Diversity in Medicine

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.