Financial toxicity and its effect on screening for prostate and colon cancer

21

Background: The term ‘financial toxicity’ or ‘hardship’ is used to describe the financial problems patients experience due to high out-of-pocket costs for their healthcare. Financial toxicity in the context of cancer treatment is an area of recent study due to the significant costs associated with these treatments, but little is known about the effect of financial toxicity on cancer prevention. We examined the effects of financial toxicity on the utilization of screening tests for prevalent cancers, including prostate and colon cancer, using a US nationally representative survey-based data source. We hypothesized that patients with more financial hardship would show an association with decreased prevalence of prostate and colon cancer screening. Methods: This cross-sectional survey-based US study included men and women aged 18+ from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) database from January – December 2018. A financial hardship score between 0 and 1 was formulated by summarizing the responses from ten financial toxicity questions including if in the past 12 months one was unable to afford prescription medication or healthcare; or if one had to skip or take less medicine to save money. A higher score was associated with a worse financial hardship score. The primary outcomes of the study were self-reported occurrence of PSA blood testing for prostate cancer screening, and occurrence of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. Results: As shown in table, a higher financial hardship score was associated with a decreased odds ratio for having a PSA test of 0.916 (95% CI 0.867-0.967, p=0.002) and colonoscopy of 0.969 (95% CI 0.941-0.998, p=0.039). Conclusions: Worse financial hardship is associated with a decreased probability of having PSA or colonoscopy screening tests. Awareness of this specific toxicity needs to be raised, examining the association of financial toxicity and screening of prostate, colon, and other additional cancers. [Table: see text]

E-cigarette use and the risk of bladder and lung cancer

443

Background: Electronic cigarette smoking and similar novel smoking modalities have raised questions about their impact on various cancers compared with traditional forms of tobacco smoking. Tobacco smoking has been concretely proven to increase the risk of many cancers, including lung (LCa) and bladder (BCa) cancer. To date, there is little data on how e-cigarette smoking impacts the incidence of these cancers. We investigated whether any disparities exist in the prevalence of LCa and BCa between various smoking histories using a US nationally representative data source. Methods: This cross-sectional survey-based US study included men and women aged 18+ from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) database between 2016-2018. Primary endpoint was self-reported occurrence of LCa and BCa diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed possible association of various covariates with diagnosis of these cancers. Results: Prevalence of BCa and LCa was higher in all smoking histories compared to never smokers. Patients with a history of e-cigarette smoking vs. no history of e-cigarette smoking were significantly younger at BCa diagnosis (56.87 [±9.86] vs. 65.00 [±12.60] years, p=0.001). Multivariable logistic regression models showed that a history of cigarette smoking and e-cigarette smoking individually was associated with increased ORs of 2.476 (p≤0.001) and 1.577 (p≤0.001) for BCa diagnosis, respectively, and 4.589 (p≤0.001) and 1.614 (p=0.007) for LCa diagnosis, respectively. Conclusions: Compared to never smokers, history of e-cigarette smoking was associated with increased risk of LCa and BCa development and earlier BCa diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to better define the public health effects of these novel and unregulated products.

The association of sexual orientation with prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis

129

Background: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among lesbians/gays and bisexuals is lacking. Recent studies showed that lesbians/gays and bisexuals have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts and continue to experience discrimination in healthcare. Few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We, therefore, investigated the association between sexual orientation and prevalent sex-specific cancer including prostate, breast, and cervical cancer. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18+ from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database between 2017-2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and LGB men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. Results: Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 lesbian/gay and bisexual men and women, respectively. Lesbians/gays and bisexuals were younger and less likely to be screened for prostate, breast, and cervical cancer than heterosexuals. A higher proportion of heterosexual women than lesbian and bisexual women were screened for cervical cancer with pap smears (95.36% vs. 90.48% and 86.11%, p = < 0.001) and breast cancer with mammograms (80.74% vs. 63.81% and 45.37%, p = < 0.001). Similarly, a higher proportion of heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men were screened for prostate cancer with PSA blood tests (41.27% vs. 30.53% and 27.58%, p = < 0.001). Conclusions: Lesbians/gays and bisexuals in the US may be less likely to undergo screening of sex-specific prevalent malignancies, including prostate, breast, and cervical cancer. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to improve cancer screening among lesbians/gays and bisexuals.

