Variations in cancer care for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with ductal carcinoma in situ

Utilisation of endocrine therapy for cancer in Indigenous peoples: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Indigenous peoples worldwide experience inequitable cancer outcomes, and it is unclear if this is underpinned by differences in or inadequate use of endocrine treatment (ET), often used in conjunction with other cancer treatments. Previous studies examining ET use in Indigenous peoples have predominately focused on the sub-national level, often resulting in small sample sizes with limited statistical power. This systematic review aimed to collate the findings ofarticles on ET utilisation for Indigenous cancer patients and describe relevant factors that may influence ET use.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting ET use for cancer among Indigenous populations worldwide. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant articles. A random-effect meta-analysis was used to pool proportions of ET use. We also performed a subgroup analysis (such as with sample sizes) and a meta-regression to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. A socio-ecological model was used to present relevant factors that could impact ET use.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles reported ET utilisation among Indigenous populations, yielding a pooled estimate of 67% (95% CI:54 - 80), which is comparable to that of Indigenous populations 67% (95% CI: 53 - 81). However, among studies with sufficiently sized study sample/cohorts (≥ 500), Indigenous populations had a 14% (62%; 95% CI:43 - 82) lower ET utilisation than non-Indigenous populations (76%; 95% CI: 60 - 92). The ET rate in Indigenous peoples of the USA (e.g., American Indian) and New Zealand (e.g., Māori) was 72% (95% CI:56-88) and 60% (95% CI:49-71), respectively. Compared to non-Indigenous populations, a higher proportion of Indigenous populations were diagnosed with advanced cancer, at younger age, had limited access to health services, lower socio-economic status, and a higher prevalence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous cancer patients have lower ET utilisation than non-Indigenous cancer patients, despite the higher rate of advanced cancer at diagnosis. While reasons for these disparities are unclear, they are likely reflecting, at least to some degree, inequitable access to cancer treatment services. Strengthening the provision of and access to culturally appropriate cancer care and treatment services may enhance ET utilisation in Indigenous population. This study protocol was registered on Prospero (CRD42023403562).

Ductal carcinoma in situ in patients younger than 30 years: differences in adjuvant endocrine therapy and outcomes

PURPOSE

To use the National Cancer Database to assess treatment patterns in very young women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) given their propensity for higher risk features and increased risk of recurrence.

METHODS

We used the NCDB to identify female patients who underwent surgery for a first cancer diagnosis of DCIS within three different age groups: ≤30, 31-50, and >50. Demographic information, tumor characteristics, and initial treatment patterns were characterized and compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression of individuals with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was conducted to assess for group differences in adjuvant endocrine therapy utilization. Survival analysis was conducted via Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression.

RESULTS

We identified 236,832 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Individuals in the youngest group were more likely to be a minority, had better Charlson-Deyo scores, lived further from their treatment facility, and were less often insured. This group also had more unfavorable tumor features and were more likely to undergo bilateral mastectomy. In subgroup analysis of patients with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent BCS, the youngest group was significantly less likely to have received endocrine therapy. There was also a trend toward worse overall survival in the youngest group.

CONCLUSION

We report differences in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment of very young women with DCIS. Given the known reduction in recurrence with use of adjuvant endocrine therapy, there may be room for increasing therapy rates or otherwise altering guidelines for treatment of young women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS who undergo BCS.

Disparities in Risk Reduction Therapy Recommendations for Young Women With Lobular Carcinoma In-Situ

BACKGROUND

Endocrine therapy (ET) significantly reduces the risk of breast cancer development in high-risk patients diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). However, the variables impacting recommendation and use of ET in young adults (YAs) is not well-studied. We examined the role of provider recommendation and patient acceptance for ET for YAs with LCIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for women aged < 40 years with primary LCIS between 2000 and 2012. Socioeconomic, demographic, and treatment variables were examined to determine their impact on ET provider recommendation and initial patient acceptance of risk-reducing therapy.

RESULTS

Among 1650 YA patients with LCIS, only 749 (45.4%) were recommended ET. On multivariable analysis, women > 30 years of age were more likely recommended ET than women < 30 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.47), African Americans more than other ethnicities (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0), and YAs treated in New England were more likely than those in the rest of the country (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.0-5.2). Among YA women recommended ET, only 20.2% had a documented refusal. Only geography appeared to independently impact the likelihood of refusal, with YAs in the Southeastern-Central United States being most likely to refuse ET (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.2-24.0).

CONCLUSION

ET is underutilized for risk-reduction in YAs with LCIS. This underuse appears dependent on disparities in provider recommendation practices rather than non-acceptance of therapy. This may reflect regional practice patterns, community standards of care, or provider bias regarding the significance of LCIS as a risk factor for development of invasive cancer.