Development of a glucose-6-phosphate biosensor based on coimmobilized p-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

Yue Cui,J. Barford,R. Renneberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOS.2006.10.026

2007-05-15

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Abstract B053: Rural-urban disparities in cancer risk factors and screening by United States census region

Kelly A. Hirko,Huiwen Xu,Laura Q. Rogers,Michelle Y. Martin,Siddhartha Roy,Kimberly M. Kelly,Shannon M. Christy,Kimlin Tam Ashing,Jean C. Yi,Marquita W. Lewis-Thames,Cathy D. Meade,Qian Lu,Clement K. Gwede,Rachel M. Ceballos,Usha Menon,Katie Cueva,Karen Yeary,Lisa Klesges,Monica L. Baskin,Kassandra I. Alcaraz,Sabrina Ford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-b053

2023-12-01

Abstract:Abstract We examined rural-urban differences in the prevalence of cancer risk factors and screening behaviors across U.S. census regions to better understand variations within and between geographic regions and inform strategies to address rural cancer inequities. Using an ecological cross-sectional design, we examined rural-urban differences in the self-reported prevalence of county-level cancer risk factors (i.e., obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption) and cancer screening behaviors (i.e., breast, colorectal and cervical) ascertained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and National Health Interview Survey (2008-2013) across four U.S. census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). County-level rurality was defined using 2013 U.S. Office of Management and Budget rural-urban classification codes, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service’s rural-urban continuum codes. Chi-square tests assessed differences in the mean prevalence of county-level cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors in each geographic region. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) models estimated the p-values for trends in cancer risk factors and screening prevalence across the rural-urban continuum. Within each geographic region, rural counties had a higher prevalence of smoking, obesity and physical inactivity. Yet, rural-urban differences in cancer risk factors were not statistically significant in all geographic regions (e.g., prevalence of obesity for Western rural vs. urban counties was 26.5% vs. 25.7% [p=0.08] and physical inactivity for Northeastern rural vs. urban counties was 23.2% vs. 22.5% [p=0.15]). Moreover, the mean prevalence of obesity was higher in urban areas of the Midwest (31%) and South (31.3%) compared to rural areas in the West (26.5%) and Northeast (29.5%). Binge alcohol use was higher in rural vs. urban counties in the West (19.8% vs. 17.7%; p<0.001) and Midwest (22.3% vs. 21.5%; p=0.006), but lower in the South (13.5% vs. 15.2%; p<0.001). Obesity and smoking prevalence increased with increasing rurality across all regions (ptrend<0.045). Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening prevalence were lower in rural vs. urban counties in each geographic region (all p-values<0.04). However, the overall prevalence of screening across all cancer sites was higher in rural Northeast counties compared to both rural and urban counties in the South and West regions. Across all regions, cervical and breast cancer screening decreased with increasing rurality (all ptrend<0.001). A significant inverse trend in prevalence of colorectal cancer screening with increasing rurality was observed in all regions except the Northeast (ptrend=0.17). Our findings suggest notable variations in rural-urban cancer risk factors and screening disparities across U.S. geographic regions. Further exploration of the source of this geographic variation is warranted to ensure the development and implementation of relevant cancer control interventions targeting rural populations most in need. Citation Format: Kelly A. Hirko, Huiwen Xu, Laura Q. Rogers, Michelle Y. Martin, Siddhartha Roy, Kimberly M. Kelly, Shannon M. Christy, Kimlin Tam Ashing, Jean C. Yi, Marquita W. Lewis-Thames, Cathy D. Meade, Qian Lu, Clement K. Gwede, Rachel M. Ceballos, Usha Menon, Katie Cueva, Karen Yeary, Lisa Klesges, Monica L. Baskin, Kassandra I. Alcaraz, Sabrina Ford. Rural-urban disparities in cancer risk factors and screening by United States census region [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B053.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Rural–Urban Differences in Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States

Whitney E Zahnd,Aimee S James,Wiley D Jenkins,Sonya R Izadi,Amanda J Fogleman,David E Steward,Graham A Colditz,Laurent Brard,Whitney E. Zahnd,Aimee S. James,Wiley D. Jenkins,Sonya R. Izadi,Amanda J. Fogleman,David E. Steward,Graham A. Colditz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0430

2017-07-27

Abstract:Background: Cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States are declining, but this decrease may not be observed in rural areas where residents are more likely to live in poverty, smoke, and forego cancer screening. However, there is limited research exploring national rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends.Methods: We analyzed data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries' public use dataset, which includes population-based cancer incidence data from 46 states. We calculated age-adjusted incidence rates, rate ratios, and annual percentage change (APC) for: all cancers combined, selected individual cancers, and cancers associated with tobacco use and human papillomavirus (HPV). Rural-urban comparisons were made by demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics for 2009 to 2013. Trends were analyzed for 1995 to 2013.Results: Combined cancers incidence rates were generally higher in urban populations, except for the South, although the urban decline in incidence rate was greater than in rural populations (10.2% vs. 4.8%, respectively). Rural cancer disparities included higher rates of tobacco-associated, HPV-associated, lung and bronchus, cervical, and colorectal cancers across most population groups. Furthermore, HPV-associated cancer incidence rates increased in rural areas (APC = 0.724, P < 0.05), while temporal trends remained stable in urban areas.Conclusions: Cancer rates associated with modifiable risks-tobacco, HPV, and some preventive screening modalities (e.g., colorectal and cervical cancers)-were higher in rural compared with urban populations.Impact: Population-based, clinical, and/or policy strategies and interventions that address these modifiable risk factors could help reduce cancer disparities experienced in rural populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(11); 1265-74. ©2017 AACR.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Rural-Urban Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States, 2000-2019

Jason Semprini,Khyathi Gadag,Gawain Williams,Aniyah Q. Muldrow,Whitney E. Zahnd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-0072

