Association of social determinants of health with late diagnosis and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer

Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), when selectively utilized, has been shown to hasten recovery with outcomes comparable to open approaches, but access may not be equitable. This study explored variation in utilization of MIPS for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with a primary pancreatic neoplasm from 2010 to 2020. Study participants had diagnoses of clinical or pathologic stage 1-3 disease and received curative-intent surgery. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between surgical approach and patient and disease factors.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 73,137 patients: 51,408 underwent open surgery and 21,729 received MIPS. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was associated with reduced odds of MIPS (AOR 0.88; p = 0.02), while older age (AOR 1.17; p = 0.01), later year of diagnosis (AOR 1.57; p < 0.001), and private insurance coverage (AOR 1.30; p = 0.05) were associated with increased odds. When patients with adenocarcinoma were analyzed in isolation, disparities in MIPS utilization persisted even when controlling for disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors like age, race, and insurance coverage appear to vary in the utilization of MIPS technologies for the treatment of pancreatic malignancy. Addressing variation with robust mixed methods approaches in the future is proposed to incorporate prospective interventions with highly annotated outcomes for additional study.

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.

Disparities in Late-Stage Breast and Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis Among Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White, and Non-Hispanic Black Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study of Texas Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Disparities in late-stage breast or colorectal cancer diagnosis in younger populations are associated with social determinants of health (SDOH; education, poverty, housing, employment). We hypothesized that, in older Medicare beneficiaries, disparities in late-stage cancer diagnosis between Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients would be associated with SDOH, comorbidities, and primary care physician (PCP) access.

METHODS

We analyzed 2005-2017 Texas Cancer Registry data linked with Medicare data for patients aged ≥ 66 (n = 86,501). Variables included age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidities, poverty level, education, PCP, and relevant cancer screening within 1 year.

RESULTS

For breast cancer in women (Hispanic, n = 6380; NHW, n = 39,225; NHB, n = 4055), a fully adjusted model showed significantly higher odds of late-stage cancer diagnosis only in NHB patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.22) compared with NHW; adjustment for comorbidities and SDOH partially decreased the odds of late-stage diagnosis relative to NHWs. Interaction terms between race-ethnicity and poverty were not significant. For colorectal cancer, a fully adjusted multivariate model showed significantly higher odds of late-stage diagnosis only among NHBs (n = 3318, OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19-1.40) relative to NHWs (n = 27,470); adjustment for SDOH partially decreased the odds of late-stage diagnosis in NHB patients. Interaction terms between race-ethnicity and poverty were not significant.

CONCLUSION

Racial disparities in late-stage breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses remain after adjustment for SDOH and clinically relevant factors, underscoring the need to optimize access to screening and timely cancer treatment in racial/ethnic minorities.

Quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes

Background: Novel therapies in metastatic cancers have contributed to improvements in survival outcomes, yet real-world data suggest that improvements may be mainly driven by those patient groups who already had the highest survival outcomes. This study aimed to develop and apply a framework for quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes based on published aggregate data. Methods: Nine (N = 9) novel therapies for metastatic breast cancer (mBC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) were identified, 3 for each cancer type. Individual patient data (IPD) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were replicated from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. For each cancer type, data were pooled for the novel therapies and comparators separately and weighted based on sample size to ensure equal contribution of each therapy in the analyses. Parametric (mixture) distributions were fitted to the weighted data to model and extrapolate survival. The inequality in survival was defined by the absolute difference between groups with the highest and lowest survival for 2 stratifications: one for which survival was stratified into 2 groups and one using 5 groups. Additionally, a linear regression model was fitted to survival estimates for the 5 groups, with the regression coefficient or slope considered as the inequality gradient (IG). The impact of the pooled novel therapies was subsequently defined as the change in survival inequality relative to the pooled comparator therapies. A probabilistic analysis was performed to quantify parameter uncertainty. Results: The analyses found that novel therapies were associated with significant increases in inequalities in survival outcomes relative to their comparators, except in terms of OS for mNSCLC. For mBC, the inequalities in OS increased by 13.9 (95% CI: 1.4; 26.6) months, or 25.0%, if OS was stratified in 5 groups. The IG for mBC increased by 3.2 (0.3; 6.1) months, or 24.7%. For mCRC, inequalities increased by 6.7 (3.0; 10.5) months, or 40.4%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 1.6 (0.7; 2.4) months, or 40.2%. For mNSCLC, inequalities decreased by 14.9 (-84.5; 19.0) months, or 12.2%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG decreased by 2.0 (-16.1; 5.1) months, or 5.5%. Results for the stratification based on 2 groups demonstrated significant increases in OS inequality for all cancer types. In terms of PFS, the increases in survival inequalities were larger in a relative sense compared with OS. For mBC, PFS inequalities increased by 8.7 (5.9; 11.6) months, or 71.7%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 2.0 (1.3; 2.6) months, or 67.6%. For mCRC, PFS inequalities increased by 5.4 (4.2; 6.6) months, or 147.6%, for the same stratification. The IG increased by 1.3 (1.1; 1.6) months, or 172.7%. For mNSCLC, inequalities increased by 18.2 (12.5; 24.4) months, or 93.8%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG increased by 4.0 (2.8; 5.4) months, or 88.1%. Results from the stratification based on 2 groups were similar. Conclusion: Novel therapies for mBC, mCRC, and mNSCLC are generally associated with significant increases in survival inequalities relative to their comparators in randomized controlled trials, though inequalities in OS for mNSCLC decreased nonsignificantly when stratified based on 5 groups. Although further research using real-world IPD is warranted to assess how, for example, social determinants of health affect the impact of therapies on health inequalities among patient groups, the proposed framework can provide important insights in the absence of such data.

