PURPOSE: Health disparities exist according to an individual's place of residence. We evaluated the association between primary area of residence (urban v rural) according to treatment provider (university based v community based) and overall survival in patients with lymphoma and determined whether there are patient groups that could benefit from better coordination of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of 2,330 patients with centrally confirmed lymphoma from Nebraska and surrounding states and treated by university-based or community-based oncologists from 1982 to 2006. RESULTS: Among urban residents, 321 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (UUB) and 816 (35%) were treated by community-based providers (UCB). Among rural residents, 332 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (RUB), and 861 (37%) were treated by community-based providers (RCB). The relative risk (RR) of death among UUB, UCB, and RUB were not statistically different. However, RCB had a higher risk of death (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.65; P = .01; and RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.49; P = .01) when compared with UUB and RUB, respectively. This association was true in both low- and intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, UCB, RUB, and RCB were all at higher risk of death when compared with UUB. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes of patients with lymphoma may be associated with place of residence and treatment provider. High-risk patients from rural areas may benefit from better coordination of care.
PURPOSE: Health disparities exist according to an individual's place of residence. We evaluated the association between primary area of residence (urban v rural) according to treatment provider (university based v community based) and overall survival in patients with lymphoma and determined whether there are patient groups that could benefit from better coordination of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of 2,330 patients with centrally confirmed lymphoma from Nebraska and surrounding states and treated by university-based or community-based oncologists from 1982 to 2006. RESULTS: Among urban residents, 321 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (UUB) and 816 (35%) were treated by community-based providers (UCB). Among rural residents, 332 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (RUB), and 861 (37%) were treated by community-based providers (RCB). The relative risk (RR) of death among UUB, UCB, and RUB were not statistically different. However, RCB had a higher risk of death (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.65; P = .01; and RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.49; P = .01) when compared with UUB and RUB, respectively. This association was true in both low- and intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, UCB, RUB, and RCB were all at higher risk of death when compared with UUB. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes of patients with lymphoma may be associated with place of residence and treatment provider. High-risk patients from rural areas may benefit from better coordination of care.
Authors: J M Vose; B K Link; M L Grossbard; M Czuczman; A Grillo-Lopez; P Gilman; A Lowe; L A Kunkel; R I Fisher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Haioun; E Lepage; C Gisselbrecht; G Salles; B Coiffier; P Brice; A Bosly; P Morel; C Nouvel; H Tilly; P Lederlin; C Sebban; J Brière; P Gaulard; F Reyes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philip J Bierman; John W Sweetenham; Fausto R Loberiza; Goli Taghipour; Hillard M Lazarus; J Douglas Rizzo; Norbert Schmitz; Koen van Besien; Julie M Vose; Mary Horowitz; Anthony Goldstone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Neeraj K Arora; Ann S Hamilton; Arnold L Potosky; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Keith M Bellizzi; Carrie N Klabunde; Wendy McLaughlin; Jennifer Stevens Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Elizabeth A Johnson; Wanda L Webb; Janet M McDowall; Linda L Chasson; Carrie S Oser; Joseph R Grandpre; Madhavi I Marasinghe; Marcene K Butcher; Erin M O'Leary; Todd S Harwell; Dorothy Gohdes; Steven D Helgerson Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Neil E Kay; Kari G Rabe; David J Inwards; Clive S Zent; Jose F Leis; Susan M Schwager; Carrie A Thompson; Deborah A Bowen; Thomas E Witzig; Susan L Slager; Timothy G Call Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Benny Lee; Ozge Goktepe; Kevin Hay; Joseph M Connors; Laurie H Sehn; Kerry J Savage; Tamara Shenkier; Richard Klasa; Alina Gerrie; Diego Villa Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-02-25
Authors: Lillian Chen; Jackelyn B Payne; Kaylin V Dance; Conner B Imbody; Cathy D Ho; Amy A Ayers; Christopher R Flowers Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2019-10-19
Authors: Nandita Khera; Ted Gooley; Mary E D Flowers; Brenda M Sandmaier; Fausto Loberiza; Stephanie J Lee; Frederick Appelbaum Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Sriram Venigalla; Kevin T Nead; Ronnie Sebro; David M Guttmann; Sonam Sharma; Charles B Simone; William P Levin; Robert J Wilson; Kristy L Weber; Jacob E Shabason Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Julie Halverson; Ana Martinez-Donate; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Matthew C Walsh; Jeanne Schaaf Strickland; Mari Palta; Paul D Smith; James Cleary Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Julie Hallet; Laura E Davis; Alyson L Mahar; Ying Liu; Victoria Zuk; Vaibhav Gupta; Craig C Earle; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 7.370