Place of residence and primary treatment of prostate cancer: examining trends in rural and nonrural areas in Wisconsin

Understanding Disparities in Receipt of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery at a Small Geographic Scale

OBJECTIVE

To define neighborhood-level disparities in the receipt of complex cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the geographic variation of receipt of surgery among patients with complex gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, especially at a small geographic scale.

METHODS

This study included individuals diagnosed with 5 invasive, nonmetastatic, complex GI cancers (esophagus, stomach, pancreas, bile ducts, liver) from the Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System during 2009 and 2018. To preserve patient privacy, we combined US census tracts into the smallest geographic areas that included a minimum number of surgery cases (n=11) using the Max-p-regions method and called these new areas "MaxTracts." Age-adjusted surgery rates were calculated for MaxTracts, and the Hot Spot analysis identified clusters of high and low surgery rates. US Census and CDC PLACES were used to compare neighborhood characteristics between the high- and low-surgery clusters.

RESULTS

This study included 33,091 individuals with complex GI cancers located in 1006 MaxTracts throughout Ohio. The proportion in each MaxTract receiving surgery ranged from 20.7% to 92.3% with a median (interquartile range) of 48.9% (42.4-56.3). Low-surgery clusters were mostly in urban cores and the Appalachian region, whereas high-surgery clusters were mostly in suburbs. Low-surgery clusters differed from high-surgery clusters in several ways, including higher rates of poverty (23% vs. 12%), fewer married households (40% vs. 50%), and more tobacco use (25% vs. 19%; all P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This improved understanding of neighborhood-level variation in receipt of potentially curative surgery will guide future outreach and community-based interventions to reduce treatment disparities. Similar methods can be used to target other treatment phases and other cancers.

Trends in prostate cancer mortality in the United States of America, by state and race, from 1999 to 2019: estimates from the centers for disease control WONDER database

BACKGROUND

In the United States of America (USA), prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in men and the second cause of cancer mortality. Black men (BM) have a higher incidence and worse mortality when compared to white men (WM). We compared trends in PC mortality in the USA by race and state from 1999 to 2019.

METHODS

We extracted PC mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WONDER database using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10 code C61. Age-Standardized Mortality Rates (ASMR) were divided into racial groups and reported by year and state. Due to the lack of available data in many states, analyses were conducted only for WM and BM using Joinpoint regression for trend comparisons.

RESULTS

Between 1999-2019, ASMR decreased at the national level in Black (-44.6%), Asian (-44.8%), White (-31.8%), and American Indian or Alaskan native men (-19.0%). ASMR decreased in all states for both races. The greatest drop in ASMR was in Kentucky (-47.0%) for WM and Delaware (-57.8%) for BM. In 2019, ASMRs in BM (13.4/100 000) were significantly higher than WM (7.3/100 000), American Indian or Alaskan Native (3.2/100 000), and Asian men (3.2/100 000) (p < 0.001). The highest ASMRs were in Nebraska (33.5/100 000) for BM and Alaska (11/100 000) for WM.

CONCLUSIONS

During the last 20 years, the PC mortality rate dropped in all states for all races, suggesting an advancement in management strategies. Although a higher decrease in ASMR was observed in BM, ASMR remain higher among BM. ASMRs were also found to be increasing in many states post USPSTF guideline change (2012), indicating a need for more education around optimized prostate cancer screening.

Urban-Rural Variations in Quality of Care Among Patients With Cancer in California

INTRODUCTION

Previous research suggests cancer patients living in rural areas have lower quality of care, but population-based studies have yielded inconsistent results. This study examines the impact of rurality on care quality for 7 cancer types in California.

METHODS

Breast, ovarian, endometrial, cervix, colon, lung, and gastric cancer patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2017 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. Multivariable logistic regression and proportional hazards models were used to assess effects of residential location on quality of care and survival. Stratified models examined the impact of treatment at National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers (NCICCs). Quality of care was evaluated using Commission on Cancer measures. Medical Service Study Areas were used to assess urban/rural status. Data were collected in 2004-2019 and analyzed in 2020.

RESULTS

989,747 cancer patients were evaluated, with 14% living in rural areas. Rural patients had lower odds of receiving radiation after breast conserving surgery compared to urban residents. Colon and gastric cancer patients had 20% and 16% lower odds, respectively, of having optimal surgery. Rural patients treated at NCICCs had greater odds of recommended surgery for most cancer types. Survival was similar among urban and rural subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural residence was inversely associated with receipt of recommended surgery for gastric and colon cancer patients not treated at NCICCs, and for receiving recommended radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery regardless of treatment location. Further studies investigating the impact of care location and availability of supportive services on urban-rural differences in quality of care are warranted.

Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment.

RESULTS

Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.

