Geographic Barriers Affect Follow-Up Care in Head and Neck Cancer

Racial Disparities in Head and Neck Cancer: It's Not Just About Access

OBJECTIVE

Medical literature identifies stark racial disparities in head and neck cancer (HNC) in the United States, primarily between non-Hispanic white (NHW) and non-Hispanic black (NHB) populations. The etiology of this disparity is often attributed to inequitable access to health care and socioeconomic status (SES). However, other contributors have been reported. We performed a systematic review to better understand the multifactorial landscape driving racial disparities in HNC.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted in Covidence following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Guidelines. A search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL for literature published through November 2022 evaluating racial disparities in HNC identified 2309 publications.

REVIEW METHODS

Full texts were screened by 2 authors independently, and inconsistencies were resolved by consensus. Three hundred forty publications were ultimately selected and categorized into themes including disparities in access/SES, treatment, lifestyle, and biology. Racial groups examined included NHB and NHW patients but also included Hispanic, Native American, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients to a lesser extent.

RESULTS

Of the 340 articles, 192 focused on themes of access/SES, including access to high-quality hospitals, insurance coverage, and transportation contributing to disparate HNC outcomes. Additional themes discussed in 148 articles included incongruities in surgical recommendations, tobacco/alcohol use, human papillomavirus-associated malignancies, and race-informed silencing of tumor suppressor genes.

CONCLUSION

Differential access to care plays a significant role in racial disparities in HNC, disproportionately affecting NHB populations. However, there are other significant themes driving racial disparities. Future studies should focus on providing equitable access to care while also addressing these additional sources of disparities in HNC.

Socioeconomic disparities in treatment and survival in patients with hypopharyngeal malignancy

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study utilizes The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to investigate socioeconomic factors leading to treatment disparities in hypopharyngeal malignancy.

METHODS

Treatment was compared to National Cancer Care Network guidelines. Novel analyses, including logistic modeling, allowed survival analysis and identification of socioeconomic variables not previously considered in staging and management guidelines.

RESULTS

Black and older patients, and residence in low-income areas predict lower likelihood of standard therapy (p < 0.05). Early-stage disease and standard therapy correlate with improved survival (p < 0.001). Medicaid, advanced age, advanced disease, and treatment outside of consensus guidelines correlated with lower survival (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are clear socioeconomic factors impacting treatment and survival in hypopharyngeal malignancies. Standard therapy affords superior survival rate. Black, low socioeconomic status, and older patients are less likely to receive standard therapy. Education and language isolation do not predict treatment or survival. Understanding these discrepancies is paramount to palliating disparities in healthcare.

Feasibility of implementing a supervised telehealth exercise intervention in frail survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are at high risk of chronic health complications, including frailty and physical dysfunction. Conventional exercise programs have been shown to improve frailty in other cancer populations, but these have largely been based out of rehabilitation facilities that may act as geographic and logistical barriers. There is a paucity of information on the feasibility of implementing telehealth exercise interventions in long-term HCT survivors.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized trial to assess the feasibility of an 8-week telehealth exercise intervention in 20 pre-frail or frail HCT survivors. Participants were randomized to either a telehealth exercise (N = 10) or delayed control (N = 10). We administered a remote physical function assessment at baseline, followed by an 8-week telehealth exercise intervention (30-60 min/session, 3 sessions/week), and post-intervention. The primary endpoint was feasibility as determined by 1) > 70% of participants completing all remote physical functional assessments, and 2) > 70% of participants in the exercise group completing > 70% (17/24) of the prescribed exercise sessions. Exploratory outcomes included changes in gait speed, handgrip strength, and short physical performance battery.

RESULTS

The mean [standard deviation] age at study enrollment was 64.7 [9.1] years old. Twelve had undergone allogenic and 8 had undergone autologous HCT at an average of 17 years from study enrollment. Both feasibility criteria were achieved. Nineteen patients (95%) completed all remote study outcome assessments at baseline and post-intervention, and nine participants in the exercise group completed > 70% of prescribed exercise sessions. Overall, no significant group x time interaction was observed on handgrip strength, fatigue, body mass index, and short physical performance battery test (P < 0.05). However, there were significant within-group improvements in four-meter gait speed (+ 13.9%; P = 0.004) and 5-minute gait speed (+ 25.4%; P = 0.04) in the exercise group whereas non-significant changes in four-meter gait speed (-3.8%) and 5-minute gait speed (-5.8%) were observed after 8 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Implementing an 8-week telehealth exercise intervention for long-term HCT survivors was feasible. Our findings set the stage for innovative delivery of supervised exercise intervention that reduces the burden of frailty in HCT survivors as well as other at-risk cancer survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol and informed consent were approved by the institutional IRB (IRB#20731) and registered (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04968119; date of registration: 20/07/2021).