Under Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Rural Locations

RISING MORTALITY RELATED TO CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND PROSTATE CANCER AMONGST OLDER MEN ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

OBJECTIVE

There is a significant association between cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and prostate cancer (PCa), leading to high mortality. This study evaluates the trends in mortality associated with CVDs and PCa among older (≥ 65 years) men in the United States (US).

METHODS

This analysis utilized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER). The analysis of Multiple Cause of Death Files was carried out from 1999 to 2019 to identify fatalities with CVD and PCa listed as either contributory or underlying causes of death. Crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 populations for variables such as year, race and ethnicity, and geographic regions were determined. To assess annual percent change (APC), a Joinpoint regression program was employed.

RESULTS

Overall AAMR was 54.3 in 1999 and 34.0 in 2019. After a decline in AAMR from 1999 to 2015, an alarming rise in mortality was observed until 2019. Mortality rates were highest among Non-Hispanic (NH) Black and African American men (74.6). Geographically, the highest mortalities were witnessed in the West (46.3) and non-metropolitan areas (44.6). States with AAMRs ranking in the 90th percentile were North Dakota, California, Nebraska, the District of Columbia, and Mississippi.

CONCLUSION

After decreasing death rates associated with CVD and PCa from 1999 to 2015, a reversal in the trend was observed from 2015 to 2019. Addressing this increase in death rates, especially among the vulnerable population, requires focused attention and targeted strategies to implement necessary safeguards in the upcoming years.

Differences in cancer presentation, treatment, and mortality between rural and urban patients diagnosed with kidney cancer in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Rural-urban discrepancies in care and outcomes for kidney cancer (KCa) in the United States remains poorly understood. Our study aims to improve our understanding of the influence of rurality on KCa outcomes in the United States by analyzing differences in presentation, treatment, and mortality between urban areas (UAs) and rural areas (RAs) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERs) database.

METHODS

SEERs data was queried from 2000 to 2019 for KCa patients. Patient counties were classified as UAs, rural adjacent areas (RAAs), or rural nonadjacent areas (RNAs) using Rural Urban Continuum Codes. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and treatment variables were compared. Propensity score matching was performed to create matched UA-RAA and UA-RNA cohorts. Multivariate regression evaluated rural-urban status as a predictor of treatment selection. Multivariate cox regression assessed the predictive value of rural-urban status for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to generate survival curves for OS and CSS.

RESULTS

179,509 KCa patients were identified (UA = 87.0%, RAA = 7.7%, RNA = 5.3%). Patients in RAs were more likely to present with tumors of higher grade and stage than UAs. Following multivariate analysis, rural residency predicted undergoing nephrectomy (RAA: OR = 1.177, RNA: OR = 1.210) but was a negative predictor of receiving partial nephrectomy (RAA: OR = 0.744, RNA: OR = 0.717), all P < 0.001. Multivariate cox regression demonstrated that RAA or RNA residency was predictive of overall and cause-specific mortality. After matching, median OS was 151, 124, and 118 months for UA, RAA, and RNA cohorts respectively; mean CSS was 152, 147, and 144 months for UA, RAA, and RNA cohorts, respectively, all P < 0.001. Stage-specific analysis of CSS demonstrated significantly poorer CSS among RNA patients for localized, regionalized, and distant KCa after matching. Only RAA patients with localized KCa experienced significantly lower CSS than UA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in RAs are more likely to present with advanced KCa at diagnosis compared to those in UAs and may also experience different treatment options including a lesser likelihood of undergoing partial nephrectomy. Rural patients with KCa also demonstrated significantly worse OS and CSS compared to their urban counterparts. Further patient-level studies are required to better understand the discrepancy in CSS between urban and rural patients diagnosed with KCa.

Telemedicine in urologic oncology care: Will telemedicine exacerbate disparities?

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer outcomes are associated with access to care. Telemedicine can improve access but may be underutilized by certain patient populations. Our objective was to determine if the patient populations who suffer worse oncologic outcomes are the same as those who are less likely to use telemedicine.

METHODS

Using an institutional database, we identified all prostate, bladder and kidney cancer encounters from March 14, 2020 to October 31, 2021 (n = 15,623; n = 4, 14; n = 3,830). Telemedicine was used in 13%, 8%, and 12% of these encounters, respectively. We performed random effects modeling analysis to examine patient and provider characteristics associated with telemedicine use. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as measures of association.

RESULTS

Among prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer patients, Black patients had lower odds of a telemedicine encounter (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37-0.69; OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.70; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.86), and patients residing in small and isolated small rural towns areas had higher odds of a telemedicine encounter (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.09-1.91; OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.14-3.94; OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.12-3.19). Compared to providers in practice ≤5 years, providers in practice for 6 to 15 years had significantly higher odds of a telemedicine encounter for prostate and bladder cancer patients (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.4511.58; OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.09-10.77).

CONCLUSION

The lower rates of telemedicine use among Black patients could exacerbate pre-existing disparities in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer outcomes.

Access to Care and Healthcare Quality Metrics for Patients with Advanced Genitourinary Cancers in Urban versus Rural Areas

Compared to the urban population, patients in rural areas face healthcare disparities and experience inferior healthcare-related outcomes. To compare the healthcare quality metrics and outcomes between patients with advanced genitourinary cancers from rural versus urban areas treated at a tertiary cancer hospital, in this retrospective study, eligible patients with advanced genitourinary cancers were treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Utah. Rural-urban commuting area codes were used to classify the patients' residences as being in urban (1-3) or rural (4-10) areas. The straight line distances of the patients' residences from the cancer center were also calculated and included in the analysis. The median household income data were obtained and calculated from "The Michigan Population Studies Center", based on individual zip codes. In this study, 2312 patients were screened, and 1025 eligible patients were included for further analysis (metastatic prostate cancer (n = 679), metastatic bladder cancer (n = 184), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 162). Most patients (83.9%) came from urban areas, while the remainder were from rural areas. Both groups had comparable demographic profiles and tumor characteristics at baseline. The annual median household income of urban patients was $8604 higher than that of rural patients (p < 0.001). There were fewer urban patients with Medicare (44.9% vs. 50.9%) and more urban patients with private insurance (40.4% vs. 35.1%). There was no difference between the urban and rural patients regarding receiving systemic therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or tumor genomic profiling. The overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two populations in metastatic prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively. As available in a tertiary cancer hospital, access to care can mitigate the difference in the quality of healthcare and clinical outcomes in urban versus rural patients.

Determining the association of rurality and cardiovascular disease among prostate cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Rural disparities in prostate cancer survivorship and cardiovascular disease remain. Prostate cancer treatment also contributes to worse cardiovascular disease outcomes. Our objective was to determine whether rural-urban differences in cardiovascular outcomes contribute to disparities in prostate cancer survivorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the Utah Population Database. Rural and urban prostate cancer survivors were matched by diagnosis year and age. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (levels 1-3) based on rural-urban classification, while controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We identified 3,379 rural and 16,253 urban prostate cancer survivors with a median follow-up of 9.3 years.

RESULTS

Results revealed that rural survivors had a lower risk of hypertension (HR 0.90), diseases of arteries (HR 0.92), and veins (HR 0.92) but a higher risk of congestive heart failure (HR 1.17). Interactions between level 2 cardiovascular diseases and rural/urban status, showed that diseases of the heart had a distinct between-group relationship for all-cause (P = 0.005) and cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed complex relationships between rural-urban status, cardiovascular disease, and prostate cancer. Rural survivors were less likely to be diagnosed with screen-detected cardiovascular disease but more likely to have heart failure. Further, the relationship between cardiovascular disease and survival was different between rural and urban survivors. It may be that our findings underscore differences in healthcare access where rural patients are less likely to be screened for preventable cardiovascular disease and have worse outcomes when they have a major cardiovascular event.

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.

Insurance Type and Area Deprivation Are Associated With Worse Overall Mortality for Patients With Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of area-level socioeconomic status, rural-urban residence, and type of insurance with overall and cancer-specific mortality among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

METHODS

Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, which collects demographic, insurance, and clinical information on every patient with cancer within the state, we identified all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer between 2010 and 2016 based on clinical and pathologic staging. We used the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a surrogate for socioeconomic status and Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes to classify urban, large town, and rural communities. ADI was reported in quartiles, with 4 representing the lowest socioeconomic status. We fit multivariable logistic regression and Cox models to assess the relationship of these social determinants with overall and cancer-specific survival adjusting for age, sex, race, stage, treatment, rural-urban classification, insurance and ADI.

