Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 3/2013

01-03-2013 | Original paper

An examination of sexual orientation group patterns in mammographic and colorectal screening in a cohort of U.S. women

Authors: S. Bryn Austin, Mathew J. Pazaris, Lauren P. Nichols, Deborah Bowen, Esther K. Wei, Donna Spiegelman

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Underutilization of cancer screening has been found especially to affect socially marginalized groups. We investigated sexual orientation group patterns in breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Methods

Data on breast and colorectal cancer screening, sexual orientation, and sociodemographics were gathered prospectively from 1989 through 2005 from 85,759 U.S. women in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Publicly available data on state-level healthcare quality and sexual-orientation-related legal protections were also gathered. Multivariable models were used to estimate sexual orientation group differences in breast and colorectal cancer screening, controlling for sociodemographics and state-level healthcare quality and legal protections for sexual minorities.

Results

Receipt of a mammogram in the past 2 years was common though not universal and differed only slightly by sexual orientation: heterosexual 84 %, bisexual 79 %, and lesbian 82 %. Fewer than half of eligible women had ever received a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, and rates did not differ by sexual orientation: heterosexual 39 %, bisexual 39 %, and lesbian 42 %. In fully adjusted models, state-level healthcare quality score, though not state-level legal protections for sexual minorities, was positively associated with likelihood of being screened for all women regardless of sexual orientation.

Conclusions

Concerns have been raised that unequal healthcare access for sexual orientation minorities may adversely affect cancer screening. We found small disparities in mammography and none in colorectal screening, though adherence to colorectal screening recommendations was uniformly very low. Interventions are needed to increase screening in women of all sexual orientation groups, particularly in areas with poor healthcare policies.
Literature
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention USCSWG (2010) United States cancer statistics: 1997–2007 incidence and mortality web-based report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: www.​cdc.​gov/​uscs
2.
Jonsson H, Bordas P, Wallin H, Nystrom L, Lenner P (2007) Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality—an update. J Med Screen 14(2):87–93PubMedCrossRef
3.
Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L et al (2006) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368(9552):2053–2060PubMedCrossRef
4.
Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN et al (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM (2008) Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 149(9):659–669PubMed
6.
7.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151:716–726
8.
Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW (2010) Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 60(2):99–119PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Vital signs: breast cancer screening among women aged 50–74 years—United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 59(26):813–816
11.
Valanis BG, Bowen DJ, Bassford T, Whitlock E, Charney P, Carter RA (2000) Sexual orientation and health: comparisons in the Women’s Health Initiative sample. Arch Fam Med 9(9):843–853PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kerker BD, Mostashari F, Thorpe L (2006) Health care access and utilization among women who have sex with women: sexual behavior and identity. J Urban Health 83(5):970–979PubMedCrossRef
13.
Cochran SD, Mays VM, Bowen D, Gage S, Bybee D, Roberts SJ et al (2001) Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. Am J Public Health 91(4):591–597PubMedCrossRef
14.
Brandenburg DL, Matthews AK, Johnson TP, Hughes TL (2007) Breast cancer risk and screening: a comparison of lesbian and heterosexual women. Women Health 45(4):109–130PubMedCrossRef
15.
Conron KJ, Mimiaga MJ, Landers SJ (2010) A population-based study of sexual orientation identity and gender differences in adult health. Am J Public Health 100(10):1953–1960PubMedCrossRef
16.
Brown JP, Tracy JK (2008) Lesbians and cancer: an overlooked health disparity. Cancer Causes Control 19(10):1009–1020PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
19.
Trivers KF, Shaw KM, Sabatino SA, Shapiro JA (2008) Trends in colorectal cancer screening disparities in people aged 50–64 years, 2000–2005. Am J Prev Med 35(3):185–193PubMedCrossRef
20.
Eskridge WN, Spedale D (2006) Gay marriage: for better or for worse?. Oxford University Press, Oxford
21.
Badgett MVL (2006) Discrimination based on sexual orientation: a review of the literature in economics and beyond. In: Rodgers WMI (ed) Handbook on the economics of discrimination. Edward Elgar Publishers, Inc., Northampton, pp 161–186
22.
Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM, Hasin DS (2009) State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Am J Public Health 99(12):2275–2281PubMedCrossRef
23.
Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin KA, Keyes KM, Hasin DS (2010) The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: a prospective study. Am J Public Health 100:452–459PubMedCrossRef
24.
Case P, Austin SB, Hunter DJ, Manson JE, Malspeis S, Willett WC et al (2004) Sexual orientation, health risk factors, and physical functioning in the Nurses’ Health Study II. J Women’s Health 13(9):1033–1047CrossRef
25.
Holmes MD, Stampfer MJ, Wolf AM, Jones CP, Spiegelman D, Manson JE et al (1998) Can behavioral risk factors explain the difference in body mass index between African-American and European-American women? Ethn Dis Autumn 8(3):331–339
26.
27.
Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E (2005) Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol 162(3):199–200PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zou G (2004) A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159(7):702–706PubMedCrossRef
29.
Jillson IA (2002) Opening closed doors: improving access to quality health services for LGBT populations. Clin Res Regul Aff 19(2/3):153CrossRef
30.
Butler AC (2005) Gender differences in the prevalence of same-sex sexual partnering: 1988–2002. Soc Forces 84(1):421–449CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An examination of sexual orientation group patterns in mammographic and colorectal screening in a cohort of U.S. women
Authors
S. Bryn Austin
Mathew J. Pazaris
Lauren P. Nichols
Deborah Bowen
Esther K. Wei
Donna Spiegelman
Publication date
01-03-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-012-9991-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Cancer Causes & Control 3/2013 Go to the issue

Original paper

Indoor air pollution and risk of lung cancer among Chinese female non-smokers

Letter to the Editor

An hypothesis on the presumed association between thyroid goiter and gastric cancer

Original paper

Case–control study of lifetime alcohol intake and prostate cancer risk

Original paper

Self-reported side effects of breast cancer treatment: a cross-sectional study of incidence, associations, and the influence of exercise

Original paper

Association between habitual dietary flavonoid and lignan intake and colorectal cancer in a Spanish case–control study (the Bellvitge Colorectal Cancer Study)

Original Paper

Baseline E2 levels are higher in BRCA2 mutation carriers: a potential target for prevention?
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits