The effect of guideline-concordant care in mitigating insurance status disparities in cervical cancer

Fragmented Care and Guideline-Concordant Treatment in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To characterize and estimate rates of fragmented care, to investigate its association with the receipt of guideline-concordant treatment, and to evaluate treatment components at risk with fragmented care.

METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective study of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB3-IVA) from January 2003 to September 2023. We stratified patients into fragmented and nonfragmented care groups based on receipt of all care at our institution or if they received any component of care outside of our institution. The primary outcome, receipt of guideline-concordant treatment, was defined as a composite of 1) completion of treatment within 56 days, 2) completion of brachytherapy, and 3) receipt of concurrent chemotherapy. Demographic and treatment data were collected, including the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a census tract-based measure of disadvantage. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-six patients were identified; 75.5% received fragmented care. Those receiving nonfragmented care were significantly more likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment than those receiving fragmented care (71.4% vs 50.9%, P=.003). This was driven primarily by rates of timely completion (81.4% vs 60.6%, P=.001). Univariate analysis indicated that fragmented care (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CI, 0.23-0.74) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.40, 95% CI, 0.20-0.78) were significantly associated with lower odds of guideline-concordant treatment. Multivariate analyses controlling for a priori confounders of insurance type and SVI showed that fragmented care (OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.23-0.90) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.19-0.89) were independently associated with lower odds of guideline-concordant treatment. Multivariate analysis controlling for demographic covariates found even lower odds of receiving guideline-concordant treatment in those who received fragmented care (OR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.18-0.84) and who had Medicaid insurance (OR 0.35, 95% CI, 0.16-0.78).

CONCLUSION

More than 75% of patients received fragmented care, which had a significant clinical effect and was associated with significantly lower rates of guideline-concordant treatment.

Understanding racial disparities in health care expenditures for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer demonstrates a notable efficacy in treatment, evidenced by a 92% 5-year survival rate among cases diagnosed at a localized stage. In 2020, the estimated annual national expenditure for cervical cancer care amounted to $2.3 billion in the United States. Limited real-world data are available for racial disparities in health care expenditures for cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate racial disparities associated with annual health care expenditures among patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of annual health care expenditures in patients with cervical cancer diagnosed during 2014-2019 was performed using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. In addition to the descriptive weighted analysis, an unadjusted analysis of the annual health care expenditure was conducted. An adjusted linear regression model with log transformation of the outcome variable was used to evaluate the total annual health care expenditure as well as expenditures by category across the racial groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 826 patients with cervical cancer were identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey during 2014-2019. The majority were classified as White patients (81.2%) and in the age group of 45-64 years (44.65%). On average, the total annual health care expenditure was $11,537 (95% CI = $9,887-$13,186) among the White cohort, $10,659 (95% CI = $6,704-$14,614) among the African American cohort, and $8,726 (95% CI = $6,113-$11,340) among the Hispanic cohort. After adjusting for covariates, the average total annual health care expenditure for the Hispanic cohort was 35% of the total health care expenditure of the White cohort (P < 0.001) and 46% of the African American cohort's health care expenditure (P = 0.02). Specifically, adjusted costs of office-based and outpatient visits for the Hispanic cohort were 47% (P = 0.009) and 57% (P = 0.005) lower than for the White cohort, respectively. The total annual home health care expenditure for the African American cohort was 49% lower than White patients (P = 0.03), and the Hispanic cohort's total expenditure, excluding prescription medicines, was 57% lower than African American patients (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable information regarding the health care disparities that need to be addressed among certain minority races. Reducing the disparities in health care spending across racial groups should be included as a crucial element in tackling well-established health care inequities.

Impact of the universal health insurance benefits on cervical cancer mortality in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer patients in Colombia have a lower likelihood of survival compared to breast cancer patients. In 1993, Colombia enrolled citizens in one of two health insurance regimes (contributory-private insurance and subsidized- public insurance) with fewer benefits in the subsidized regime. In 2008, the Constitutional Court required the Colombian government to unify services of both regimes by 2012. This study evaluated the impact of this insurance change on cervical cancer mortality before and after 2012.

METHODS

We accessed 24,491 cervical cancer mortality records for 2006-2020 from the vital statistics of Colombia's National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE). We calculated crude mortality rates by health insurance type and departments (geopolitical division). Changes by department were analyzed by rate differences between 2006 and 2012 and 2013-2020, for each health insurance type. We analyzed trends using join-point regressions by health insurance and the two time-periods.