2024-05-28

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background Despite consistent improvements in cancer prevention and care, rural and urban disparities in cancer incidence persist in the United States. Our objective was to further examine rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends. Methods We used the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) dataset to investigate rural-urban differences in 5-year age-adjusted cancer incidence (2015-2019) and trends (2000-2019), also examining differences by region, sex, race/ethnicity, and tumor site. Age-adjusted rates were calculated using SEER*Stat 8.4.1, and trend analysis was done using Joinpoint, reporting annual percent changes (APCs). Results We observed higher all cancer combined 5-year incidence rates in rural areas (457.6 per 100,000) compared to urban a (447.9), with the largest rural-urban difference in the South (464.4 vs 449.3). Rural populations also exhibited higher rates of tobacco-associated, HPV-associated, and colorectal cancer, including early-onset. Tobacco-associated cancer incidence trends widened between rural and urban from 2000-2019, with significant, but varying, decreases in urban areas throughout the study period, while significant rural decreases only occurred between 2016 and 2019 (APC=-0.96). HPV-associated cancer rates increased in both populations until recently with urban rates plateauing while rural rates continued to rise (e.g., APC =1.56, 2002-2019). Conclusions Rural populations had higher overall cancer incidence rates and higher rates of cancers with preventive opportunities compared to urban. Improvements in these rates were typically slower in rural populations. Impact Our findings underscore the complex nature of rural-urban disparities, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and policies to reduce disparities and achieve equitable health outcomes.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Cancer Disparities in the Context of Rurality: Risk Factors and Screening Across Various U.S. Rural Classification Codes

Hirko Kelly A.,Xu Huiwen,Rogers Laura Q.,Martin Michelle Y.,Roy Siddhartha,Kelly Kimberly M.,Christy Shannon M.,Ashing Kimlin Tam,Yi Jean C.,Lewis-Thames Marquita W.,Meade Cathy D.,Lu Qian,Gwede Clement K.,Nemeth Julianna,Ceballos Rachel M.,Menon Usha,Cueva Katie,Yeary Karen,Klesges Lisa M.,Baskin Monica L.,Alcaraz Kassandra I.,Ford Sabrina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01599-2

2022-01-01

Cancer Causes & Control

Abstract:Prior cancer research is limited by inconsistencies in defining rurality. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors across various county-based rural classification codes, including measures reflecting a continuum, to inform our understanding of cancer disparities according to the extent of rurality. Using an ecological cross-sectional design, we examined differences in cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and National Health Interview Survey (2008–2013) across rural counties and between rural and urban counties using four rural–urban classification codes for counties and county-equivalents in 2013: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, National Center for Health Statistics, USDA Economic Research Service’s rural–urban continuum codes, and Urban Influence Codes. Although a rural-to-urban gradient was not consistently evident across all classification codes, the prevalence of smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, and binge alcohol use increased (all ptrend < 0.03), while colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening decreased (all ptrend < 0.001) with increasing rurality. Differences in the prevalence of risk factors and screening behaviors across rural areas were greater than differences between rural and urban counties for obesity (2.4% vs. 1.5%), physical activity (2.9% vs. 2.5%), binge alcohol use (3.4% vs. 0.4%), cervical cancer screening (6.8% vs. 4.0%), and colorectal cancer screening (4.4% vs. 3.8%). Rural cancer disparities persist across multiple rural–urban classification codes, with marked variation in cancer risk factors and screening evident within rural regions. Focusing only on a rural–urban dichotomy may not sufficiently capture subpopulations of rural residents at greater risk for cancer and cancer-related mortality.
Contribution of county characteristics to disparities in rural mortality after cancer diagnosis

Jeffrey A Franks,Elizabeth S Davis,Smita Bhatia,Kelly M Kenzik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.02.003

IF: 6.604

2024-02-11

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Rural disparities in cancer outcomes have been widely evaluated, but limited evidence is available to describe what characteristics of rural environments contribute to the increased risk of poor outcomes. Therefore, this manuscript sought to assess the mediating effects of county characteristics on the relationship between urban/rural status and mortality among patients with cancer, characterize county profiles, and determine at-risk county profiles alongside rural settings. Methods Patients diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2016 were assessed using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data linked to the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Codes and 2010 County Health Rankings (CHR). There were 757,655 patients representing 596 counties (of 3143 in the US) and 12 states. Mediation analyses, conducted in 2023, estimated the direct contribution of rurality to five-year all-cause survival and the contribution of the rural effect indirectly through CHR domains. Latent class analysis and survival models identified county groupings and estimated the hazard of mortality associated with class membership. Results Rankings for premature death, clinical care, and physical environment resulted in rural patients having 17.9%-20.2% less survival time compared to urban patients. Of this, 4.1%-12.6% of the total excess risk was mediated by these characteristics. Patients living in rural and high-risk county classes saw higher all-cause mortality than those in urban-lower risk counties (HR, 1.04, 95%CI 1.01-1.08 and 1.07, 95%CI, 1.03-1.11). Conclusions Counties with poorer health rankings had increased mortality risks regardless of rurality; however, the poor rankings, notably health behaviors and social & economic factors, elevated the risk for rural counties.

medicine, general & internal,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract C124: Identifying cancer disparities in the University of Chicago catchment area

