Patient Location and Disparities in Access to Fertility Preservation for Women With Gynecologic or Breast Cancer.


Journal

Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 09 01 2024
accepted: 29 02 2024
medline: 4 4 2024
pubmed: 4 4 2024
entrez: 4 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To assess the effect of geographic factors on fertility-sparing treatment or assisted reproductive technology (ART) utilization among women with gynecologic or breast cancers. We conducted a cohort study of reproductive-aged patients (18-45 years) with early-stage cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer or stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2015 using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between distance from fertility and gynecologic oncology clinics, as well as California Healthy Places Index score (a Census-level composite community health score), and ART or fertility-sparing treatment receipt. We identified 7,612 women with gynecologic cancer and 35,992 women with breast cancer. Among all patients, 257 (0.6%) underwent ART. Among patients with gynecologic cancer, 1,676 (22.0%) underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Stratified by quartiles, residents who lived at increasing distances from gynecologic oncology or fertility clinics had decreased odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q2, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63-0.93, P=.007; Q4, OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56-0.94, P=.016) (fertility clinics: Q3, OR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97, P=.025; Q4, OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, P=.004), whereas this relationship was not observed among women who resided within other quartiles (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q3, OR 0.81 95% CI, 0.65-1.01, P=.07; fertility clinics: Q2, OR 0.87 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, P=.15). Individuals who lived in communities with the highest (51st-100th percentile) California Healthy Places Index scores had greater odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.06-1.57, P=.01; OR 1.66, 95% CI, 1.35-2.04, P=.001, respectively). The relationship between California Healthy Places Index scores and ART was even more pronounced (Q2 OR 1.9, 95% CI, 0.99-3.64, P=.05; Q3 OR 2.86, 95% CI, 1.54-5.33, P<.001; Q4 OR 3.41, 95% CI, 1.83-6.35, P<.001). Geographic disparities affect fertility-sparing treatment and ART rates among women with gynecologic or breast cancer. By acknowledging geographic factors, health care systems can ensure equitable access to fertility-preservation services.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38574368
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005570
pii: 00006250-990000000-01050
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA234333
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA101642
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA101642
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA101642
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Financial Disclosure Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain reports receiving payment from the Schlesinger Group and Guidepoint. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Références