RESULTS

We identified 2597 patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer. On multivariable analysis, Medicare (hazards ratio [HR] 1.15), Medicaid (HR 1.38), ADI 3 (HR 1.16) and ADI 4 (HR 1.21) were independent predictors of greater overall mortality (all P < 0.05). Female sex and receipt of non-standard treatment were associated with increased overall mortality and bladder cancer-specific mortality. There was no significant difference in both overall and cancer-specific survival between patients who were non-Hispanic White compared to non-White or between those from urban areas, large towns, or rural locations.

CONCLUSION

Lower socioeconomic status and Medicare and Medicaid insurance were associated with a greater risk of overall mortality while rural residence was not a significant factor. Implementation of public health programs may help reduce the gap in mortality for low SES at-risk populations.

Cardiovascular disease prevention and management of pre-existent cardiovascular disease in a cohort of prostate cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common cause of mortality among men with prostate cancer. However, receipt of preventive care and management of pre-existent CVD has not been well studied in prostate cancer survivors.

METHODS

This study examined a prospective cohort of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2013 throughout North Carolina linked to Medicare and private insurance claims and clinical data from the Veterans Affairs (VA). In patients without pre-existent CVD, the primary outcome was a composite measure of annual preventive care (blood glucose screening, cholesterol level testing, and ≥ 1 primary care provider visit). In patients with pre-existent CVD, the primary outcome was annual cardiologist visit; blood glucose, cholesterol level testing, and primary care visits were also assessed.

RESULTS

Our sample comprised 492 patients successfully linked to insurance claims and/or VA data, among whom 103 (20.9%) had pre-existent CVD. Receipt of preventive care declined from 52.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.7 to 57.6%) during the first year after prostate cancer diagnosis to 40.8% (95% CI: 33.7 to 48.4%) during the third year. Among patients with pre-existent CVD, only 23.4% (95% CI: 13.6 to 37.2%) visited a cardiologist in all 3 years. Black men were more likely than White men to visit a cardiologist the first year (risk ratio [RR] = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.71).

CONCLUSION

In a population-based cohort of prostate cancer survivors, receipt of CVD preventive care declined over time, and frequency of cardiologist-led management of pre-existent CVD was low.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is a need to improve clinical strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk and managing pre-existent CVD in prostate cancer survivors.

Rural–Urban Disparities in Patient Care Experiences among Prostate Cancer Survivors: A SEER-CAHPS Study

Background: We sought to evaluate rural–urban disparities in patient care experiences (PCEs) among localized prostate cancer (PCa) survivors at intermediate-to-high risk of disease progression. Methods: Using 2007–2015 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys, we analyzed survivors’ first survey ≥6 months post-diagnosis. Covariate adjusted linear regressions were used to estimate associations of treatment status (definitive treatment vs. none) and residence (large metro vs. metro vs. rural) with PCE composite and rating measures. Results: Among 3779 PCa survivors, 1798 (53.2%) and 370 (10.9%) resided in large metro and rural areas, respectively; more rural (vs. large metro) residents were untreated (21.9% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.017). Untreated (vs. treated) PCa survivors reported lower scores for doctor communication (ß = −2.0; p = 0.022), specialist rating (ß = −2.5; p = 0.008), and overall care rating (ß = −2.4; p = 0.006). While treated rural survivors gave higher (ß = 3.6; p = 0.022) scores for obtaining needed care, untreated rural survivors gave lower scores for obtaining needed care (ß = −7.0; p = 0.017) and a lower health plan rating (ß = −7.9; p = 0.003) compared to their respective counterparts in large metro areas. Conclusions: Rural PCa survivors are less likely to receive treatment. Rural–urban differences in PCEs varied by treatment status.

Role, race, and place: Prostate cancer disparities in Patients' and Partners' health outcomes and psychosocial factors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the effects of participant role (patient vs. partner), race (white vs. non-white), and place (less vs. more neighborhood deprivation) on health outcomes (quality of life [QOL] and symptoms) and stress-coping-related psychosocial factors (appraisals of illness and coping resources).

METHODS

This descriptive study included 273 patients and their partners (dyads) who transitioned from PCa treatment to self-management. We used established, psychometrically sound measures to assess health outcomes and psychosocial factors and conducted multilevel modeling analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to partners, patients reported worse physical QOL; less frequent anxiety; less pain and fatigue; less bothersome hormonal problems; more bothersome urinary and sexual problems; greater self-efficacy; and more instrumental support. Compared to their white counterparts, non-white dyads reported better overall, emotional, and functional QOL; less depression; more positive appraisals, and greater self-efficacy. Compared to dyads in low ADI neighborhoods, dyads in high ADI (more deprived) neighborhoods reported worse social QOL; more bothersome urinary, sexual, and hormonal symptoms; and less interpersonal support. White patients reported the highest emotional support among all groups, while white partners reported the lowest emotional support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the need to consider social determinants of health at multiple levels when investigating PCa disparities. Considering neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors, in addition to race and role, improves our understanding of the PCa disparities in QOL, symptoms, and psychosocial factors among patients and partners. Targeted multilevel supportive care interventions should tailor to the needs of racially diverse PCa patients and partners residing in deprived neighborhoods are needed.