Joel Ssepuuya,Stephanie Zhang,Kelsey Meador,Lizeth Tamayo,Brandon Pierce

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-c124

2023-01-10

Abstract:(a) Cancer statistics are vital for helping doctors and researchers track cancer cases and use the data to find trends in various populations and patterns of occurrences, and make important public health decisions on where to direct funding, screening programs, and other steps to take in high-rate areas. This data can also tell doctors and researchers how effective some treatments are, based on the rise or fall in incidence and mortality rates, and can also help them pinpoint areas that need more attention. (b) Disparities in cancer incidence and mortality have not been described for the University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center's (UCCCC) patient catchment area (CA), the region from which the center draws its patients. This research aimed to describe incidence and mortality rates (2013-2017) for leading cancers in the CA, which consists of Cook County, IL; DuPage County, IL; Lake County, IL; Will County, IL; and Lake County, IN. Age-adjusted rates (per 100,000) were calculated for leading cancers by sex for each county, the CA, U.S., and IL. Racial disparities were also examined by comparing Black rates to White rates. (c) Incidence rates were higher in the CA compared to the U.S for all cancers data was available for: all sites combined, breast, and prostate. For males, mortality rates of prostate, colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers were higher in the CA compared to the U.S. For females, mortality rates of breast, colorectal, myeloma, uterine, stomach, and bladder cancers, as well as all sites combined were higher in the CA compared to the U.S. By county, males experienced incidence rates of 8% to nearly 2.5 times higher and mortality rates 3% to over 1.5 times higher compared to the U.S. for various cancers. By county, females experienced incidence rates 5% to over 4 times higher and mortality rates 4% to over 1.5 times higher compared to the U.S. for various cancers. Lake County, IN generally had the highest incidence and mortality rates. Racial disparities in incidence and mortality were present for most cancers in the CA overall and by county. For males, racial disparities in mortality for prostate, stomach, and larynx are of greatest concern. For females, racial disparities in mortality for myeloma, cervical, and uterine are of greatest concern. (d) This research highlights important health inequities and priorities for the UCCC to reduce these disparities in the areas of cancer risk, prevention, and treatment. Citation Format: Joel Ssepuuya, Stephanie Zhang, Kelsey Meador, Lizeth Tamayo, Brandon Pierce. Identifying cancer disparities in the University of Chicago catchment area [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr C124.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Differences in cancer presentation, treatment, and mortality between rural and urban patients diagnosed with kidney cancer in the United States

Christopher Connors,Micah Levy,Chih Peng Chin,Daniel Wang,Olamide Omidele,Francisca Larenas,Michael Palese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.12.011

IF: 2.954

2024-01-09

Urologic Oncology Seminars and Original Investigations

Abstract:Introduction Rural–urban discrepancies in care and outcomes for kidney cancer (KCa) in the United States remains poorly understood. Our study aims to improve our understanding of the influence of rurality on KCa outcomes in the United States by analyzing differences in presentation, treatment, and mortality between urban areas (UAs) and rural areas (RAs) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERs) database. Methods SEERs data was queried from 2000 to 2019 for KCa patients. Patient counties were classified as UAs, rural adjacent areas (RAAs), or rural nonadjacent areas (RNAs) using Rural Urban Continuum Codes. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and treatment variables were compared. Propensity score matching was performed to create matched UA-RAA and UA-RNA cohorts. Multivariate regression evaluated rural-urban status as a predictor of treatment selection. Multivariate cox regression assessed the predictive value of rural-urban status for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to generate survival curves for OS and CSS. Results 179,509 KCa patients were identified (UA = 87.0%, RAA = 7.7%, RNA = 5.3%). Patients in RAs were more likely to present with tumors of higher grade and stage than UAs. Following multivariate analysis, rural residency predicted undergoing nephrectomy (RAA: OR = 1.177, RNA: OR = 1.210) but was a negative predictor of receiving partial nephrectomy (RAA: OR = 0.744, RNA: OR = 0.717), all P < 0.001. Multivariate cox regression demonstrated that RAA or RNA residency was predictive of overall and cause-specific mortality. After matching, median OS was 151, 124, and 118 months for UA, RAA, and RNA cohorts respectively; mean CSS was 152, 147, and 144 months for UA, RAA, and RNA cohorts, respectively, all P < 0.001. Stage-specific analysis of CSS demonstrated significantly poorer CSS among RNA patients for localized, regionalized, and distant KCa after matching. Only RAA patients with localized KCa experienced significantly lower CSS than UA patients. Conclusions Patients in RAs are more likely to present with advanced KCa at diagnosis compared to those in UAs and may also experience different treatment options including a lesser likelihood of undergoing partial nephrectomy. Rural patients with KCa also demonstrated significantly worse OS and CSS compared to their urban counterparts. Further patient-level studies are required to better understand the discrepancy in CSS between urban and rural patients diagnosed with KCa.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Urban-Rural Disparities in Access to Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Missouri and Illinois

Karthik W Rohatgi,Christine M Marx,Marquita W Lewis-Thames,Jingxia Liu,Graham A Colditz,Aimee S James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200202

2020-11-05

Abstract:Introduction: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended for current and former smokers who meet eligibility criteria. Few studies have quantitatively examined disparities in access to LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to examine relationships between 1) rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and access to LDCT lung cancer screening and 2) screening access and lung cancer mortality. Methods: We used census block group and county-level data from Missouri and Illinois. We defined access to screening as presence of an accredited screening center within 30 miles of residence as of May 2019. We used mixed-effects logistic models for screening access and county-level multiple linear regression models for lung cancer mortality. Results: Approximately 97.6% of metropolitan residents had access to screening, compared with 41.0% of nonmetropolitan residents. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, the odds of having access to screening in rural areas were 17% of the odds in metropolitan areas (95% CI, 12%-26%). We observed no association between screening access and lung cancer mortality. Southeastern Missouri, a rural and impoverished area, had low levels of screening access, high smoking prevalence, and high lung cancer mortality. Conclusion: Although access to LDCT is lower in rural areas than in urban areas, lung cancer mortality in rural residents is multifactorial and cannot be explained by access alone. Targeted efforts to implement rural LDCT screening could reduce geographic disparities in access, although further research is needed to understand how increased access to screening could affect uptake and rural disparities in lung cancer mortality.
Factors contributing to differences in cervical cancer screening in rural and urban community health centers

