Search

OBJECTIVES: To examine if racial differences in cardiovascular health (CVH) are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) disparities among women with breast and gynecologic cancers. SAMPLE & SETTING: The sample consisted of 252 Black women and 93 White women without a self-reported history of cancer or CVD who developed a breast or gynecologic malignancy. Women who developed CVD before their cancer diagnosis were excluded. METHODS & VARIABLES: CVH was classified using metrics of the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 framework. Metrics were summed to create a total CVH score (0-7). Associations among race, ideal CVH (score of 5-7), and CVD incidence following cancer diagnosis were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Ideal CVH was similar between Black women (33%) and White women (37%). Race and CVH were not associated with CVD incidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: In a small sample of women diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers, racial disparities in CVH and CVD incidence were not observed. Additional investigation of potential confounders relating to social determinants of health tied to the construct of race is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Racial and ethnic disparities in gynecologic cancer care have been documented. Treatment at academic facilities is associated with improved survival, yet no study has examined independent associations between race and ethnicity with facility type among gynecologic cancer patients., Materials & Methods: We used the National Cancer Database and identified 484,455 gynecologic cancer (cervix, ovarian, uterine) patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2020. Facility type was dichotomized as academic vs. non-academic, and we used logistic regression to estimate multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between race and ethnicity and facility type. Secondarily, we examined joint effects of race and ethnicity and facility type on overall survival using Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: We observed higher odds of treatment at academic (vs. non-academic) facilities among American Indian/Alaska Native (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.28-1.57), Asian (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.59-1.70), Black (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.65-1.72), Hispanic (OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.66-1.75), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.57-1.93), and other race (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.20-1.40) patients compared with White patients. In the joint effects survival analysis with White, academic facility-treated patients as the reference group, Asian, Hispanic, and other race patients treated at academic or non-academic facilities had improved overall survival. Conversely, Black patients treated at academic facilities [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12] or non-academic facilities (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.16-1.21) had worse survival., Discussion: Minoritized gynecologic cancer patients were more likely than White patients to receive treatment at academic facilities. Importantly, survival outcomes among patients receiving care at academic institutions differed by race, requiring research to investigate intra-facility survival disparities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Plascak reports honoraria payments from National Comprehensive Cancer Network and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Dr. Backes reports personal fees from Agenus, CEC Oncology, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, AstraZeneca, GSK, ImmunoGen, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, and Myriad and research funding from Clovis, Eisai, Immunogen, Merck, Beigene, Tempus, and Natera. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)