The association of sexual orientation with cancer screening and diagnosis

6506

Background: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among sexual minorities (SMs) is lacking. Recent studies have shown SMs are more likely to engage in risky health behavior and have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts. However, few studies have examined how sexual orientation (SO) impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We therefore investigated whether SO affects prevalent gender-specific cancer screening and prevalence, including prostate (PCa), breast (BC), and cervical cancer (CC). Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18+ from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database (part of the National Cancer Institute’s division of cancer control and population sciences) between 2017-2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported PCa, BC, and CC screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and SM men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. Results: Overall, 4,441 (95.18%) men and 6,333 (96.75%) women reported a SO of heterosexual whereas 167 (3.6%) and 58 (1.2%) men and 105 (1.6%) and 108 (1.6%) women reported a SO of gay and bisexual, respectively. Mean age was higher in the heterosexual group compared to the gay and bisexual groups in both men (57.7 [±16.0] vs. 52.4 [±14.5] and 51.9 [±18.0] years, p = < 0.001) and women (56.2 [±16.7] vs. 49.0 [±17.1] and 40.0 [±14.8] years, p = < 0.001). Homosexuals and bisexuals were less likely to be screened for PCa (30.53% and 27.58% vs 41.27%, p = < 0.001), BC (63.81% and 45.37% vs 80.74%, p = < 0.001), and CC (90.48% and 86.11% vs 95.36%, p = < 0.001) than their heterosexual counterparts. While rates of PCa and BC diagnoses were similar across SO, more homosexual and bisexual women were diagnosed with CC compared to their heterosexual counterparts (4.76% and 3.70% vs 1.85%, p = 0.039). Multivariable logistic regression models showed that SMs were less likely to be screened for cancer with ORs of 0.61 (95% CI 0.39-0.95, p = 0.030) for PCa, 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.92, p = 0.025) for BC, and 0.21 (95% CI 0.09-0.46, p = < 0.001) for CC. Although multivariable models did not show that SMs were more likely to be diagnosed with PC, BC, or CC, SMs were more likely to be diagnosed with any cancer with ORs of 1.64 (95% CI 1.06-2.54, p = 0.026) in women only and 1.50 (95% CI 1.11-2.03, p = 0.009) in men and women combined. Conclusions: These data suggest that in addition to other established and known specific socio-economic risk factors, SMs may be less likely to undergo screening of prevalent malignancies such as PCa, BC, and CC. This provides more evidence of ongoing healthcare inequality, urging our healthcare system to invest more in cancer screening of this vulnerable population.

The association between sexual orientation and screening of prevalent gender-specific cancers

198

Background: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among sexual minorities (SMs) is lacking. Recent studies have shown SMs are more likely to engage in risky health behavior and have decreased healthcare utilization. However, few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We therefore investigated whether sexual orientation affects prevalent gender-specific cancer including prostate (PCa), breast (BC), and cervical cancer (CC). Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18+ from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database (part of the National Cancer Institute’s division of cancer control and population sciences) between 2017-2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported PCa, BC, and CC screening and prevalence rates among heterosexuals and homosexuals/bisexuals. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. Results: Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 homosexual/bisexual men and women, respectively. Homosexuals/bisexuals were younger and less likely to be screened for PCa (34.7% vs 41.3%, p=0.013), BC (54.5% vs 80.7%, p=<0.001), and CC (88.3% vs 95.4%, p=<0.001). While rates of PCa and BC diagnosis were similar, more than twice as many homosexual/bisexual women were diagnosed with CC (4.2% vs 1.9%, p=0.023). Multivariable logistic regression models (Table) showed homosexuals/bisexuals were less likely to be screened for cancer with ORs of 0.61 (95% CI 0.39-0.95) for PCa, 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.92) for BC, and 0.21 (95% CI 0.09-0.46) for CC. Homosexuals/bisexuals were more likely to be diagnosed with any cancer with ORs of 1.64 (95% CI 1.06-2.54) in women only and 1.50 (95% CI 1.11-2.03) in men and women combined. Conclusions: Homosexuals/bisexuals in the US may be less likely to undergo screening of gender-specific prevalent malignancies, including PCa, BC, and CC. The implementation of cancer screening among SMs should be improved. [Table: see text]