland, California (2007-2011). J Urban Health. 2022; 99(3):492-505. PMC: 9187821. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-022-00624-8. View

11.

Jorgensen K, Meernik C, Wu C, Murphy C, Baker V, Jarmon P . Disparities in Fertility-Sparing Treatment and Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology After a Diagnosis of Cervical, Ovarian, or Endometrial Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 141(2):341-353. PMC: 9858239. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005044. View

12.

Johnson K, Snyder R, Tang E, de Guzman N, Plotzker R, Murphy R . Geospatial Social Determinants of Health Correlate with Disparities in Syphilis and Congenital Syphilis Cases in California. Pathogens. 2022; 11(5). PMC: 9146036. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11050547. View

13.

Ganz P, Greendale G, Petersen L, Kahn B, Bower J . Breast cancer in younger women: reproductive and late health effects of treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(22):4184-93. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.196. View

14.

Yu L, Sabatino S, White M . Rural-Urban and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Invasive Cervical Cancer Incidence in the United States, 2010-2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019; 16:E70. PMC: 6583816. DOI: 10.5888/pcd16.180447. View

15.

Cleveland 3rd J, Espinoza J, Holzhausen E, Goran M, Alderete T . The impact of social determinants of health on obesity and diabetes disparities among Latino communities in Southern California. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):37. PMC: 9817265. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14868-1. View

16.

Peipert B, Potapragada N, Lantos P, Harris B, Reinecke J, Goldman K . A Geospatial Analysis of Disparities in Access to Oncofertility Services. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9(10):1364-1370. PMC: 10416086. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2780. View

17.

Maizlish N, Delaney T, Dowling H, Chapman D, Sabo R, Woolf S . California Healthy Places Index: Frames Matter. Public Health Rep. 2019; 134(4):354-362. PMC: 6598140. DOI: 10.1177/0033354919849882. View

18.

Logan S, Perz J, Ussher J, Peate M, Anazodo A . Systematic review of fertility-related psychological distress in cancer patients: Informing on an improved model of care. Psychooncology. 2018; 28(1):22-30. DOI: 10.1002/pon.4927. View

19.

Sutaria T, Sparks A, Rao Y, Lopez-Acevedo M, Long B . Trends in guideline-adherent fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer before and after the Affordable Care Act. Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 158(2):424-430. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.027. View

20.

Bhatia S, Pappo A, Acquazzino M, Allen-Rhoades W, Barnett M, Borinstein S . Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023; 21(8):851-880. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0040. View