Socioeconomic determinants are associated with the utilization and outcomes of active surveillance or watchful waiting in favorable-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW) is feasible and effective for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Understanding socioeconomic determinants of AS/WW may help determine the target population for social support and improve cancer-related survival.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database 18 Registries identified 229,428 adult men diagnosed with primary localized PCa (clinical T1-T2c, N0M0) during a median follow-up of 45 months between 2010 and 2016. Socioeconomic determinants included socioeconomic status (SES) tertiles, marital status (unmarried vs married), and residency (urban vs rural). Multivariable logistic regression and Cox models determined the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for AS/WW utilization, and adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). The extent of missing data was evaluated by multiple imputation. Sensitivity analyses were performed in multiple imputation datasets.

RESULTS

Unmarried patients were more likely to receive AS/WW in low-risk group (aOR, 1.20 [95%CI, 1.12-1.28]; p < 0.001) and favorable intermediate-risk group (aOR, 1.41 [95%CI, 1.26-1.59]; p < 0.001) than married patients. Urban patients had 0.77-fold lower likelihood of AS/WW than rural patients in low-risk group (95% CI, 0.68-0.87; p < 0.001), but not in favorable intermediate-risk groups. Among patients undertaking AS/WW, a significantly worse OS was observed among unmarried patients comparing to married group (aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.50-2.60]; p < 0.001), and patients with high SES had better CSS than low group (aHR, 0.08 [95%CI, 0.01-0.69]; p = 0.02). No significant survival difference was found between urban and rural patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Unmarried or urban patients had significantly higher rates of AS/WW. The utilization and efficacy of conservative management were affected by socioeconomic factors, which might serve as a barrier of treatment decision-making and targeted a population in need of social support.

Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future.

Disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists at the time of diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

2014-2016 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR), 2019 CMS Base Provider Enrollment File (BPEF), 2018 CMS Physician Compare, 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA), and 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI).

STUDY DESIGN

Spatial regressions were used to estimate associations between geographic access to medical oncologists, measured with an enhanced two-step floating catchment area measure, and demographic characteristics.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Medical oncologists were identified in the 2019 CMS BPEF and merged with the 2018 CMS Physician Compare. Provider addresses were converted to longitude-latitude using OpenCage Geocoder. Newly diagnosed cancer patients in each census tract were identified in the 2014-2016 PCR. Census tracts were classified based on rurality and socioeconomic status using the 2010 RUCA Codes and the 2015 ADI.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Large towns and rural areas were associated with spatial access ratios (SPARs) that were 6.29 lower (95% CI -16.14 to 3.57) and 14.76 lower (95% CI -25.14 to -4.37) respectively relative to urban areas. Being in the fourth ADI quartile (highest disadvantage) was associated with a 12.41 lower SPAR (95% CI -19.50 to -5.33) relative to the first quartile. The observed difference in a census tract's non-White population from the 25th (1.3%) to the 75th percentile (13.7%) was associated with a 13.64 higher SPAR (Coefficient = 1.10, 95% CI 11.89 to 15.29; p < 0.01), roughly equivalent to the disadvantage associated with living in the fourth ADI quartile, where non-White populations are concentrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rurality and low socioeconomic status were associated with lower geographic access to oncologists. The negative association between area deprivation and geographic access is of similar magnitude to the positive association between larger non-White populations and access. Policies aimed at increasing geographic access to care should be cognizant of both rurality and socioeconomic status.

Disparities in Treatment Satisfaction and Supportive Care Receipt for Young Adult Oncology Patients on the Basis of Residential Location

PURPOSE:

Adolescent and young adult oncology programs are critical but exist primarily in academic centers, prompting potential disparities in care on the basis of patient residence. We studied the impact of residential location on supportive care receipt and treatment satisfaction in young adults (YAs) with cancer age 19-39 years treated at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC).

