Cervical cancer disparities in stage at presentation for disaggregated Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.

BACKGROUND

Over 20 million people in the United States identified as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander in 2022. Despite the diversity of immigration histories, lived experiences, and health needs within the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander community, prior studies in cervical cancer have considered this group in aggregate.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to analyze disparities in cervical cancer stage at presentation in the United States, focusing on disaggregated Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the United States National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2020 of 122,926 patients newly diagnosed with cervical cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander patients were disaggregated by country of origin. Logistic regression, adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic factors, was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios. Higher adjusted odds ratios indicate an increased likelihood of metastatic versus nonmetastatic disease at diagnosis.

RESULTS

Out of 122,926 patients with cervical cancer, 5142 (4.2%) identified as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. Compared to non-Hispanic White patients, pooled Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander patients presented at lower stages of cancer (non-Hispanic White: 58.7% diagnosed local/regional, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander : 85.6% at local/regional, χ2 P<.001). The largest Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander subgroups included Filipino Americans (n=1051, 20.4% of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander), Chinese Americans (n=995, 19.4%), Asian Indian/Pakistani Americans (n=711, 13.8%), Vietnamese Americans (n=627, 12.2%), and Korean Americans (n=550, 10.7%) respectively. Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander disaggregation revealed that Pacific Islander American patients had higher odds of presenting with metastatic disease (adjusted odds ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.21-2.06, P=.001) relative to non-Hispanic White patients. Conversely, Chinese American (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.59, P<.001), Vietnamese American (adjusted odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.70, P<.001), Hmong American (adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.97, P=.040), and Indian/Pakistani American (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.94, P=.013) patients were less likely to present with metastatic disease. Compared to the largest Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander group (Chinese American), 9 other subgroups were more likely to present with metastatic disease. The largest differences were observed in Pacific Islander American (adjusted odds ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval 2.41-4.91, P<.001), Thai American (adjusted odds ratio 2.79, 95% confidence interval 1.41-5.53, P=.003), Kampuchean American (adjusted odds ratio 2.39, 95% confidence interval 1.29-4.42, P=.006), Native Hawaiian American (adjusted odds ratio 2.23, 95% confidence interval 1.37-3.63, P=.001), and Laotian American (adjusted odds ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.13-3.61, P=.017). In contrast, Vietnamese American (adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.71, P=.303), and Hmong American (adjusted odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.50-2.37, P=.828) patients did not show a statistically significant difference in presenting with metastatic disease compared to Chinese American patients.

CONCLUSION

Aggregated evaluation of the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander monolith masks disparities in outcomes for distinct populations at risk for equity gaps. This disaggregation study shows that marginalized groups within the larger Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander population-including Pacific Islander American and Thai American patients-may face different exposures and larger structural barriers to cancer screening and early-stage diagnosis. A future focus on community-based disaggregated research and tailored interventions is necessary to close these gaps.