Hyunjung Lee,Jordan Baeker Bispo,Parichoy Pal Choudhury,Daniel Wiese,Ahmedin Jemal,Farhad Islami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35265

IF: 6.9209

2024-03-26

Cancer

Abstract:Introduction Community health centers (CHCs) provide historically marginalized populations with primary care, including cancer screening. Previous studies have reported that women living in rural areas are less likely to be up to date with cervical cancer screening than women living in urban areas. However, little is known about rural–urban differences in cervical cancer screening in CHCs and the contributing factors, and whether such differences changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods Using 8‐year pooled Uniform Data System (2014‐2021) data and Oaxaca‐Blinder decomposition, the extent to which CHC‐ and catchment area–level characteristics explained rural‐urban differences in up‐to‐date cervical cancer screening was estimated. Results Up‐to‐date cervical cancer screening was lower in rural CHCs than urban CHCs (38.2% vs 43.0% during 2014–2019), and this difference increased during the pandemic (43.5% vs 49.0%). The rural–urban difference in cervical cancer screening in 2014–2019 was mostly explained by differences in CHC‐level proportions of patients with limited English proficiency (55.9%) or income below the poverty level (12.3%) and females aged 21 to 64 years (9.8%), and catchment area–level's unemployment (3.4%) and primary care physician density (3.2%). However, Medicaid (–48.5%) or no insurance (–19.6%) counterbalanced the differences between rural–urban CHCs. The contribution of these factors to rural–urban differences in cervical cancer screening generally increased in 2020–2021. Conclusions Rural–urban differences in cervical cancer screening were mostly explained by multiple CHC‐level and catchment area–level characteristics. The findings call for tailored interventions, such as providing resources and language services, to improve cancer screening utilization among uninsured, Medicaid, and patients with limited English proficiency in rural CHCs.

oncology
Abstract 797: Area deprivation, rurality, healthcare utilization, quality of life, and health status among cancer patients

Hyunjung Lee,Dongjun Lee,Ding Quan Ng,Daniel Wiese,Ahmedin Jemal,Farhad Islami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-797

IF: 11.2

2024-03-28

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Living in deprived or rural neighborhoods can negatively influence individual health through various mechanisms, including limited access to care due to scarce resources, medical facilities, or health professionals. Prior ecological studies have shown an association between living in rural or disadvantaged areas and higher cancer morbidity or mortality, but research on the association between neighborhood of residence and cancer patients' healthcare utilization, health status, or quality of life has been limited. Method: We used survey and electronic health records data on cancer patients aged ≥18 years (N=16,606) from All of US Controlled Tier Dataset v7 (summer 2017-July 1, 2022). Area deprivation index (ADI) was based on six items, including 3-digit zip code-level median household income, proportions of high school graduation, vacant housing, recipients of public assistance income, and individual without health insurance or with incomes below the poverty level. Rural-urban status was defined at the 3-digit zip code-level as urban (100% urban), mostly urban (≥50%- 50% rural). Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between ADI or rurality and health care utilization (general doctor, specialist, mental health, or nurse practitioner/physical assistant [NP/PA] visits) or health outcome (fair/poor physical and mental health status, quality of life), controlling for various covariates. Results: Cancer patients living in the most deprived areas (ADI 5th quintile) were less likely to have general doctor visits (OR=0.73; 95% CI=0.54-0.85), NA/PA visits (OR=0.87; 95% CI=0.77-0.99), or mental health professional visits (OR=0.85; 95% CI=0.74-0.98), and more likely to have fair or poor quality of life (OR=1.31; 95% CI=1.06-1.62), compared to those living in the least deprived areas (ADI 1st quintile), controlling for all covariates. Similarly, rural cancer patients were less likely to have general doctor visits (OR=0.58; 95% CI=0.42-0.79) or mental health professional visits (OR=0.53; 95% CI=0.41-0.67), and more likely to have fair/poor physical health (OR=1.27; 95% CI=1.03-1.57), compared with urban cancer patients. However, rural cancer patients were more likely to have NA/PA visits (OR=1.29; 95% CI=1.04-1.58) and less likely to have fair/poor mental health (OR=0.66; 95% CI=0.48-0.92). Cancer patients in mostly urban areas showed similar patterns to those in rural areas but the magnitudes of associations were smaller. Conclusions: In this study, cancer patients living in deprived or rural areas were less likely to have general doctor or mental health professional visits and more likely to have poor physical health compared to patients in the least deprived or urban area. Community-level interventions in deprived or rural areas are required to mitigate disparities in healthcare and health among cancer patients. Citation Format: Hyunjung Lee, Dongjun Lee, Ding Quan Ng, Daniel Wiese, Ahmedin Jemal, Farhad Islami. Area deprivation, rurality, healthcare utilization, quality of life, and health status among cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 797.

oncology
An exploration of the relationships between health promotion practices, health work, and felt stigma in families headed by adolescent mothers.

Adrienne Fulford,M. Ford-Gilboe

2004-12-01

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between stigma and health promotion in families with preschool children headed by adolescent mothers, by: (a) testing hypotheses derived from the Developmental Model of Health and Nursing, and (b) descriptively exploring the experience of stigma in a community sample of 63 adolescent mothers in southwestern Ontario, Canada. The mothers verbally responded to established measures of felt stigma, family health work, healthy lifestyle practices, and a demographic questionnaire during a structured interview. Then their experiences of stigma were explored during a brief dialogic interview. Consistent with the theory, a moderate positive relationship was observed between family health work and mothers' healthy lifestyle (r = .52, p < .001). Felt stigma was not related to either health work or global healthy lifestyle. Stigma did not appear to affect family health promotion efforts directly but influenced other aspects of the participants' lives in both positive and negative ways. Implications for practice and future research are identified.
Rural-urban disparities in prostate cancer survival: A population-based study.