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United States and Puerto Rico cancer statistics, 1999–2019 incidence archive request. Accessed February 12, 2024. http://wonder.cdc.gov/cancer-v2019.html
Franasiak JM, Scott RT. Demographics of cancer in the reproductive age female. In: Cancer and fertility. Springer; 2016. p. 11–9.
Logan S, Perz J, Ussher JM, Peate M, Anazodo A. Systematic review of fertility-related psychological distress in cancer patients: informing on an improved model of care. Psychooncology 2019;28:22–30. doi: 10.1002/pon.4927
doi: 10.1002/pon.4927
Ganz PA, Greendale GA, Petersen L, Kahn B, Bower JE. Breast cancer in younger women: reproductive and late health effects of treatment. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4184–93. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.196
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.196
Avis NE, Crawford S, Manuel J. Psychosocial problems among younger women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2004;13:295–308. doi: 10.1002/pon.744
doi: 10.1002/pon.744
Oktay K, Harvey BE, Loren AW. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update summary. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:381–5. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00160
doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00160
Bhatia S, Pappo AS, Acquazzino M, Allen-Rhoades WA, Barnett M, Borinstein SC, et al. Adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology, version 2.2024, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:851–80. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0040
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0040
Sutaria T, Sparks AD, Rao YJ, Lopez-Acevedo M, Long B. Trends in guideline-adherent fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer before and after the Affordable Care Act. Gynecol Oncol 2020;158:424–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.027
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.027
Jorgensen K, Meernik C, Wu CF, Murphy CC, Baker VL, Jarmon P, et al. Disparities in fertility-sparing treatment and use of assisted reproductive technology after a diagnosis of cervical, ovarian, or endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2023;141:341–53. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005044
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005044
Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care 1981;19:127–40. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001
doi: 10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001
Lazzari E, Baffour B, Chambers GM. Residential proximity to a fertility clinic is independently associated with likelihood of women having ART and IUI treatment. Hum Reprod 2022;37:2662–71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac205
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac205
Cleveland JC III, Espinoza J, Holzhausen EA, Goran MI, Alderete TL. The impact of social determinants of health on obesity and diabetes disparities among Latino communities in Southern California. BMC Public Health 2023;23:37. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14868-1
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14868-1
Maizlish N, Delaney T, Dowling H, Chapman DA, Sabo R, Woolf S, et al. California Healthy Places Index: frames matter. Public Health Rep 2019;134:354–62. doi: 10.1177/0033354919849882
doi: 10.1177/0033354919849882
Berkowitz RL, Mujahid M, Pearl M, Poon V, Reid CK, Allen AM. Protective Places: the relationship between neighborhood quality and preterm births to Black women in Oakland, California (2007-2011). J Urban Health 2022;99:492–505. doi: 10.1007/s11524-022-00624-8
doi: 10.1007/s11524-022-00624-8
Johnson KA, Snyder RE, Tang EC, de Guzman NS, Plotzker RE, Murphy R, et al. Geospatial social determinants of health correlate with disparities in syphilis and congenital syphilis cases in California. Pathogens 2022;11:547. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11050547
doi: 10.3390/pathogens11050547
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Classification of diseases, functioning, and disability. Accessed November 28, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/index.htm
Toner JP, Coddington CC, Doody K, Van Voorhis B, Seifer DB, Ball GD, et al. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and assisted reproductive technology in the United States: a 2016 update. Fertil Steril 2016;106:541–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.026
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.026
Luke B, Brown MB, Missmer SA, Spector LG, Leach RE, Williams M, et al. Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer. Hum Reprod 2016;31:183–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev288
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev288
California Cancer Registry. California Cancer Registry data dictionary; 2016. Accessed November 28, 2023. https://www.ccrcal.org/?s5data+dictionary
World Health Organization. International classification of diseases for oncology (ICD-O). 3rd ed, 1st revision. WHO; 2013.
Meernik C, Jorgensen K, Wu CF, Murphy CC, Baker VL, Brady PC, et al. Disparities in the use of assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023;198:149–58. doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06857-0
doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06857-0
McGarity MZ, Herndon CN, Harris JA, Hobbs BF. Impact of satellite clinics on geographic access to assisted reproductive technology services in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:928. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08281-y
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08281-y
Yu L, Sabatino SA, White MC. Rural-urban and racial/ethnic disparities in invasive cervical cancer incidence in the United States, 2010-2014. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E70. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180447
doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180447
Villanueva C, Chang J, Bartell SM, Ziogas A, Bristow R, Vieira VM. Contribution of geographic location to disparities in ovarian cancer treatment. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:1318–29. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7325
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7325
Yoo W, Kim S, Huh WK, Dilley S, Coughlin SS, Partridge EE, et al. Recent trends in racial and regional disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in United States. PLoS One 2017;12:e0172548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172548
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172548
Peipert BJ, Potapragada NR, Lantos PM, Harris BS, Reinecke J, Goldman KN. A geospatial analysis of disparities in access to oncofertility services. JAMA Oncol 2023;9:1364–70. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2780
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2780
Health disparities in rural women. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 586. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:384–8. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000443278.06393.d6
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000443278.06393.d6
Fulton BD. Health care market concentration trends in the United States: evidence and policy responses. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017;36:1530–8. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0556
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0556
Habashi P, Bouchard S, Nguyen GC. Transforming access to specialist care for inflammatory bowel disease: the PACE telemedicine program. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2019;2:186–94. doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy046
doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy046

Auteurs

Alexa Kanbergs (A)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine and the Department of Health Services Research, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, School of Public Health, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas; Unidad Ginecología Oncológica, Grupo de Investigación GIGA, Centro de Tratamiento e Investigación sobre Cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo (CTIC), and Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; and the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Classifications MeSH