Unequal Resource Distribution Underlies Lung Cancer Disparities

M. Alexander Otto

September 13, 2021

Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.

Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as "avoidable differences" – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.

He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has "the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery."

Better to look at the big picture. "We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers," he said.

Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.

Osarogiagbon's own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.

Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.

One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.

"There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities," Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,

It's not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.

Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.

But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be "no race-based disparities" in trial participation, he said.

It's also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.

It's something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Osarogiagbon said.

Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it's offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.

"Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status," they found.

Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.

This article originally appeared on MDedge.com, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE
Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.
Post as:

processing....