Siqi Hu,Chun-Pin Chang,Mark W. Dodson,Vikrant Deshmukh,Michael Newman,Ankita Date,Alejandro Sanchez,Shane Lloyd,Brock ONeil,Mia Hashibe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.267

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:267 Background: Prostate cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among men in the United States. However, only a limited number of studies have explored the impact of rural-urban disparities in survival among prostate cancer patients with long-term follow-up. In order to investigate disparities in prostate cancer survival, we assess prostate cancer mortality and prognostic factors based on rural-urban residence. Methods: A cohort of 18,134 cancer patients with prostate adenocarcinomas diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 was identified. Residential location information at the time of cancer diagnosis was used to stratify on rural-urban residence. All-cause death and prostate cancer-cause death risks were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results: Among prostate cancer patients, 15.1% resided in rural counties in Utah. Patients living in rural counties were different in demographic and clinical characteristics compared to their urban counterparts. An association was observed between rural residence and elevated risks of all-cause mortality (HR=1.19, 99%CI=1.10-1.29) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR=1.21, 99%CI=1.03-1.43). Elevated risks of both all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality were associated to factors such as unhealthy BMI, comorbidity index ≥1, family history of cancer or prostate cancer, single marital status, low income, low socioeconomic status, government insurance, earlier year of diagnosis, advanced prostate cancer stage, and extensive cancer treatment. Furthermore, the observed disparities in demographic and clinical profiles appeared to contribute to the disparities in all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality risks between rural and urban prostate cancer patients. Conclusions: Rural residence exhibited a significant association with the risk of prostate cancer-related and all-cause mortality. Patients residing in rural areas demonstrated distinct factors influencing mortality risks, encompassing both demographic and clinical aspects. These findings underscore the imperative for targeted interventions aimed at mitigating the rural-urban disparities in prostate cancer outcomes.

oncology
Estimating the Impact of Rurality in Disparities in Cancer Mortality

Kelly M. Kenzik,Elizabeth S. Davis,Jeffrey A. Franks,Smita Bhatia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.23.00626

2024-04-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE Estimation of the independent effect of rurality on cancer mortality requires causal inference methodology and consideration of area-level socioeconomic status and rural designations. METHODS Using SEER data, we identified key incident cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2016 at age ≥20 years (N = 3,788,273), examining a 20% random sample (n = 757,655). Standardized competing risk and survival models estimated the association between rural residence, defined by Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, and cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, controlling for age at cancer diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and Area Deprivation Index (ADI). We estimated the attributable fraction (AF) of rurality and high ADI (ADI > median) to the probability of mortality. Finally, we examined county measurement issues contributing to mortality rates discordant from hypothesized rates. RESULTS The 5-year standardized failure probability for cancer mortality for rural patients was 33.9% versus 31.56% for urban. The AF for rural residence was 1.04% at year 1 (0.89% by year 5), the highest among local stage disease (Y1 2.1% to Y5 1.9%). The AF for high ADI was 3.33% in Y1 (2.87% in Y5), while the joint effect of rural residence and high ADI was 4.28% in Y1 (3.71% in Y5). Twenty-two percent of urban counties and 30% of rural were discordant. Among discordant urban counties, 30% were only considered urban because of adjacency to metro area. High ADI was associated with urban discordance and low ADI with rural discordance. CONCLUSION Rural residence independently contributes to cancer mortality. The rural impact is the greatest among those with localized disease and in high deprivation areas. Rural-urban county designations may mask high-need urban counties, limiting eligibility to state and federal resources dedicated to rural areas.

oncology
Abstract A151: Examining the influence of health insurance, socioeconomic factors, and rurality on breast cancer screening behaviors in Ohio

Ruvarashe P. Rumano,Chloe M. Hery,Mohamed I Elsaid,Chasity Washington,Cecilia R. Degraffinreid,Electra D. Paskett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a151

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Among Ohio women, breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. Inequalities in BC screening are associated with poverty, social injustice, environmental factors, as well as late-state diagnosis, treatment delays, and mortality. The main objective of this study is to examine how BC screening rates differ by rurality and socioeconomic status. Methods: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center conducted a population health assessment survey of Ohioans. The Community Initiative Towards Improving Equity and Health Statues (CITIES) project included two waves of data collection 2017-2018 (Wave 1) and 2023-2024 (Wave 2). Participants self-reported various sociodemographic factors (i.e., race, ethnicity, education level, marital status, and insurance coverage), health insurance status, geographic setting, and BC screening adherence. Adherence with BC screening guidelines was defined as having a mammogram every 2 years after age 50. Baseline demographic characteristics were described using counts and percentages stratified by geographic setting. Adherence with BC screening guidelines was summarized with counts and percentages. The relationship between education, marital status[EP1] , insurance status, rurality, and BC screening adherence were assessed with chi-square tests. Results: A total of 300 women were included in this study. Most women (n=210, 70%) resided in urban counties, while 30% (n=90) lived in rural counties. Among rural residents, 96.7% were White, whereas urban residents were 37.6% White, 35.2% African American, 11.9% Hispanic, 9.1% Somali, and 6.2% Asian. Health care coverage was held by 97.8% of rural and 87.6% of urban residents. Over 67.8% of rural residents and over 65.3% of urban residents had at least some post-high school education. Most rural residents (68.7%) were married, compared to 46.7% of urban residents. Among rural residents, 78.9% (n=71) were within mammogram guidelines. Of the women residing in urban areas, 73.8% (n=155) were within mammogram guidelines and 26.2% (n=55) were not. Individuals with health insurance were over 4 times as likely to adhere to BC screening guidelines than those without health insurance (OR: 4.54, p<0.0001). High school graduates were nearly 5 times as likely to adhere to BC screening guidelines compared to those who did not complete high school (OR: 4.88, p<0.0001). White women were twice as likely to be adherent to BC screening guidelines compared to non-White women (OR: 2.07, p=0.007). Marital status (p=0.219) and rurality (p=0.350) were not significantly associated with adherence to BC screening guidelines. Conclusion: Understanding access to cancer care by education, health insurance status, and race, and how these factors influence BC screening is crucial for knowing the challenges that Ohioans may face in BC care. These findings may lead to future development of interventions targeted at population needs, as identified in this study, and improve equity in BC screening access and BC outcomes. Citation Format: Ruvarashe P. Rumano, Chloe M. Hery, Mohamed I Elsaid, Chasity Washington,, Cecilia R. Degraffinreid,, Electra D. Paskett. Examining the influence of health insurance, socioeconomic factors, and rurality on breast cancer screening behaviors in Ohio [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A151.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
The Urban-Rural Disparities and Associated Factors of Health Care Utilization Among Cancer Patients in China