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) remains a formidable global health challenge, with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. While advancements in pharmacology have led to improved outcomes for various cancers, PCa continues to exhibit significant health disparities, disproportionately affecting certain populations. This paper explores the intersection of pharmacology and anthropology in understanding the health disparities associated with PCa. By considering the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of PCa, pharmacologic anthropology provides a comprehensive framework to address these disparities and improve patient care.

The burden of pancreatic cancer and its attributable risk factors in the Middle East and North Africa region, 1990-2019

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Globally, pancreatic cancer is recognized as one of the most lethal types of cancers. We report the burden of pancreatic cancer and its attributable risk factors in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, from 1990 to 2019, by age, sex, and socio-demographic index.

METHODS

Publicly available data from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study were used to report the incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributable to pancreatic cancer, as counts and age-standardized rates with 95% uncertainty intervals.

RESULTS

In 2019, pancreatic cancer had an age-standardized incidence rate of 5.3 and a death rate of 5.5 (per 100 000) in MENA, which have increased by 97.5% and 93.4%, respectively, since 1990. There were 563.6 thousand DALYs attributable to pancreatic cancer in 2019, with an age-standardized DALY rate of 123.0, which has increased by 84.9% since 1990. The highest number of incident cases was found in the 60-64 and 65-69 age groups, among male and female, respectively. In addition, the MENA/global DALY ratios were higher in all age groups for both sexes in 2019, than they were in 1990. There was a positive association between socio-demographic index and the burden of pancreatic cancer. Smoking, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body mass index were responsible for 19.2%, 9.3%, and 9.3% of the attributable DALYs in 2019, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a clear and substantial increase in the burden of pancreatic cancer in the MENA region. Prevention programs should be implemented in the region that target these three risk factors.

Contemporary Treatment Paradigms are Associated with Improved Survival in Pancreatic Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, a paradigm shift has been made in treating pancreatic cancer. Starting in 2011, several trials demonstrated a survival advantage for multiagent chemotherapy (MAC). However, the implication for survival at the population level remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective study of the National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2019 was conducted. Patients treated from 2006 to 2010 were classified as "Era 1", and those treated from 2011 to 2019 as "Era 2."

RESULTS

A total of 316,393 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified, with 87,742 treated in Era 1 and 228,651 in Era 2. Survival increased from Era 1 to Era 2 in all patients and sub-analyses; surgical (18.7 vs 24.6 months, HR .85, 95% CI 0.82-.88, P < .001), imminently resectable (Stage IA and IB, 12.2 vs 14.8 months, HR .90, 95% CI 0.86-.95, P < .001), high-risk (Stage IIA, IIB, and III, 9.6 vs 11.6 months, HR .82, 95% CI 0.79-.85, P < .001), and Stage IV (3.5 vs 3.9 months, HR .86, 95% CI 0.84-.89, P < .001). Survival was decreased for those who were African American (P = .031), on Medicaid (P < .001), or in the lowest quartile of annual income (P < .001). Surgery rates decreased from 20.5% in Era 1 to 19.8% in Era 2 (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Adoption of MAC regimens at a population level correlates with improved pancreatic cancer survival. Unfortunately, socioeconomic factors are associated with an unequal benefit from new treatment regimens, and underuse of surgery for resectable neoplasms persists.