National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults

A scoping review of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in the outcomes of older adults with cancer

INTRODUCTION

Cancer health disparities are widespread. Nevertheless, the disparities in outcomes among diverse survivors of cancer ages 65 years and older ("older") have not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of original research articles published between January 2016 and September 2023 and indexed in Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. We included studies evaluating racial, ethnic, socioeconomic disadvantaged, geographic, sexual and gender, and/or persons with disabilities disparities in treatment, survivorship, and mortality among older survivors of cancer. We excluded studies with no a priori aims related to a health disparity, review articles, conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, studies with unclear methodologies, and articles in which the disparity group was examined only as an analytic covariate. Two reviewers independently extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

After searching and removing duplicates, 2573 unique citations remained and after screening 59 articles met the inclusion criteria. Many investigated more than one health disparity, and most focused on racial and ethnic (n = 44) or socioeconomic (n = 25) disparities; only 10 studies described geographic disparities, and none evaluated disparities in persons with disabilities or due to sexual and gender identity. Research investigating disparities in outcomes among diverse older survivors of cancer is increasing gradually-68% of eligible articles were published between 2020 and 2023. Most studies focused on the treatment phase of care (n = 28) and mortality (n = 26), with 16 examined disparities in survivorship, symptoms, or quality of life. Most research was descriptive and lacked analyses of potential underlying mechanisms contributing to the reported disparities.

CONCLUSION

Little research has evaluated the effect of strategies to reduce health disparities among older patients with cancer. This lack of evidence perpetuates cancer inequities and leaves the cancer care system ill equipped to address the unique needs of the rapidly growing and increasingly diverse older adult cancer population.

Trends in access to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including robotic (RPD) and laparoscopy (LPD), is becoming more frequently employed in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), though the majority of operations are still performed via open approach (OPD). Access to technologic advances often neglect the underserved. Whether disparities in access to MIPD exist, remain unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2010-2020) for patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC. Cochran-Armitage tests assessed for trends over time. Social determinants of health (SDH) were compared between approaches. Multinomial logistic models identified predictors of MIPD.

RESULTS

Of 16,468 patients, 80.03 % underwent OPD and 19.97 % underwent MIPD (22.60 % robotic; 77.40 % laparoscopic). Black race negatively predicted LPD (vs white (OR 0.822; 95 % CI 0.701-0.964)). Predictors of RPD included Medicare/other government insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.660; 95 % CI 1.123-2.454)) and private insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.597; 95 % CI 1.090-2.340)). Early (2010-2014) vs late (2015-2020) diagnosis, stratified by race, demonstrated an increase in Non-White patients undergoing OPD (13.15 % vs 14.63 %; p = 0.016), but not LPD (11.41 % vs 13.57 %;p = 0.125) or RPD (14.15 % vs 15.23 %; p = 0.774).

CONCLUSION

SDH predict surgical approach more than clinical stage, facility type, or comorbidity status. Disparities in race and insurance coverage are different between surgical approaches.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Robot-Assisted Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pelvic Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Surgical innovations for cancer treatment may penetrate differentially across racial and ethnic groups and contribute to disparities in health and health care quality. We summarized the current evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) use in four major pelvic cancer treatments. We identified studies related to racial and ethnic disparities in RAS and/or MIS use in the treatment of prostate, endometrial, bladder, and rectal cancers during 2001 to 2022 from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. Twenty-eight studies were selected (prostate = 7, endometrial = 14, bladder = 1, rectal = 5, multiple cancers = 1) and all were retrospective. Thirteen and 23 studies examined racial and ethnic differences in individual patients' receipt of RAS and MIS, respectively. Black patients were less likely to receive RAS/MIS than White patients in most studies. Hispanic patients were less likely to receive RAS/MIS than White patients in just over half of the studies. Studies of Asian patients were few and reported mixed results. Three studies examined disparities on the center level and found that racial and ethnic minority prostate cancer patients were less likely to be treated at RAS-performing or high-technology facilities. More work is needed to improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in RAS and MIS use and their impact on disparities in health outcomes.

Racial disparities in complications following elective colon cancer resection: Impact of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches

BACKGROUND

We sought to examine differences in outcomes for Black and White patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy to assess the potential impact of technological advancement.

METHODS

We queried the ACS-NSQIP database for elective robotic (RC) and laparoscopic (LC) colectomy for cancer from 2012 to 2020. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and complications. We analyzed the association between outcomes, operative approach, and race using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 64,460 patients, 80.9% laparoscopic and 19.1% robotic. RC patients were most frequently younger, male, and White, with fewer comorbidities (P ​< ​0.001). After adjustment, there was no difference in mortality by approach or race. Black patients who underwent LC had higher complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P ​= ​0.005) than their White LC counterparts and RC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colectomy was associated with lower rates of complications in minority patients. Further investigation is required to identify the causal pathway that leads to our finding.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer is associated with improved outcomes. We sought to characterize possible disparities in surgical approach and outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, colorectal adenocarcinoma cases among non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic patients were identified using the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Logistic and Poisson regressions, generalized logit models, and Cox proportional hazards were used to assess outcomes, with reclassification of surgery type if converted to open.

RESULTS

NHB patients were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. After multivariable analysis, NHB patients were 6% less likely, while Hispanic patients were 12% more likely to undergo a MIS approach. Lymph node retrieval was higher (> 1.3% more, p < 0.0001) and length of stay was shorter (> 17% shorter, p < 0.0001) for MIS approaches. Unplanned readmission was lower for MIS colon cancer operations compared with open operations, but not for rectal cancer. Race/ethnicity-adjusted risk of death was lower with MIS approaches for colon as well as rectal cancer. After adjusting for surgery type, risk of death was 12% lower for NHB and 35% lower for Hispanic patients compared with NHW patients. Hispanic patients had 21% lower risk of death, while NHB patients had 12% higher risk of death than NHW patients with rectal cancer, after adjusting for surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial/ethnic disparities exist in utilization of MIS for colorectal cancer treatment, disproportionately affecting NHB patients. Since MIS has the potential to improve outcomes, suboptimal access may contribute to harmful and thus unacceptable disparities in survivorship.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Disparities in access to robotic technology and perioperative outcomes among patients treated with radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Most radical prostatectomies are completed with robotic assistance. While studies have previously evaluated perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), this study investigates disparities in access and clinical outcomes of RARP.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients who received radical prostatectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2017 with outcomes through 2018. RARP was compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Odds of receiving RARP were evaluated while adjusting for covariates. Overall survival was evaluated using a propensity-score matched cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 354 752 patients were included with 297 676 (83.9%) receiving RARP. Patients who were non-Hispanic Black (82.8%) or Hispanic (81.3%) had lower rates of RARP than non-Hispanic White (84.0%) or Asian patients (87.7%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured patients were less likely to receive RARP (75.5%) compared to patients with Medicare or private insurance (84.4%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured status was associated with decreased odds of RARP in adjusted multivariable analysis (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.76). RARP was associated with decreased perioperative mortality and improved overall survival compared to ORP.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were underinsured were less likely to receive RARP. Improved access to RARP may lead to decreased disparities in perioperative outcomes for prostate cancer.