Characteristics Associated With Nonreceipt of Surveillance Testing and the Relationship With Survival in Stage II and III Colon Cancer

"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

Racial Disparities in the Management of Locoregional Colorectal Cancer

Racial disparities pervade nearly all aspects of management of locoregional colorectal cancer, including time to treatment, receipt of resection, adequacy of resection, postoperative complications, and receipt of neoadjuvant and adjuvant multimodality therapies. Disparate gaps in treatment translate into enduring effects on survivorship, recurrence, and mortality. Efforts to reduce these gaps in care must be undertaken on a multilevel basis and focus on modifiable factors that underlie racial disparity.

Association of race and health insurance in treatment disparities of colon cancer: A retrospective analysis utilizing a national population database in the United States

BACKGROUND

Both health insurance status and race independently impact colon cancer (CC) care delivery and outcomes. The relative importance of these factors in explaining racial and insurance disparities is less clear, however. This study aimed to determine the association and interaction of race and insurance with CC treatment disparities.

STUDY SETTING

Retrospective cohort review of a prospective hospital-based database.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this cross-sectional study, patients diagnosed with stage I to III CC in the United States were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB; 2006 to 2016). Multivariable regression with generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were performed to evaluate the association of insurance and race/ethnicity with odds of receipt of surgery (stage I to III) and adjuvant chemotherapy (stage III), with an additional 2-way interaction term to evaluate for effect modification. Confounders included sex, age, median income, rurality, comorbidity, and nodes and margin status for the model for chemotherapy. Of 353,998 patients included, 73.8% (n = 261,349) were non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 11.7% (n = 41,511) were non-Hispanic Black (NHB). NHB patients were less likely to undergo resection [odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 0.72, p < 0.001] or to receive adjuvant chemotherapy [OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.87, p < 0.001] compared to NHW patients. NHB patients with private or Medicare insurance were less likely to undergo resection [OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91, p = 0.004 (private insurance); OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.66, p < 0.001 (Medicare)] and to receive adjuvant chemotherapy [0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, p < 0.001 (private insurance); OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91, p < 0.001 (Medicare)] compared to similarly insured NHW patients. Although Hispanic patients with private and Medicare insurance were also less likely to undergo surgical resection, this was not the case with adjuvant chemotherapy. This study is mainly limited by the retrospective nature and by the variables provided in the dataset; granular details such as continuity or disruption of insurance coverage or specific chemotherapy agents or dosing cannot be assessed within NCDB.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that racial disparities in receipt of treatment for CC persist even among patients with similar health insurance coverage and that different disparities exist for different racial/ethnic groups. Changes in health policy must therefore recognize that provision of insurance alone may not eliminate cancer treatment racial disparities.

The impact of socioeconomic status on survival in stage III colon cancer patients: A retrospective cohort study using the SEER census-tract dataset

Background

The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) has been described for screening and accessing treatment for colon cancer. However, little is known about the “downstream” effect in patients who receive guideline‐concordant treatment. This study assessed the impact of SES on cancer‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) for stage III colon cancer patients.

Methods

The SEER Census Tract‐Level SES Dataset from 2004 to 2015 was used to identify stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients who received curative‐intent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The predictor variable was census tract SES. SES was analyzed as quintiles. The outcome variables were OR and CSS. Statistical analysis included chi square tests for association, Kaplan–Meier, Cox, Fine and Gray regression for survival analysis.

Results

In total, 27,222 patients met inclusion criteria. Lower SES was associated with younger age, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, Medicaid/uninsured, higher T stage, and lower grade tumors. CSS at the 25th percentile was 54 months for the lowest SES quintile and 80 for the highest. Median OS was 113 months for the lowest SES quintile and not reached for highest. The 5‐year CSS rate was 72.4% for the lowest SES quintile compared to 78.9% in the highest (p < 0.001). The 5‐year OS rate was 66.5% for the lowest SES quintile and 74.6% in the highest (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This is the first study to evaluate CSS and OS in an incidence‐based cohort of stage III colon cancer patients using a granular, standardized measure of SES. Despite receipt of guideline‐based treatment, SES was associated with disparities in CSS and OS.

Follow-up surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors of different sexual orientations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance.

METHODS

An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test.

RESULTS

About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.