RESULTS

The contributory regime (private insurance) exhibited a significant decline in cervical cancer mortality from 2006 to 2012, characterized by a noteworthy average annual percentage change (AAPC) of -3.27% (P = 0.02; 95% CI [-5.81, -0.65]), followed by a marginal non-significant increase from 2013 to 2020 (AAPC 0.08%; P = 0.92; 95% CI [-1.63, 1.82]). In the subsidized regime (public insurance), there is a non-significant decrease in mortality between 2006 and 2012 (AAPC - 0.29%; P = 0.76; 95% CI [-2.17, 1.62]), followed by a significant increase from 2013 to 2020 (AAPC of 2.28%; P < 0.001; 95% CI [1.21, 3.36]). Examining departments from 2013 to 2020 versus 2006 to 2012, the subsidized regime showed fewer cervical cancer-related deaths in 5 out of 32 departments, while 6 departments had higher mortality. In 21 departments, mortality rates remained similar between both regimes.

CONCLUSION

Improvement of health benefits of the subsidized regime did not show a positive impact on cervical cancer mortality in women enrolled in this health insurance scheme, possibly due to unresolved administrative and socioeconomic barriers that hinder access to quality cancer screening and treatment.

Assessment of socioeconomic and racial differences in patients undergoing concurrent gynecologic oncology and urogynecology surgeries: a National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database study

OBJECTIVE

To assess social determinants of health impacting patients undergoing gynecologic oncology versus combined gynecologic oncology and urogynecology surgeries.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent gynecologic oncology surgeries from 2016 to 2019 in the National Inpatient Sample using the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Demographics, including race and insurance status, were compared for patients who underwent gynecologic oncology procedures only (Oncologic) and those who underwent concurrent incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse procedures (Urogynecologic-Oncologic). A logistic regression model assessed variables of interest after adjustment for other relevant variables.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2019 the National Inpatient Sample database contained 389 (1.14%) Urogynecologic-Oncologic cases and 33 796 (98.9%) Oncologic cases. Urogynecologic-Oncologic patients were less likely to be white (62.1% vs 68.8%, p=0.02) and were older (median 67 vs 62 years, p<0.001) than Oncologic patients. The Urogynecologic-Oncologic cohort was less likely to have private insurance as their primary insurance (31.9% vs 38.9%, p=0.01) and was more likely to have Medicare (52.2% vs 42.8%, p=0.01). After multivariable analysis, black (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.89, p=0.02) and Hispanic patients (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.10, p=0.02) remained more likely to undergo Urogynecologic-Oncologic surgeries but the primary expected payer no longer differed significantly between the two groups (p=0.95). Age at admission, patient residence, and teaching location remained significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of a large inpatient database we identified notable racial and geographical differences between the cohorts of patients who underwent Urogynecologic-Oncologic and Oncologic procedures.

Survival rates in Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations with cervical cancer associated with disparities in guideline-concordant care

BACKGROUND

Failure to deliver guideline-concordant treatment may contribute to disparities among Hispanic/Latinx cervical cancer patients. This study investigated the association between survival rates in Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations and the provision of guideline-concordant care.

METHODS

We analyzed patients with primary cervical cancer from 2004 to 2019 (National Cancer Database). We developed nine quality metrics based on FIGO staging (2009). Clinical and demographic covariates were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Adjusted associations between receipt of guideline-concordant care and races and ethnicities were analyzed using multivariable marginal Poisson regression models. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to evaluate survival probability.

RESULTS

A total of 95,589 patients were included. Hispanic/Latinx and Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) populations were less likely to receive guideline-concordant care in four and five out of nine quality metrics, respectively. Nonetheless, the Hispanic/Latinx group exhibited better survival outcomes in seven of nine quality metrics. Compared to Mexican patients, Cuban patients were 1.17 times as likely to receive timely initiation of treatment in early-stage disease (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.37, p < 0.001). Puerto Rican and Dominican patients were, respectively, 1.16 (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.27, p < 0.001) and 1.19 (RR 1.19, 95% 1.04-1.37, p > 0.01) times as likely to undergo timely initiation of treatment in early-stage disease. Patients of South or Central American (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001) origin were more likely to undergo timely initiation of treatment in locally advanced disease.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in survival were identified among our cohort despite the receipt of guideline concordant care, with notably higher survival among Hispanic/Latinx populations.

