Background: Many rural-urban indexes are utilized in United States cancer research. This variation introduces inconsistencies between studies with a rural-urban component. Recommendations to date on which index to utilize have prioritized index geographical unit over feasibility of index inclusion in analysis. We evaluated rural-urban indexes and recommend one index for use to increase comparability across studies. Methods: We assessed nine U.S. rural-urban indexes regarding their respective rural and urban code ranges; geographical unit, land area, and population distributions; percent agreement; suitability as continuous variables in analysis; and feasibility of integration into national, state, and local cancer research. We referenced 1,569 Wisconsin Pancreatic Cancer Registry patients to demonstrate how rural-urban index choice impacts patient categorization. Results: Six indexes categorized rural and urban areas. Indexes agreed on binary rural-urban designation for 88.8% of the U.S. population. As ternary variables, they agreed for 83.4%. For cancer registry patients, this decreased to 73.4% and 60.4% agreement, respectively. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) performed the best with ability to differentiate metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties, are available for retrospective and prospective studies, and can be coded continuously for analysis. Conclusions: Whether a patient was categorized as urban or rural changed depending on which index was used when applied to a cancer registry data set. We conclude that RUCC is an appropriate and feasible rural-urban index to include in cancer research, as it is standardly available in national cancer registries in its 9-code format and can be matched to patient’s county of residence for local research and it had the least amount of fluctuation of the indices analyzed. Utilizing RUCC as a continuous variable across studies with a rural-urban component will increase reproducibility and comparability of results and eliminate the choice of rural-urban index as a potential source of discrepancy between studies. Trial registration: Not applicable
e19063 Background: Trends in oncology examine the influence of rural characteristics on cancer patient (pt) treatment and outcomes. Current definitions of rurality are broad and varied, with multiple standardized definitions. Few analyses exist to compare definitions and quality in assessing oncologic outcomes. We aim to determine which index is most suitable to define rurality in cancer research. Methods: 1,567 pancreatic cancer pts from the University of Wisconsin Cancer Registry, representing 84 Midwestern counties and 452 zip codes, were assigned rurality codes based on three indices spanning 1983-2013: Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC), Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCA), and Index of Relative Rurality (IRR). RUCC and IRR were assigned to pts at the county level and RUCA at the zip level. Pt rurality was compared across the three indices and over time via the median and interquartile range and inspected visually with violin plots. We compared indices with Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation (SROC). Results: RUCC 2003, RUCA 2004 (zip), and IRR 2000 were concordant in terms of metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural designations for 66.9% (1,049) of pancreatic cancer registry pts. The rural designation for almost one-third (489, 31.2%) of pts was discordant by one or two levels across the three indices (i.e. classified as metropolitan in one index and micropolitan or rural in another). SROC was 0.73 between RUCC 2003 and RUCA 2004 (zip) indices, 0.82 between IRR 2000 and RUCA 2004 (zip), and 0.85 between RUCC 2003 and IRR 2000. Across the 84 counties of registry pts’ residence, the median and interquartile range of RUCC decreased from 6 (3-7) in 1983 to 4 (2.25-6) in 2013 and of IRR decreased from 0.49 (0.44-0.53) in 2000 to 0.49 (0.43-0.53) in 2010. Across the 452 zip codes, RUCA decreased from 4 (1-10) in 1998 to 3 (1-8) in 2004. Pts’ median RUCC decreased from 3 (2-6) in 1983 to 3 (2-4) in 2013, median RUCA (zip) decreased from 2 (1-7) in 1990 to 1 (1-6) in 2000, and IRR remained constant at 0.42 (0.38-0.49) in 2000 and 2010. Conclusions: RUCC is preferable for state-level cancer studies incorporating rurality as it best distributes pts across the rural-urban interface compared to RUCA (skews urban) and IRR (skews central). County boundaries (RUCC) are consistent over time versus zip (RUCA) and census tract (RUCA). Our findings suggest that while the extremes of rural and urban are well-defined, rurality as a continuum is inconsistently measured. Researchers should continue to incorporate other measures of vulnerability to achieve health equity.
Background: Socioeconomic-based treatment disparities are well-documented in pancreatic cancer in the United States. Studies have found treatment disparities by race and ethnicity, insurance, income, sex, and age. We examined 14 years of pancreatic cancer intended first course treatment data in a Midwestern state to identify state-specific disparities. Methods: Data from 8,416 pancreatic cancer patients aged over 18 diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, NOS or infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS from 2004 to 2017 were obtained from the Wisconsin Cancer Reporting System. Adjusted logistic regression was performed to describe the association between patient characteristics and intended first course treatment. Treatment was defined as radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery, alone or in combination. The analysis was completed for all patients. It was repeated for the subset of 5,005 Medicare Patients to examine disparities by Medicare subtype. Race/ethnicity, sex, rurality, and insurance were factors of interest. Age and stage at diagnosis were included as confounders. Results: The mean overall survival of the 8,416 patients was 9.9 months. 70.5% of patients received treatment. 53% of patients were diagnosed with metastatic disease. The adjusted odds ratio of receiving treatment was 0.52 (0.41-0.65) for Non-Hispanic Black patients, 0.46 (0.24- 0.88) for Non-Hispanic Asian patients, and 0.46 (0.22-0.94) for patients categorized as ‘Other’ race/ethnicity compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. The adjusted odds ratio of receiving treatment was 0.90 (0.81-1.00) for female compared to male patients. The adjusted odds ratio of receiving treatment was 0.40 (0.29-0.54) for Medicaid patients, 0.80 (0.66-0.97) for Medicare patients, 0.44 (0.32-0.61) for Military patients, 0.18 (0.09-0.35) for Not Insured patients, and 0.24 (0.15-0.39) for Self Pay patients compared to Private Insurance patients. Among the 5,005 Medicare patients, the adjusted odds ratio of receiving treatment was 0.49 (0.35-0.68) for Non-Hispanic Black compared to Non-Hispanic White patients, 0.86 (0.76-0.98) for female compared to male patients, and 0.45 (0.33-0.62) for Medicare with Medicaid eligibility compared to Medicare, NOS patients. The adjusted odds ratio of receiving treatment was 1.42 (1.19-1.69) for Medicare patients with a supplement, NOS, 1.36 (1.11-1.66) for Medicare patients where Medicare was administered via a managed care plan, and 1.38 (1.13-1.70) for Medicare patients with a private supplement compared to Medicare, NOS patients. Rurality was not associated with treatment in either model. Conclusions: Significant race/ethnicity, sex, and insurance-based treatment disparities exist amongst Wisconsin pancreatic cancer patients. Future studies should investigate the contribution of social, clinician, and healthcare system factors that impact inequitable access to, inconsistent presentation of, and underutilization of treatment for people of color, women, and publicly insured or uninsured patients. Citation Format: Andrea M. Schiefelbein, Amy K. Taylor, Yana Puckett, Jienian Zhang, John K. Krebsbach, John M. Hampton, Amy Trentham- Dietz, Melissa C. Skala, Sharon M. Weber, John M. Eason, Noelle K. LoConte. Treatment inequity: Examining the influence of race and ethnicity, sex, and insurance on pancreatic cancer care [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-105.