Haipeng Wang,Xingxing Hua,Nengliang Yao,Nan Zhang,Jialin Wang,Roger Anderson,Xiaojie Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.842837

IF: 5.2

2022-03-04

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Objective This study aimed to examine the urban-rural disparities and associated factors of health care utilization among cancer patients in China. Methods This study used the data collected from a cross-sectional survey conducted in China. A total of 1,570 cancer survivors from three urban districts and five rural counties were selected by using a multistage stratified random sampling method. We measured health care utilization with the way of cancer diagnosis, the number of hospitals visited, and receiving alternative therapies. Chi-square test was used to examine the differences between urban and rural cancer patients. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the determinants of health care utilization. Results Among 1,570 participants, 84.1% were diagnosed with cancer after developing symptoms, 55.6% had visited two and above hospitals, and 5.7% had received alternative therapies. Compared with urban cancer patients, rural ones were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer after developing symptoms (χ2 = 40.04, p < 0.001), while they were less likely to visit more than one hospital (χ2 = 27.14, p < 0.001). Residence area (urban/rural), health insurance type, household income, age at diagnosis, tumor site, stage of tumor, and survival years were significantly associated with health care utilization of cancer patients ( p < 0.01). Conclusions Health care utilization was suboptimal among cancers patients in China. Rural cancer patients had less health care utilization including screenings and treatments than urban ones. Policymakers should implement specific strategies to ensure equitable utilization of cancer care. More attention should be paid to the disadvantaged groups and rural cancer patients. Prioritizing health resources allocation is needed to prevent, screen, and treat cancers in rural areas.

public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract A056: Assessment of environmental injustice in racial disparities of colorectal cancer mortality in metropolitan Detroit

Natalie G Snider,R. B. Buchalter,Theresa Hastert,Gregory Dyson,Carina Gronlund,Elena Stoffel,Laura Rozek,Ed Peters,Ann Schwartz,Kristen Purrington

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a056

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients face the highest colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rates in the US, heavily influenced by social determinants of health (SDOH). Neighborhood quality, a key SDOH, impacts both socioeconomic factors and exposure to cancer-related environmental contaminants. Thus, in studying the role of environmental justice on health outcomes it is crucial to account for the separate and combinatory effects of environmental and socioeconomic burden. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a comprehensive socio- environmental variable available at the census tract level called the Environmental Justice Index (EJI). The EJI utilizes 36 environmental, social, and health factors grouped into modules. We analyzed the EJI's social vulnerability module (SVM), environmental burden module (EBM), and the combined Social Environmental Score (SER) to assess the role of environmental injustice in CRC mortality by race. Patient data including census tract at diagnosis, demographics, and clinical features were obtained from the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System population-based cancer registry for 9727 NHW and 3778 NHB invasive CRC cases. The EJI SVM, EBM, and SER variables were linked to patients by census tract and converted to quartile-level variables, and mortality risk was evaluated for quartile 4 (highest burden) compared to quartile 1 (lowest burden). Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for demographics and clinical features, was used to estimate survival associations. We evaluated associations overall and stratified by race (Non-Hispanic White [NHW], NHB) and age of onset (<50, 50+). In nearly all models, we found all EJI variables increased the risk of mortality, with Hazard Ratios (HR) ranging from 1.02-2.89. SVM showed stronger effects overall compared to EBM, and most models showed similar effects among race and age groups in both overall and cancer-specific mortality. A notable exception to this was that NHB early onset (EO) patients showed an elevated risk of cancer-specific mortality due to EBM (HR=2.05, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.21-3.45, p=0.019) compared to SVM (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.58-1.88, p=0.88), and also compared to all EO EBM (HR=1.34, 95% CI=1.04-1.72, p=0.025) and NHW EO EBM (HR=1.25, 95% CI=0.83-1.89, p=0.29) patients. Additionally, cancer-specific mortality of EO patients with colon tumors specifically was highly elevated in both the EBM (HR=2.10, 95% CI=1.19-3.68, p=0.010) and SER (HR=2.89, 95% CI=1.55-5.36, p = 0.00081) models compared to all other groups and models. These results suggest that the combination of socio- environmental burdens contributes to racial disparities in CRC mortality in metropolitan Detroit, largely driven by social rather than environmental factors, except among NHB EOCRC where environmental factors appear to play a stronger role. Further analyses investigating the molecular implications of these exposures are needed to better understand the biological mechanisms driving tumor progression related to disparities among age and race. Citation Format: Natalie G Snider, R. B. Buchalter, Theresa Hastert, Gregory Dyson, Carina Gronlund, Elena Stoffel, Laura Rozek, Ed Peters, Ann Schwartz, Kristen Purrington. Assessment of environmental injustice in racial disparities of colorectal cancer mortality in metropolitan Detroit [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A056.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Point: the Power of Data to (mis)guide Policy to Improve Cancer Health Equity.