The interaction between social determinants of health and cervical cancer survival: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to investigate what are the most relevant social determinants of health (SDH), how they are measured, how they interact among themselves and what is their impact on the outcomes of cervical cancer patients.

METHODS

Search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases from January 2001 to September 2022. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022346854). We followed the PICOS strategy: Population- Patients treated for cervical cancer in the United States; Intervention - Any SDH; Comparison- None; Outcome measures- Cancer treatment outcomes related to the survival of the patients; Types of studies- Observational studies. Two reviewers extracted the data following the PRISMA guidelines. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies was used for risk of bias (ROB) assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included (22 had low and 2 had moderate ROB). Most manuscripts analyzed data from public registries (83.3%) and only one SDH (54.17%). The SDH category of Neighborhood was not included in any study. Although the SDH were measured differently across the studies, not being married, receiving treatment at a low-volume hospital, and having public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or not being insured was associated with shorter survival of cervical cancer patients in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a deficit in the number of studies comprehensively assessing the impact of SDH on cervical cancer treatment-related outcomes. Marital status, hospital volume and health insurance status are potential predictors of worse outcome.

Survival differences by race and surgical approach in early-stage operable cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if the higher rate of open radical hysterectomy in Black patients, prior to the widespread return to open surgical techniques, mitigated survival disparities and to identify other actionable factors to target for systemic change.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including patients from the National Cancer Database with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from 2010 to 2018. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and survival were compared by race and surgical route. Kaplan-Meier plots were constructed. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust for covariates.

RESULTS

7201 patients were eligible for inclusion, 687 (9.5%) Black and 4870 (68%) White. We found that 51% of Black patients and 39% of White patients underwent open surgery. Black patients were 10% less likely to receive Guideline Concordant Care (GCC). Those with publicly-funded insurance had a 40% higher hazard of death compared to private insurance (CI 1.19-1.73 p < 0.001). Black patients who had open surgery had similar 5-year survival compared to White patients who had MIS surgery (0.90 vs 0.91, NS). After adjusting for potential confounders including age, insurance, nodal status, and lymphovascular space invasion, Black patients who had surgery had a 40% higher hazard for death (HR 1.40 95% CI 1.10-1.79, p = 0.007) compared to White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A lower 5 and 10-year survival was seen in Black patients, regardless of surgical approach. Adjustment for significant covariates did not resolve this disparity, confirming that these factors do not fully account racial disparities.

Disparities in Gynecologic Cancers

ABSTRACT

Gynecologic cancer disparities have different trends by cancer type and by sociodemographic/economic factors. We highlight disparities in the United States arising due to poor delivery of cancer care across the continuum from primary prevention, detection, and diagnosis through treatment and identify opportunities to eliminate/reduce disparities to achieve cancer health equity. Our review documents the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer outcomes, with Black patients experiencing the worst outcomes, and notes literature investigating social determinants of health, particularly access to care. Although timely delivery of screening and diagnostic evaluation is of paramount importance for cervical cancer, efforts for ovarian and uterine cancer need to focus on timely recognition of symptoms, diagnostic evaluation, and delivery of guideline-concordant cancer treatment, including tumor biomarker and somatic/germline genetic testing.

Establishment of prediction models to predict survival among patients with cervical cancer based on socioeconomic factors: a retrospective cohort study based on the SEER Database

OBJECTIVE

To construct and validate predictive models based on socioeconomic factors for predicting overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer and compare them with the American Joint Council on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We extracted data from 5954 patients who were diagnosed with cervical cancer between 2007 and 2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. This database holds data related to cancer incidence from 18 population-based cancer registries in the USA.

OUTCOME MEASURES

1-year and 5-year OS.

RESULTS

Of the total 5954 patients, 5820 patients had 1-year mortality and 5460 patients had 5-year mortality. Lower local education level [Hazard ratios (HR): 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04 to 1.27, p= 0.005] and being widowed (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55, p=0.009) were associated with a worse OS for patients with cervical cancer. Having insurance (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90, p=0.002), earning a local median annual income of ≥US$56 270 (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92, p<0.001) and being married (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.89, p<0.001) were related to better OS in patients with cervical cancer. The predictive models based on socioeconomic factors and the AJCC staging system had a favourable performance for predicting OS in cervical cancer compared with the AJCC staging system alone.

CONCLUSION

Our proposed predictive models exhibit superior predictive performance, which may highlight the potential clinical application of incorporating socioeconomic factors in predicting OS in cervical cancer.

