Ground-breaking research funded by National Cancer Institute

Getty Images


September 28, 2022 —  Populations in U.S. counties defined as more vulnerable based on social factors including socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minority status were significantly less likely to receive timely breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings, according to research from UTHealth Houston

The Findings Were Published Today in JAMA Network Open

Disparities in screening rates were highly associated with a county’s social vulnerability index (SVI) – a tool that uses U.S. Census data to determine social vulnerability at a county or census tract level. The SVI is calculated using factors such as socioeconomic status, household composition, racial/ethnic minority status, housing type, transportation access, language barriers, and more among an area’s population. The index score helps public health officials and local planners better prepare for and respond to emergency events like hurricanes and disease outbreaks, which disproportionately affect areas with higher SVIs. 

The study was led by Cici Bauer, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, and Ryan Suk, PhD, assistant professor of management, policy and community health, both with UTHealth School of Public Health

“We found that counties with higher SVI scores had significantly lower screening rates for all three types of cancer,” Suk said. “These findings suggest that geographically targeted public health interventions could be further informed and improved by a composite measure reflecting the multidimensional measure of area-level social determinants of health.” 

Researchers discovered regional disparities in cancer screening rates at a county level across 3,141 U.S. counties, ranging from the lowest-performing county to the highest, including from 54.0% to 81.8% for breast cancer screening, from 69.9% to 89.7% for cervical cancer screening, and from 39.8% to 74.4% for colorectal cancer screening. 

“Even though cervical cancer screening rates are high overall, that doesn’t mean that is true everywhere,” Suk said. “Some populations have very low uptake, while in other areas, the cancer screening rate is higher than the national target rate. That’s why we have to focus on these differences by social determinants of health and not only overall average values.” 

The population-based, cross-sectional study used county-level information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s PLACES and SVI data sets from 2018 for the counties. Analyses were conducted from October 2021 to February 2022. 

Other Key Findings Included: 

The likelihood of having a cancer screening in the most vulnerable counties (or, the highest fifth) compared with the least vulnerable counties (the lowest fifth) was 14% lower for breast cancer, 20% lower for cervical cancer, and 28% lower for colorectal cancer. 

Some other area-level factors, such as rural/urban status and healthcare access in the county, were also associated with cancer screening rates. However, these factors did not further explain the geographic variation of the cancer screenings and did not change the association between social vulnerability and cancer screening rates. 

Generally, all three cancer screening rates were higher among counties on the east and west coasts and lower in the South. 

“Our study emphasizes the benefit of using geospatial analysis in population health for cancer research. It provides a powerful analytical tool to identify target areas for improving cancer prevention and reducing disparities,” Bauer said. “It also provides a way to understand how various social determinants of health may impact the cancer-related outcomes.” 

Overall, colorectal cancer screening rates were low throughout the U.S., Suk said, meaning public health experts should emphasize the importance of these screenings on a broad scale. 

For more information: https://www.uth.edu/ 


Related Content

News | Artificial Intelligence

Sept. 13, 2024 — Bayer Calantic Digital Solutions has announced the availability of a new eBook that addresses how ...

Time September 12, 2024
arrow
News | PET-CT

July 31, 2024 — In a head-to-head comparison with FDG PET/CT, FDG PET/MRI demonstrated comparable or superior diagnostic ...

Time July 31, 2024
arrow
News | Radiology Business

July 31, 2024 — The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) announced the three Registered Technologists (R ...

Time July 31, 2024
arrow
News | Radiopharmaceuticals and Tracers

July 24, 2024 — Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited announced that the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ...

Time July 24, 2024
arrow
News | Artificial Intelligence

July 22, 2024 — Healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) systems provider, Qure.ai, has announced its receipt of a Class ...

Time July 22, 2024
arrow
News | Radiation Therapy

July 22, 2024 — RefleXion Medical, an external-beam theranostic oncology company, today announced that researchers from ...

Time July 22, 2024
arrow
News | ASTRO

July 18, 2024 — The members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently elected five new officers to ...

Time July 18, 2024
arrow
News | Flat Panel Displays

July 17, 2024 — LG Electronics (LG) is accelerating its B2B medical device business, expanding its lineup of diagnostic ...

Time July 17, 2024
arrow
News | PET-CT

July 16, 2024 — A new research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 15 on June 20, 2024, titled, “Comparison of ...

Time July 16, 2024
arrow
News | Digital Pathology

July 12, 2024 — AGFA HealthCare, a global leader in healthcare imaging management solutions, announced that Enterprise ...

Time July 12, 2024
arrow
Subscribe Now