PURPOSE: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among lesbians/gays and bisexuals (LGBs) is lacking. Recent studies showed that LGBs have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts. Few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We, therefore, investigated the association between sexual orientation and prevalent sex-specific cancer including prostate (PCa), breast (BC), and cervical (CC) cancer. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18 + from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database between 2017 and 2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and LGB men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. RESULTS: Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 LGB men and women, respectively. LGBs were younger and less likely to be screened for PCa, BC, and CC than heterosexuals. A higher proportion of heterosexual women than lesbian and bisexual women were screened for CC with pap smears (95.36% vs. 90.48% and 86.11%, p ≤ 0.001) and BC with mammograms (80.74% vs. 63.81% and 45.37%, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, a higher proportion of heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men were screened for PCa with PSA blood tests (41.27% vs. 30.53% and 27.58%, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: There were more heterosexuals than LGBs screened for CC, BC, and PCa. However, no association between sexual orientation and cancer diagnosis was found. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to improve cancer screening among LGBs.
PURPOSE: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among lesbians/gays and bisexuals (LGBs) is lacking. Recent studies showed that LGBs have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts. Few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We, therefore, investigated the association between sexual orientation and prevalent sex-specific cancer including prostate (PCa), breast (BC), and cervical (CC) cancer. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18 + from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database between 2017 and 2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and LGB men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. RESULTS: Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 LGB men and women, respectively. LGBs were younger and less likely to be screened for PCa, BC, and CC than heterosexuals. A higher proportion of heterosexual women than lesbian and bisexual women were screened for CC with pap smears (95.36% vs. 90.48% and 86.11%, p ≤ 0.001) and BC with mammograms (80.74% vs. 63.81% and 45.37%, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, a higher proportion of heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men were screened for PCa with PSA blood tests (41.27% vs. 30.53% and 27.58%, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: There were more heterosexuals than LGBs screened for CC, BC, and PCa. However, no association between sexual orientation and cancer diagnosis was found. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to improve cancer screening among LGBs.
Authors: Vickie M Mays; Antronette K Yancey; Susan D Cochran; Mark Weber; Jonathan E Fielding Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J M Walboomers; M V Jacobs; M M Manos; F X Bosch; J A Kummer; K V Shah; P J Snijders; J Peto; C J Meijer; N Muñoz Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Karen I Fredriksen-Goldsen; Hyun-Jun Kim; Susan E Barkan; Anna Muraco; Charles P Hoy-Ellis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Chandra L Jackson; Madina Agénor; Dayna A Johnson; S Bryn Austin; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 3.295