Differences in Use of Aggressive Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in New York City

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic factors may impact how a patient is treated for prostate cancer (CaP). Our objective was to determine if county of residence or neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were associated with treatment for CaP in New York City (NYC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the NYSPACED database to identify men aged 40 to 80 years with localized CaP in NYC between 2004 and 2016. We categorized patients into receiving either aggressive local therapy (ALT) or non-aggressive treatment (NT). We identified borough of residence through NYSPACED and used Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) designation to define neighborhood characteristics using United States Census data. We hypothesized that differences exist in use of ALT according to county of residence and neighborhood characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to test the association between county of residence and ALT as well as between ALT and PUMA characteristics.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 40,668 patients. Overall, 80% had ALT, and 21% had NT. NT use increased over time from 16% in 2004 to 32% in 2016 (P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, patients in Manhattan were less likely to receive ALT compared with those in other boroughs (P < .001). PUMAs with lower education attainment, larger foreign-born populations, lower crime rate, and higher median income were significantly associated with receipt of ALT (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significant differences in use of treatment for men with newly diagnosed CaP in NYC. The ability to receive this treatment was associated with borough of residence as well as neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. Additional research is required to identify barriers in access to NT within NYC.

The Impact of Geographic Location on Saskatchewan Prostate Cancer Patient Treatment Choices: A Multilevel and Spatial Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the relationship between remoteness and the initial chosen treatment (active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW), radiation therapy (RT), surgery, chemotherapy (CT), or hormonal therapy (HT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

This study built 2 multilevel generalized linear models via a binomial link for each treatment type (one with only covariates and one with 2 additional study variables to the covariate model). The study also used cluster analysis using the Global and local Moran's I spatial statistics to find any complementary results to the above models.

RESULTS

This study found that patients living in the rural areas have lower odds (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001) of having surgery compared to patients living in the greater urban areas. Among patients whose closest PCa assessment center is Regina, patients living in the greater urban areas have higher odds (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68; P = .039) of choosing RT compared to patients living in the rural areas. There was no statistically significant effect of remoteness on whether one chose HT or AS/WW.

CONCLUSIONS

There are regional disparities to PCa treatment utilization. Living in rural areas affects choosing surgery and, in certain localized geographical regions, affects choosing RT. For non-curative treatments (ie, AS/WW and HT), we did not find any association with geographical remoteness.

Under Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Rural Locations

PURPOSE

Compared to urban populations, rural populations rank poorly on numerous health indicators, including cancer outcomes. We examined the relationship of rural residence with stage and treatment among patients with prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry we identified all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. Patients were classified as residing in a rural area, a large town or an urban area using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification. Our primary outcomes included indicators of prostate cancer treatment and treatment types but we also examined disease stage and mortality. We used the chi-square tests to assess differences between groups and estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between rural residence and treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 51,024 men diagnosed with localized or metastatic prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. The overall incidence of prostate cancer decreased during the study period from 416 to 304/100,000 men while the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 336 to 538/100,000. Rural residents were less likely to undergo treatment than urban residents even when stratified by low, intermediate and high risk disease (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89; and aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, respectively). Rural status did not affect the receipt of radiation therapy compared to other treatment types.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer treatment differs between urban and rural residents. Rural residents are less likely to receive treatment even when stratified by disease risk.

Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence

Background: Previous reviews of geographical disparities in the prostate cancer continuum from diagnosis to mortality have identified a consistent pattern of poorer outcomes with increasing residential disadvantage and for rural residents. However, there are no contemporary, systematic reviews summarizing the latest available evidence. Our objective was to systematically review the published international evidence for geographical variations in prostate cancer indicators by residential rurality and disadvantage.

Methods: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1/1/1998 to 30/06/2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult prostate cancer patients; outcome measure was PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, access to and use of services, survival, and prostate cancer mortality with quantitative results by residential rurality and/or disadvantage. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results: Overall 169 studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 50% were assessed as high quality and 50% moderate. Men from disadvantaged areas had consistently lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence, poorer survival, more advanced disease and a trend toward higher mortality. Although less consistent, predominant patterns by rurality were lower PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and survival, but higher stage disease and mortality among rural men. Both geographical measures were associated with variations in access and use of prostate cancer-related services for low to high risk disease.

Conclusions: This review found substantial evidence that prostate cancer indicators varied by residential location across diverse populations and geographies. While wide variations in study design limited comparisons across studies, our review indicated that internationally, men living in disadvantaged areas, and to a lesser extent more rural areas, face a greater prostate cancer burden. This review highlights the need for a better understanding of the complex social, environmental, and behavioral reasons for these variations, recognizing that, while important, geographical access is not the only issue. Implementing research strategies to help identify these processes and to better understand the central role of disadvantage to variations in health outcome are crucial to inform the development of evidence-based targeted interventions.