Hospital Designations and Their Impact on Guideline-Concordant Care and Survival in Pancreatic Cancer. Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) requires complex multidisciplinary care. European evidence suggests potential benefit from regionalization, however, data characterizing the ideal setting in the United States are sparse. Our study compares the significance of four hospital designations on guideline-concordant care (GCC) and overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Texas Cancer Registry was queried for 17,071 patients with PDAC treated between 2004 and 2015. Clinical data were correlated with hospital designations: NCI designated (NCI), high volume (HV), safety net (SNH), and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer accredited (ACS). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to assess associations with GCC [on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations]. Cox regression analysis assessed survival.

RESULTS

Only 43% of patients received GCC. NCI had the largest associated risk reduction (HR 0.61, CI 0.58-0.65), followed by HV (HR 0.87, CI 0.83-0.90) and ACS (HR 0.91, CI 0.87-0.95). GCC was associated with a survival benefit in the full (HR 0.75, CI 0.69-0.81) and resected cohort (HR 0.74, CI 0.68-0.80). NCI (OR 1.52, CI 1.37-1.70), HV (OR 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23), and SNH (OR 0.78, CI 0.68-0.91) all correlated with receipt of GCC. For resected patients, ACS (OR 0.63, CI 0.50-0.79) and SNH (OR 0.50, CI 0.33-0.75) correlate with GCC.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 43% of patients received GCC. Treatment at NCI and HV correlated with improved GCC and survival. Including GCC as a metric in accreditation standards could impact survival for patients with PDAC.

Insurance status and access to cervical cancer treatment in a specialized cancer center in Mexico

To describe access to complete treatment in women with cervical cancer and state-sponsored insurance versus no insurance. We conducted a retrospective observational study. The source population consisted of women treated for cervical cancer from January 2000 to December 2015 in a tertiary care hospital. We included 411 women with state-sponsored insurance and 400 without insurance. We defined access to cervical cancer treatment as complete treatment (according NCCN/ESMO (National Comprehensive Cancer Network/European Society for Medical Oncology) standards) and timely initiation of treatment (less than 4 weeks). Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were described and analyzed with logistic regression using complete treatment as the main outcome. A total of 811 subjects were included, the median age was 46 (IQR (Interquartile range) 42-50) years. Most of them were married (36.1%), unemployed (50.4%), and had completed primary school (44.0%). The most common clinical stages at diagnosis were II (38.2%) and III (24.7%). In the adjusted regression model, being married (OR (odds ratio): 4.3, 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.74-10.61) and having paid employment (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.59-4.90) or state-sponsored insurance (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.04-2.26) were positively associated with the possibility of having a complete treatment. Women with insurance were likely to be younger and receive timely treatment compared with uninsured women. Complete treatment was associated to insurance status and advanced stages of cervical cancer. State-sponsored insurance improves access to complete treatment. Government policies are needed to avoid social and economic inequity and provide better management of cervical cancer in our country.

Medicaid expansion and 2-year survival in women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis

BACKGROUND

The Affordable Care Act implemented optional Medicaid expansion starting in 2014, but the association between Medicaid expansion and gynecologic cancer survival is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion by comparing 2-year survival among gynecologic cancers before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid using a difference-in-difference analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40 to 64 years, diagnosed with a primary gynecologic malignancy (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, vulvar, and vaginal) between 2010 and 2016. We used a quasiexperimental difference-in-difference multivariable Cox regression analysis to compare 2-year survival between states that expanded Medicaid in January 2014 and states that did not expand Medicaid as of 2016. We performed univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox regression analyses on the basis of stage, income, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Adjusted linear difference-in-difference regressions evaluated the proportion of uninsured patients on the basis of expansion status after 2014. We evaluated adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves to examine differences on the basis of study period and expansion status.

RESULTS

Our sample included 169,731 women, including 78,669 (46.3%) in expansion states and 91,062 (53.7%) in nonexpansion states. There was improved 2-year survival on adjusted difference-in-difference Cox regressions for women with ovarian cancer in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014 (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94; P<.001) with no differences in endometrial, cervical, vaginal, vulvar, or combined gynecologic cancer sites on the basis of expansion status. On univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox analyses, women with ovarian cancer with stage III-IV disease (P=.008), non-Hispanic ethnicity (P=.042), those in the South (P=.016), and women with vulvar cancer in the Northeast (P=.022), had improved 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. In contrast, women with cervical cancer in the South (P=.018) had worse 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. All cancer sites had lower proportions of uninsured patients in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant association between Medicaid expansion and improved 2-year survival for women with ovarian cancer in states that expanded Medicaid after 2014. Despite improved insurance coverage, racial, ethnic, and regional survival differences exist between expansion and nonexpansion states.