METHODS:

YA patients with cancer age 19-39 years seen at UWCCC from March 30, 2019, to March 29, 2020, were sent a survey assessing supportive care receipt and satisfaction. Survey results were compared with retrospective chart review of YAs seen at UWCCC between April 1, 2011, and April 1, 2021. Data were categorized on the basis of residential location using distance from UWCCC and 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC).

RESULTS:

Survey results were obtained for 145 YAs, including 29 from nonmetro RUCC (20.0%) and 81 living > 20 miles from UWCCC (55.9%). YAs from nonmetro locations had lower satisfaction with available treatments (79.3% v 91.4%, P = .005), and distant YAs living > 20 miles from UWCCC more frequently identified location as a barrier to supportive care receipt (35.6% v 15.8%, P = .02). Metro YAs more frequently listed fertility consultations as unavailable (38.0% v 16.0%, P = .04) in the survey despite chart review data showing higher rates of sexual health assessments (48.2% v 20.4%, P = .002) and fertility visits (29.6% v 18.5%, P = .18).

CONCLUSION:

We identified differences in both supportive care receipt and treatment satisfaction on the basis of residential location. These findings support the need for measures to successfully meet treatment and supportive care needs regardless of residential location.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Outcomes: Opportunities for Future Research

Cancer care disparities among rural populations are increasingly documented and may be worsening, likely because of the impact of rurality on access to state-of-the-art cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services, as well as higher rates of risk factors such as smoking and obesity. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology undertook an initiative to understand and address factors contributing to rural cancer care disparities. A key pillar of this initiative was to identify knowledge gaps and promote the research needed to understand the magnitude of difference in outcomes in rural vs nonrural settings, the drivers of those differences, and interventions to address them. The purpose of this review is to describe continued knowledge gaps and areas of priority research to address them. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by searching the PubMed (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English between 1971 and 2021 and restricted to primary reports from populations in the United States and abstracted data to synthesize current evidence and identify continued gaps in knowledge. Our review identified continuing gaps in the literature regarding the underlying causes of rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes. Rapid advances in cancer care will worsen existing disparities in outcomes for rural patients without directed effort to understand and address barriers to high-quality care in these areas. Research should be prioritized to address ongoing knowledge gaps about the drivers of rurality-based disparities and preventative and corrective interventions.

Trends in Cancer Treatment Service Availability Across Critical Access Hospitals and Prospective Payment System Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Rural residents experience worse cancer prognosis and access to cancer care providers than their urban counterparts. Critical access hospitals (CAHs) represent over half of all rural community hospitals. However, research on cancer services provided within CAHs is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate trends in cancer services availability in urban and rural Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals and CAHs.

DESIGN

Retrospective, time-series analysis using data from 2008 to 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Surveys. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine differential trends in cancer services between urban PPS, rural PPS, and CAHs, overall and among small (<25 beds) hospitals.

SUBJECTS

All US acute care and cancer hospitals (4752 in 2008 to 4722 in 2017).

MEASURES

Primary outcomes include whether a hospital provided comprehensive oncology services, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy each year.

RESULTS

In 2008, CAHs were less likely to provide all cancer services, especially chemotherapy (30.4%) and radiation therapy (2.9%), compared with urban (64.4% and 43.8%, respectively) and rural PPS hospitals (42.0% and 23.3%, respectively). During 2008-2017, compared with similarly sized PPS hospitals, CAHs were more likely to provide oncology services and chemotherapy, but with decreasing trends. Radiation therapy availability between small PPS hospitals and CAHs did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with all PPS hospitals, CAHs offered fewer cancer treatment services and experienced a decline in service capability over time. These differences in chemotherapy services were mainly driven by hospital size, as small urban and rural PPS hospitals had lower rates of chemotherapy than CAHs. Still, the lower rates of radiotherapy in CAHs highlight disproportionate challenges facing CAHs for some specialty services.

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.

Geographic disparities in head and neck cancer survival in Upstate New York 2011-2019

PURPOSE

To examine the association between distance to care-center and urban-rural residence on 5-year overall survival (OS) from head and neck cancer (HNC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five-year OS was retrospectively measured from date of initial diagnosis for patients with HNC treated at a single tertiary care center. Distances were calculated based on ZIP code of patient's residence and care center. Multilevel Weibull regression was used to adjust for confounders and identify disparities in 5-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 670 patients included in study. Multivariable analysis revealed older age or late-stage cancer at diagnosis, and HPV negative status were associated with poorer OS. Patients residing in isolated small rural town (HR = 2.20, p = 0.015) or small rural town (HR = 2.07, p = 0.015) had lower OS. Distance to care center was not associated with OS (HR = 0.996, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater rurality was associated with poorer OS among HNC patients in Upstate New York.