e18524 Background: Treatment and survival disparities faced by Medicaid patients are documented for pancreatic, colon-rectosigmoid, and liver cancers at a national level. Studies show these disparities persist at academic medical centers. We assessed Medicaid treatment and survival outcomes among University of Wisconsin-Health (UWH) pancreatic, colon-rectosigmoid, and liver cancer patients to determine whether national trends persisted at this academic medical center. Methods: We included UWH registry data for 1567 pancreatic, 2313 colon-rectosigmoid, and 1027 liver cancer patients ages 18+ from 2004-2016. We performed multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) to assess insurance disparities in intended resection and Cox Proportional regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) to assess all-cause mortality disparities for each cancer, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, BMI, comorbidity, stage, rurality, and insurance. Results: Median overall survival was 6.5 months (range 0.1-147.5) for pancreatic, 12.8 months (0.1-167.5) for colon-rectosigmoid, and 12.5 months (0.1-168.7) for liver cancer patients. 3% of pancreatic, 5% of colon-rectosigmoid, and 9% of liver cancer patients had Medicaid Insurance. Medicaid patients were less likely to be older and non-Hispanic White than private insurance (private) patients for each cancer. Medicaid patients were diagnosed with more distant disease for colon-rectosigmoid and liver cancers and less distant disease for pancreatic cancer. Medicaid patients were less likely to receive surgery vs private patients for pancreatic (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.08) and liver (OR 0.62, 0.26-1.49) cancers, though confidence intervals were wide. Insurance was not associated with surgery in colon-rectosigmoid cancer patients (OR 0.97, 0.48-1.97). Medicaid patients had a higher risk of death vs private patients for colon rectosigmoid cancer (HR 1.50, 1.12-2.01). Risk of death was modestly elevated for Medicaid vs private patients for pancreatic (HR 1.35, 0.97-1.87) but not liver (HR 1.07, 0.77-1.48) cancer. Conclusions: Medicaid pancreatic and liver cancer patients may be less likely to receive surgery than private patients in our one center study. Results suggested that Medicaid pancreatic and colon-rectosigmoid cancer patients may have a slightly elevated risk of death vs private patients, though this needs confirmation in larger samples. Future studies should explore at which local, state, and regional levels Medicaid pancreatic, colon-rectosigmoid, and liver cancer patients experience treatment and survival disparities vs private insurance patients. These studies, combined with Medicaid expansion studies, can guide healthcare leaders and policy makers to design context-appropriate interventions to reduce insurance-related disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes.
e15554 Background: The South Asian population in America is growing. Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers amongst South Asian Americans (SAA), however few studies have looked at differential presentation, treatment, and outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare differences in presentations, and investigate disparities in treatment and overall survival (OS) amongst SAAs compared with non-Hispanic whites (NHW). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with colon or rectal adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) years 2004-2020. We compared differences in patient demographics, socioeconomics, stage at presentation, and treatments received between SAA and NHW populations using chi square, and t tests as applicable. OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression stratified by stage was used to compare OS between the two groups. Results: We analyzed data from 773,223 NHW and 3,448 SAA patients with colon cancer (CC) and 285,769 NHW and 1,826 SAA patients with RC. At presentation SAAs were younger (61.2 years vs 69.2 years, p<0.001 for CC, and 57.9 vs 63.9, p<0.001 for RC), less likely to have government insurance (44.1% vs 64.1%, p<0.001 for CC, and 35.4% vs 50.6%, p<0.001 for RC), more likely to be living in metropolitan areas (97.9% vs 83.2%, p<0.001 for CC, and 97.4% vs 81.0%, p<0.001 for RC), and more likely to have advanced stages of disease (47.4% vs 42.7%, p<0.001 for CC, and 40.9% vs 38.9%, p<0.001 for RC). SAAs had significantly longer delay in receipt of surgical intervention or radiation therapy (p <0.001) and were less likely to receive surgery for stage 4 for CC (54.6% vs 60.5%, p<0.001). On multivariate cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, insurance status, urban/rural location, and comorbid conditions, SAAs with either colon or rectal cancer were more likely to survive across all cancer stages (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this national study, when compared to NHW patients, SAA patients with CRC, present at younger ages and with more aggressive disease. Despite SAAs being less likely to receive timely cancer care, they have better overall survival. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.