Relative importance of individual insurance status and hospital payer mix on survival for women with cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative contributions of individual insurance status and hospital payer mix (safety net status) to quality of care and survival for patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients with cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2017. Patients were classified by insurance (uninsured/Medicaid/private/Medicare/other) and hospitals were grouped into quartiles based on the proportion of uninsured/Medicaid patients (payer mix) (top quartile defined as safety-net hospital (SNHs) and lowest as Q1 hospitals). Quality-of-care was assessed by adherence to evidence-based metrics. Individual contributions of insurance status and payer mix to survival was assessed with a proportional hazards Cox model.

RESULTS

A total of 124,339 patients including 11,338 uninsured (9.1%) and 27,281 Medicaid (21.9%) recipients treated at 1156 hospitals were identified. Quality-of-care was not significantly different across hospital quartiles. Adjusting for patients' clinical/demographic characteristics, treatment at a SNH was associated with a 14% higher mortality (HR = 1.14; 95% CL, 1.08-1.20) than at Q1 hospitals. Testing for individual insurance, uninsured patients had 32% increased mortality (HR = 1.32; 95% CI,1.26-1.38) and Medicaid recipients 40% increased (HR = 1.40; 95%CI,1.35-1.44) compared to privately insured patients. Examining both payer mix and insurance, only individual insurance retained a significant impact on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual insurance may be a more important predictor of survival than site-of-care and hospital payer mix for women with cervical cancer. There is substantial variation in outcomes within hospitals based on individual insurance, regardless of hospital payer mix.

Association of Medicaid expansion and insurance status, cancer stage, treatment and mortality among patients with cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently, little is known about the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on care delivery and outcomes in cervical cancer.

AIM

We evaluated whether Medicaid expansion was associated with changes in insurance status, stage at diagnosis, timely treatment, and survival outcomes in cervical cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the National Cancer Database, we performed a difference-in-differences (DID) cross-sectional analysis to compare insurance status, stage at diagnosis, timely treatment, and survival outcomes among cervical cancer patients residing in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states before (2011-2013) and after (2014-2015) Medicaid expansion. January 1, 2014 was used as the timepoint for Medicaid expansion. The primary outcomes of interest were insurance status, stage at diagnosis, treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis, and overall survival. Fifteen thousand two hundred sixty-five patients (median age 50) were included: 42% from Medicaid expansion and 58% from nonexpansion states. Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with increased Medicaid coverage (adjusted DID = 11.0%, 95%CI = 8.2, 13.8, p < .01) and decreased rates of uninsured (adjusted DID = -3.0%, 95%CI = -5.2, -0.8, p < .01) among patients in expansion states compared with non-expansion states. However, Medicaid expansion was not associated with any significant changes in cancer stage at diagnosis or timely treatment. There was no significant change in survival from the pre- to post-expansion period in either expansion or nonexpansion states, and no significant differences between the two (DID-HR = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.09, p = .48).

CONCLUSION

Although Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in Medicaid coverage and decrease in uninsured among patients with cervical cancer, the effects of increased coverage on diagnosis and treatment outcomes may have yet to unfold. Future studies, including longer follow-up are necessary to understand the effects of Medicaid expansion.

Looking at cancer health disparities in gynecologic oncology in 2020

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the most recent evidence on gynecologic cancer disparities and to describe studies investigating the social determinants of health and receipt of evidence-based care and potential interventions to address inequities in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant disparities in disease-specific survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and payer status have persisted in women with gynecologic cancers. Compared with white women, black women have an increased likelihood of disease-specific mortality for endometrial cancer and are less likely to receive guideline-adherent care for ovarian cancer. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought significant attention to the structural barriers that contribute to persistent health disparities and how community-based partnerships with a focus on policy interventions are needed for equitable gynecologic cancer outcomes.

SUMMARY

In this review, we discuss structural barriers contributing to racial inequities, the role of Medicaid payer status and receipt of quality cancer care, gender, and racial workforce diversity, and community-based partnerships to create evidence-based interventions to address disparities.