Disparities in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for traditionally underserved patients with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate improves detection of significant tumors, while decreasing detection of less-aggressive tumors. Therefore, its use has been increasing over time. In this study, the use of prebiopsy MRI among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer was examined. It was hypothesized that patients of color and those in isolated areas would be less likely to undergo this approach for cancer detection.

METHODS

Using cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program linked to billing claims for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer were identified from 2010 through 2015 with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <30 ng/mL. Outcome was prebiopsy MRI of the prostate performed within 6 months before diagnosis (ie, Current Procedural Terminology 72197). Exposures were patient race/ethnicity and rural/urban status. Multivariable regression estimated the odds of prebiopsy prostate MRI. Post hoc analyses examined associations with the registry-level proportion of non-Hispanic Black patients and MRI use, as well as disparities in MRI use in registries with data on more frequent use of prostate MRI.

RESULTS

There were 50,719 men identified with prostate cancer (mean age, 72.1 years). Overall, 964 men (1.9% of cohort) had a prebiopsy MRI. Eighty percent of patients with prebiopsy MRI lived in California, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Non-Hispanic Black men (0.6% vs 2.1% non-Hispanic White; odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.40) and men in less urban areas (1.1% vs 2.2% large metro; OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97) were less likely to have prebiopsy MRI of the prostate.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-Hispanic Black patients with prostate cancer and those in less urban areas were less likely to have prebiopsy MRI of the prostate during its initial adoption as a tool for improving prostate cancer detection.

Regional differences in patient age and prostate cancer characteristics and rates of treatment modalities in favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer across United States SEER registries

BACKGROUND

Intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heterogeneous entity and can be distinguished into favorable and unfavorable IR PCa according to biopsy, PSA and cT-stage characteristics. These differences may translate into differences in treatment type.

METHODS

We tested for differences in PCa tumor characteristics and differences in active treatment rates (radical prostatectomy [RP], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) according to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry (2010-2015) in favorable and unfavorable IR PCa. Data were stratified according to individual SEER registries. Further analyses additionally adjusted for PCa baseline characteristics (PSA, cT stage, biopsy Gleason group grading [GGG], percentage of positive biopsy cores).

RESULTS

Tabulations according to SEER registries showed that, in favorable IR vs. unfavorable IR, the rates of RP and EBRT respectively ranged from 30.0 to 54.3% vs. 30.3-55.5 % and 8.3-44.7 % vs. 11.5-45.5 %. Differences in age and baseline PCa tumor characteristics also existed in both favorable and unfavorable IR across SEER registries. After adjustment for those baseline patient and PCa characteristics (PSA, cT stage, GGG, percentage of positive biopsy cores), RP and EBRT rates exhibited virtually no residual differences across individual SEER registries, in both favorable (36.0-41.0 % and 26.8-28.1 %) and unfavorable IR PCa (39.2-42.0% and 31.1-33.5 %).

CONCLUSION

Important differences may be identified in treatment rates within the examined 18 SEER registries in favorable and in unfavorable IR PCa. However, the observed differences are virtually entirely explained by differences in baseline PCa characteristics.

Evolution of Disparities in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Is This a New Normal?

Despite notable screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic advances, disparities in prostate cancer incidence and outcomes remain prevalent. Although commonly discussed in the context of men of African descent, disparities also exist based on socioeconomic level, education level, and geographic location. The factors in these disparities span systemic access issues affecting availability of care, provider awareness, and personal patient views and mistrust. In this review, we will discuss common themes that patients have noted as impediments to care. We will review how equitable access to care has helped improve outcomes among many different groups of patients, including those with local disease and those with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Even with more advanced presentation, challenges with recommended screening, and lower rates of genomic testing and trial inclusion, Black populations have benefited greatly from various modalities of therapy, achieving comparable and at times superior outcomes with certain types of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, androgen receptor-based inhibitors, and radiopharmaceuticals in advanced disease. We will also briefly discuss access to genomic testing and differences in patterns of gene expression among Black patients and other groups that are traditionally underrepresented in trials and genomic cohort studies. We propose several strategies on behalf of providers and institutions to help promote more equitable care access environments and continued decreases in prostate cancer disparities across many subgroups.