Melissa A. Simon,Laura S. Tom,XinQi Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2016.0110

IF: 12.6934

2016-01-01

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract:Health expenditures have been an ongoing topic of debate in many health policy spheres. This issue of JNCCN includes an article, “Wealth, Health Expenditure, and Cancer: A National Perspective” (see page 972), that aims to provide a national perspective on the complicated interplay of wealth, health expenditures, and their relationship to cancer screening. In this ecological study, the investigators calculated Spearman’s rank correlations to determine the association between financial indicators (gross domestic product [GDP] and health expenditure per capita) and cancer outcomes at the state level. The study found that only breast cancer mortality/ incidence ratios were significantly correlated with health expenditure; all-cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes were not. The investigators suggest that “findings represent evidence of regional disparities in terms of financial and cancer outcomes, indicating a potential inefficient allocation of resources in the efforts against cancer.” We, as scientists, have the opportunity to move the needle on cancer health equity. Some may argue that within this opportunity lies an underlying social responsibility to consider how science affects public conversations and policy decisions that shape our present and future society. The messages we send to consumers in our publications are scrutinized not only by the readers of scientific journals but also by the wider media. Media then frame the messages and subsequently distill them to policymakers, other leaders, and, most importantly, communities, including those who are differentially impacted by these messages. Our concern with this article is that in the absence of additional angles and levels of analyses, these ecological data provide a limited viewpoint that does little to advance the groundwork necessary for future policy development and policy implementation. We caution the readers in interpreting these data out of context. This article presents data that predate the Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation and the financial downturn experienced in the United States in 2008 and 2009. Studies have yet to fully illuminate the impact of the downturn and recovery from it and ACA implementation. The state-level data included in the study are also focused on broad health expenditures and not those specific to cancer. Variation within a state, especially among rural, suburban, and urban contexts and populations, are absent. Although conducting analyses at a more micro-level, such as county or city, would generate valuable findings, we understand this was outside the scope of this article’s intent. Therefore, as a whole, these data may not be indicative of the “here and now,” and we caution readers eager to use this study to extrapolate to the local level or to cancer-related health expenditures. Concrete illustrations of how this study’s findings may fall short of depicting the interplay of wealth and expenditures as it impacts cancer outcomes can be found in cities where local data contrast with state trends. For example, Chicago has a significant black:white mortality disparity in breast cancer. Where one lives does impact health, and in Chicago’s 77 community areas, there are major wealth and health expenditure differences in resource allocation at a community area level that can drive poor cancer outcomes. This picture might not be clear from reading the article. Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH
Disparities Contributing to Late-Stage Diagnosis of Lung, Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancers: Rural and Urban Poverty in Florida

Jaclyn M. Hall,Rahma S. Mkuu,Hee Deok Cho,Jennifer N. Woodard,Frederic J. Kaye,Jiang Bian,Elizabeth A. Shenkman,Yi Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15215226

2023-11-01

Cancers

Abstract:Despite advances in cancer screening, late-stage cancer diagnosis is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In this study, we aim to understand demographic and geographic factors associated with receiving a late-stage diagnosis (LSD) of lung, colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer. (1) Methods: We analyzed data of patients with a cancer diagnosis between 2016 and 2020 from the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS), a statewide population-based registry. To investigate correlates of LSD, we estimated multi-variable logistic regression models for each cancer while controlling for age, sex, race, insurance, and census tract rurality and poverty. (2) Results: Patients from high-poverty rural areas had higher odds for LSD of lung (OR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.10, 1.37)) and breast cancer (OR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.17,1.47)) than patients from low-poverty urban areas. Patients in high-poverty urban areas saw higher odds of LSD for lung (OR = 1.05 95% CI (1.00, 1.09)), breast (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (1.06, 1.14)), and cervical cancer (OR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.03, 1.37)). (3) Conclusions: Financial barriers contributing to decreased access to care likely drive LSD for cancer in rural and urban communities of Florida.

oncology
Abstract C009: Estimating the true contribution of rural residence and area deprivation on cancer mortality

Kelly Kenzik,Elizabeth Davis,Jeffrey Franks,Smita Bhatia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-c009

2023-12-02

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction True estimation of the rural effect on cancer mortality requires causal inference methodology, consideration of area-level socioeconomic status and examination of area designations (e.g., measurement of rural vs urban). Methods Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data we identified key incident cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2016 at age ≥20 (n=3,788,273). Cancer types were selected based on prior evidence of rural mortality disparities. A 20% random sample was examined (n=757,655). Rurality was defined using the Rural Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC). County indicators were linked with the Area Deprivation Index (ADI, 0 least deprived to 100 highest deprivation). Standardized competing risk and survival models estimated causal impact of rural residence on cancer-specific mortality. All models controlled for age at diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and ADI. We estimated rural residence and ADI's attributable fraction to the probability of mortality. Models were run overall and by stage. Finally, we identified county measurement issues contributing to county rates discordant from hypothesized mortality rates (i.e., urban counties with mortality>median or rural counties with mortality≤median). Results Approximately 45% were diagnosed ≥65y, 51% were female, 71% non-Hispanic white, and 12% non-Hispanic Black. Cancer diagnoses included those with screening recommendations (70%), obesity related (57%), and tobacco-related cancers (21%). The majority of patients were diagnosed with in situ or localized disease (53%). The 5y standardized failure probability for cancer-specific mortality for rural patients was 33.9% vs. 31.6% among urban. Rural + high ADI mortality was 37.9% vs. 30.7% for urban + low ADI. Rural residence attributable fraction to the probability of cancer mortality was 1.04% at Year 1, declining to 0.9% by Year 5. The rural fraction was highest among local stage disease (Y1 2.1% to Y5 1.9%). Attributable fraction of high ADI was 3.3% in Y1 to 2.9% in Y5, while the joint effect of rural+high ADI ranged from 4.3% in Y1 to 3.7% in Y5. Discordance between hypothesized and actual mortality was greater with urban/rural definitions vs ADI cut-offs (i.e., ADI distinguishes between high and low mortality better). Among 256 urban counties, 21.7% (n=89) had a higher mortality rate than hypothesized (mortality rate > median). Of those, 27 counties had no metropolitan area, but were "attached" to a nearby metro-area according to US Economic Research Service. When these 27 counties were reclassified as rural, the rural fraction was 1.4% at Y1 and 1.2% at Y5. This was a 35% and 26% relative increase, respectively. Among 349 rural counties, 15% had mortality rates higher than expected. Conclusion: Rural residence holds a small independent contribution to cancer mortality; higher among localized disease and in areas with greater deprivation. Urban/rural county designations using standard metrics may mask high need urban counties, limiting eligibility to state or federal resources dedicated to rural areas. Citation Format: Kelly Kenzik, Elizabeth Davis, Jeffrey Franks, Smita Bhatia. Estimating the true contribution of rural residence and area deprivation on cancer mortality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl) nr C009.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract A053: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a statewide breast and cervical cancer safety net screening and diagnostic program: Are there differences by rural – urban geography?

