Sepideh Saghari1, Mark Ghamsary1, Ariane Marie-Mitchell2, Keiji Oda1, John W Morgan3. 1. School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA. 3. School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA; SEER Cancer Registry of Greater California and Desert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program, Loma Linda, CA. Electronic address: John.w.morgan@att.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate and distinguish roles of sociodemographic predictors for delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: Demographic variables for 13,624 cervical cancers having complete data for age at diagnosis (4 categories), race and ethnicity (4 categories), socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles, and marital status (3 categories) were extracted from the California Cancer Registry database for the period 1996 to 2005 and analyzed using multiple logistic regression as predictors of delayed- versus early-stage diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of cervical cancers were among women younger than 50 years, compared with 46% of delayed-stage cases. Independent odds of delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer were higher for older age categories within each race and ethnic group. Declining odds of delayed- versus early-stage diagnosis were evident for increasing SES quintiles among Asian or other (trend P = .015), non-Hispanic black (P = .024), Hispanic (P = .001), and non-Hispanic white (P = .001) women. Odds of delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer were highest among unmarried compared with married women. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support evidence that older age, low SES, and unmarried status predict delayed-stage cervical cancer diagnosis in each of the four major race and ethic groups. The two lowest SES quintiles independently identified larger percentages of delayed-stage cervical cancers in each of the race and ethnicity groups assessed, particularly among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women.
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate and distinguish roles of sociodemographic predictors for delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: Demographic variables for 13,624 cervical cancers having complete data for age at diagnosis (4 categories), race and ethnicity (4 categories), socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles, and marital status (3 categories) were extracted from the California Cancer Registry database for the period 1996 to 2005 and analyzed using multiple logistic regression as predictors of delayed- versus early-stage diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of cervical cancers were among women younger than 50 years, compared with 46% of delayed-stage cases. Independent odds of delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer were higher for older age categories within each race and ethnic group. Declining odds of delayed- versus early-stage diagnosis were evident for increasing SES quintiles among Asian or other (trend P = .015), non-Hispanic black (P = .024), Hispanic (P = .001), and non-Hispanic white (P = .001) women. Odds of delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer were highest among unmarried compared with married women. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support evidence that older age, low SES, and unmarried status predict delayed-stage cervical cancer diagnosis in each of the four major race and ethic groups. The two lowest SES quintiles independently identified larger percentages of delayed-stage cervical cancers in each of the race and ethnicity groups assessed, particularly among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women.
Authors: Tony Y Eng; Tiffany Chen; Jill Vincent; Abhilasha J Patel; Virginia Clyburn; Chul S Ha Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2016-03-11
Authors: Mohammed Al-Azri; Aziza Al-Maskari; Salma Al-Matroushi; Huda Al-Awisi; Robin Davidson; Sathiya Murthi Panchatcharam; Abdullah Al-Maniri Journal: Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol Date: 2016-11-03
Authors: Hiroko Machida; Erin A Blake; Sarah E Eckhardt; Tsuyoshi Takiuchi; Brendan H Grubbs; Mikio Mikami; Lynda D Roman; Koji Matsuo Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Frances B Maguire; Julianne J P Cooley; Cyllene R Morris; Arti Parikh-Patel; Vanessa A Kennedy; Theresa H M Keegan Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Rohini Chakravarthy; Sarah C Stallings; Digna R Velez Edwards; Sifang Kathy Zhao; Douglas Conway; J Sunil Rao; Melinda C Aldrich; Erin Kobetz; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 2.341