Search

Context.--The incidence of prostate cancer with Gleason scores 2 through 4 has been decreasing for decades, largely because of evolving criteria for Gleason scores, including the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology recommendation that scores of 2 through 4 should rarely, if ever, be diagnosed based on needle biopsy. Whether trends in assigning Gleason scores 2 through 4 vary by facility type and patient characteristics is unknown. Objective.--To assess trends in prostate cancer grading among various categories of treatment facilities. Design.--Analyses of National Cancer Database records from 1990 through 2013 for 434 612 prostate cancers diagnosed by core needle biopsy, including multivariable regression for 106 331 patients with clinical T1c disease diagnosed from 2004 through 2013. Results.--The proportion of prostate core needle biopsies with Gleason scores 2 through 4 declined from 11 476 of 53 850 (21.3%) (1990-1994) to 96 of 43 566 (0.2%) (2010-2013). The proportions of American Joint Committee on Cancer category T1c needle biopsies assigned Gleason scores 2 through 4 were 416 of 12 796 (3.3%) and 9 of 7194 (0.1%) during 2004 and 2013, respectively. Declines occurred earliest at National Cancer Institute--designated programs and latest at community programs. A multivariable logistic model adjusting for patient demographic and clinical variables and restricted to T1c cancers diagnosed in needle biopsies from 2004 through 2013 showed that facility type is independently associated with the likelihood of cancers in such specimens being assigned Gleason scores of 2 through 4, with community centers having a statistically significant odds ratio of 5.99 relative to National Cancer Institute-designated centers. Conclusions.--These results strongly suggest differences in Gleason grading by pathologists practicing in different facility categories and variations in their promptness of adopting International Society of Urological Pathology recommendations. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1686-1696; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0611-OA), Histologic grade is a valuable factor used in assessing prognosis and selecting treatment for patients with many forms of cancer, and this is especially true regarding the Gleason score for [...]

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, US unemployment rates rose to historic highs, and they remain nearly double those of prepandemic levels. Employers are the most common source of health insurance among nonelderly adults. Thus, job loss may lead to a loss of health insurance and reduce access to cancer screening. This study examined associations between unemployment, health insurance, and cancer screening to inform the pandemic's potential impacts on early cancer detection. Methods: Up‐to‐date and past‐year breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening prevalences were computed for nonelderly respondents (aged <65 years) with 2000‐2018 National Health Interview Survey data. Multivariable logistic regression models with marginal probabilities were used to estimate unemployed‐versus‐employed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios. Results: Unemployed adults (2000‐2018) were 4 times more likely to lack insurance than employed adults (41.4% vs 10.0%; P <.001). Unemployed adults had a significantly lower up‐to‐date prevalence of screening for cervical cancer (78.5% vs 86.2%; P <.001), breast cancer (67.8% vs 77.5%; P <.001), colorectal cancer (41.9 vs 48.5%; P <.001), and prostate cancer (25.4% vs 36.4%; P <.001). These differences were eliminated after accounting for health insurance coverage. Conclusions: Unemployment was adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this was fully explained by a lack of health insurance. Ensuring the continuation of health insurance coverage after job loss may mitigate the pandemic's economic distress and future economic downturns' impact on cancer screening. Unemployment is adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this is fully explained by a lack of health insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]