Does Travel Time to a Radiation Facility Impact Patient Decision-Making Regarding Treatment for Prostate Cancer? A Study of the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether further distance from a radiation center is associated with lower utilization of external beam radiation therapy (XRT).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer (CaP) within the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry from 2004 to 2011. Patients were categorized by age, D'Amico risk category, year of treatment, marital status, season of diagnosis, urban/rural residence, and driving time to the nearest radiation facility. Treatment decisions were stratified into those requiring multiple trips (XRT) or a single trip (surgery or brachytherapy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 4,731 patients underwent treatment for newly diagnosed CaP during the study period, including 1,575 multitrip (XRT) and 3,156 single-trip treatments. Of these, 87.6% lived within a 30-minute drive to a radiation facility. In multivariable analysis, time to the nearest radiation facility was not associated with treatment decisions (P = .26). However, higher risk category, older age, married status, and winter diagnosis were associated with XRT (P < .05). More recent year of diagnosis and urban residence were associated with single-trip therapy (primarily surgery) (P < .05). There was a significant interaction between travel time and season of diagnosis (P = .03), as well as a marginally significant interaction with urban/rural status (P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Overall, further travel time to a radiation facility was not associated with lower utilization of XRT. These data are encouraging regarding access to care for CaP in New Hampshire.

Geographical Factors Associated with Health Disparities in Prostate Cancer

Background

Treatment variation in prostate cancer is common, and it is driven by clinical and clinician factors, patient preferences, availability of resources, and access to physicians and treating facilities. Most research on treatment disparities in men with prostate cancer has focused on race and socioeconomic factors. However, the geography of disparities — capturing racial and socioeconomic differences based on where patients live — can provide insight into barriers to care and help identify outlier areas in which access to care, health resources, or both are more pronounced.

Methods

Research regarding treatment patterns and disparities in prostate cancer using the Geographical Information System (GIS) was searched. Studies were limited to English-language articles and research focused on US populations. A total of 43 articles were found; of those, 30 provided information about or used spatial or geographical analyses to assess and describe differences or disparities in prostate cancer and its treatment. Two additional GIS resources were included.

Results

The research on geographical and spatial determinants of prostate cancer disparities was reviewed. We also examined geographical analyses at the state level, focusing on Florida. Overall, we described a geographical framework to disparities that affect men with prostate cancer and reviewed existing published evidence supporting the interplay of geographical factors and disparities in prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Disparities in prostate cancer are common and persistent, and notable differences in treatment are observable across racial and socioeconomic strata. Geographical analysis provides additional information about where disparate groups live and also helps to map access to care. This information can be used by public health officials, health-systems administrators, clinicians, and policymakers to better understand and respond to geographical barriers that contribute to disparities in care.

Expectant management of veterans with early-stage prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

For certain men with low-risk prostate cancer, aggressive treatment results in marginal survival benefits while exposing them to urinary and sexual side effects. Nevertheless, expectant management has been underused. In the current study, the authors evaluated the association between various factors and expectant management use among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer.

METHODS

The authors identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008. The outcome of interest was use of expectant management, based on documentation captured through an in-depth chart review. Multivariable regression models were fit to examine associations between use of expectant management and patient demographics, cancer severity, and facility characteristics. The authors assessed variation across 21 tertiary care regions and 52 facilities by generating predicted probabilities for receipt of expectant management.

RESULTS

Expectant management was more common among patients aged ≥75 years (40% vs 27% for those aged < 55 years; odds ratio, 2.57) and those with low-risk tumors (49% vs 20% for patients with high-risk tumors; odds ratio, 5.35). There was no association noted between patient comorbidity and receipt of expectant management (P = .90). There were also no associations found between facility factors and use of expectant management (all P>.05). Among ideal candidates for expectant management, receipt of expectant management varied considerably across individual facilities (0%-85%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient age and tumor risk were found to be more strongly associated with use of expectant management than patient comorbidity. Although use of expectant management appears broadly appropriate, there was variation in expectant management noted between hospitals that was apparently not attributable to facility factors. Research determining the basis of this variation, with a focus on providers, will be critical to help optimize prostate cancer treatment for veterans.

Rural residence and cancer outcomes in the United States: issues and challenges

"Neighborhoods and health" research has shown that area social factors are associated with the health outcomes that patients with cancer experience across the cancer control continuum. To date, most of this research has been focused on the attributes of urban areas that are associated with residents' poor cancer outcomes with less focused on attributes of rural areas that may be associated with the same. Perhaps because there is not yet a consensus in the United States regarding how to define "rural," there is not yet an accepted analytic convention for studying issues of how patients' cancer outcomes may vary according to "rural" as a contextual attribute. The research that exists reports disparate findings and generally treats rural residence as a patient attribute rather than a contextual factor, making it difficult to understand what factors (e.g., unmeasured individual poverty, area social deprivation, area health care scarcity) may be mediating the poor outcomes associated with rural (or non-rural) residence. Here, we review literature regarding the potential importance of rural residence on cancer patients' outcomes in the United States with an eye towards identifying research conventions (i.e., spatial and analytic) that may be useful for future research in this important area.