Leslie R. Carnahan,Ananya Stoller,William Barshop,Genevieve Rizzo,Arden Handler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a053

2023-01-10

Abstract:Background: COVID-19 disrupted the healthcare system and services across the cancer continuum. Early on, breast and cervical (B & C) screenings were effectively halted, and many diagnostic and treatment procedures delayed. Emerging evidence suggests that uninsured populations and patients of color were disproportionately affected, but less is known about rural-urban differences. The Illinois Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program (IBCCP), administered by agencies across 102 counties, provides screening and diagnostic services for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured persons. This study assesses the impact of COVID-19 on agencies' administrative functions and clients' ability to receive services, and to examine rural-urban differences. Methods: IBCCP coordinators were invited to complete an online survey that asked about COVID-19's effect on administrative functions and services at two different time periods, the height of the pandemic and in the past month (11/2021-12/2021). Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine differences between rural and urban agencies (classified by using the 2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme).Results: In total, 32 agencies (50% urban, 50% rural), responded. Concerning administrative functions, in the past month compared to at the height of the pandemic, fewer agencies overall reported that COVID-19 had a moderate to great impact (compared to occasional or no impact) on staffing (47% vs. 74%) and client enrollment (34% vs. 90%). Although not significant, more rural than urban agencies reported effects on staffing (56% vs. 38%) and enrollment (50% vs. 19%) in the past month. Concerning clients' ability to receive services, in the past month compared to the height of the pandemic, fewer agencies overall reported COVID-19 effects on screening (31% vs. 75%), diagnostic (19% vs. 61%), and treatment (3% vs. 38%) services. Some rural-urban differences were noted; at the height of the pandemic, urban agencies were more likely to report effects on diagnostic (88% vs. 33%, p=.002) and treatment (56% vs. 19%, p=.028) services when compared to rural. Although not significant, in the past month, more urban (vs. rural) agencies reported COVID-19 related effects on screening (44% vs. 19%), diagnostic (31% vs. 6%), and treatment (7% vs. 0%) services. Conclusion: Overall, agencies implementing this safety net program are generally rebounding from the pandemic's effect on administrative functions and clients' ability to receive services. However, rural and urban agencies may be differentially affected by the pandemic. For example, in the past month, a greater proportion of rural agencies reported effects on administrative functions Interestingly, more urban agencies reported lingering effects on clients' ability to receive screening and diagnostic services. These trends suggest that rural and urban agencies may be differentially affected by the pandemic and geographically tailored responses may best support recovery. Citation Format: Leslie R. Carnahan, Ananya Stoller, William Barshop, Genevieve Rizzo, Arden Handler. Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a statewide breast and cervical cancer safety net screening and diagnostic program: Are there differences by rural – urban geography? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr A053.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

Development of a glucose-6-phosphate biosensor based on coimmobilized p-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

Abstract B053: Rural-urban disparities in cancer risk factors and screening by United States census region

Rural–Urban Differences in Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States

Rural-Urban Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States, 2000-2019

Cancer Disparities in the Context of Rurality: Risk Factors and Screening Across Various U.S. Rural Classification Codes

Contribution of county characteristics to disparities in rural mortality after cancer diagnosis

Abstract C124: Identifying cancer disparities in the University of Chicago catchment area

Differences in cancer presentation, treatment, and mortality between rural and urban patients diagnosed with kidney cancer in the United States

Urban-Rural Disparities in Access to Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Missouri and Illinois

Factors contributing to differences in cervical cancer screening in rural and urban community health centers

Abstract 797: Area deprivation, rurality, healthcare utilization, quality of life, and health status among cancer patients

An exploration of the relationships between health promotion practices, health work, and felt stigma in families headed by adolescent mothers.

Rural-urban disparities in prostate cancer survival: A population-based study.

Estimating the Impact of Rurality in Disparities in Cancer Mortality

Abstract A151: Examining the influence of health insurance, socioeconomic factors, and rurality on breast cancer screening behaviors in Ohio

The Urban-Rural Disparities and Associated Factors of Health Care Utilization Among Cancer Patients in China

Abstract A056: Assessment of environmental injustice in racial disparities of colorectal cancer mortality in metropolitan Detroit

Point: the Power of Data to (mis)guide Policy to Improve Cancer Health Equity.

Disparities Contributing to Late-Stage Diagnosis of Lung, Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancers: Rural and Urban Poverty in Florida

Abstract C009: Estimating the true contribution of rural residence and area deprivation on cancer mortality

Abstract A053: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a statewide breast and cervical cancer safety net screening and diagnostic program: Are there differences by rural – urban geography?