BACKGROUND: Patients who receive surgery from high-volume surgeons tend to have better outcomes. Black patients, however, are less likely to receive surgery from high-volume surgeons. OBJECTIVE: Among men with localized prostate cancer, we examined whether disparities in use of high-volume urologists resulted from racial differences in patients being diagnosed by high-volume urologists and/or changing to high-volume urologists for surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. SUBJECTS: A total of 26,058 black and white men in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 1995 to 2005 that underwent prostatectomy. Patients were linked to their diagnosing urologist and a treating urologist (who performed the surgery). MEASURES: Diagnosis and receipt of prostatectomy by a high-volume urologist, and changing between diagnosing and treating urologist RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, black men were as likely as white men to be diagnosed by a high-volume urologist; however, they were significantly less likely than white men to be treated by a high-volume urologist [odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-0.87]. For men diagnosed by a low-volume urologist, 46.0% changed urologists for their surgery. Black men were significantly less likely to change to a high-volume urologist (relative risk ratio 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79). Racial differences appeared to reflect black and white patients being diagnosed by different urologists and having different rates of changing after being diagnosed by the same urologists. CONCLUSIONS: Lower rates of changing to high-volume urologists for surgery among black men contribute to racial disparities in treatment by high-volume surgeons.
BACKGROUND:Patients who receive surgery from high-volume surgeons tend to have better outcomes. Black patients, however, are less likely to receive surgery from high-volume surgeons. OBJECTIVE: Among men with localized prostate cancer, we examined whether disparities in use of high-volume urologists resulted from racial differences in patients being diagnosed by high-volume urologists and/or changing to high-volume urologists for surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. SUBJECTS: A total of 26,058 black and white men in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 1995 to 2005 that underwent prostatectomy. Patients were linked to their diagnosing urologist and a treating urologist (who performed the surgery). MEASURES: Diagnosis and receipt of prostatectomy by a high-volume urologist, and changing between diagnosing and treating urologist RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, black men were as likely as white men to be diagnosed by a high-volume urologist; however, they were significantly less likely than white men to be treated by a high-volume urologist [odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-0.87]. For men diagnosed by a low-volume urologist, 46.0% changed urologists for their surgery. Black men were significantly less likely to change to a high-volume urologist (relative risk ratio 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79). Racial differences appeared to reflect black and white patients being diagnosed by different urologists and having different rates of changing after being diagnosed by the same urologists. CONCLUSIONS: Lower rates of changing to high-volume urologists for surgery among black men contribute to racial disparities in treatment by high-volume surgeons.
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Lisa A Cooper; Lloyd E Ratner; Thomas A LaVeist; Neil R Powe Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Diane C Green; Audiey C Kao; Julie A Gazmararian; Vivian Y Wu; Paul D Cleary Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A D Federman; E F Cook; R S Phillips; A L Puopolo; J S Haas; T A Brennan; H R Burstin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Carol M Ashton; Paul Haidet; Debora A Paterniti; Tracie C Collins; Howard S Gordon; Kimberly O'Malley; Laura A Petersen; Barbara F Sharf; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Nelda P Wray; Richard L Street Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Hao Wang; Justin E Bekelman; Gary Weissman; Andrew J Epstein; Kaijun Liao; Eva H Dugoff; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Value Health Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Anna B Beckmeyer-Borowko; Caryn E Peterson; Katherine C Brewer; Mary A Otoo; Faith G Davis; Kent F Hoskins; Charlotte E Joslin Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Eva H DuGoff; Justin E Bekelman; Elizabeth A Stuart; Katrina Armstrong; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Adil H Haider; Valerie K Scott; Karim A Rehman; Catherine Velopulos; Jessica M Bentley; Edward E Cornwell; Waddah Al-Refaie Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Simon Kim; Kathleen Yost; Hillary Sedlacek; Daniel Petereit; Judith Kaur; Bruce Rapkin; Robert Grubb; Electra Paskett; George J Chang; Jeff Sloan; Ethan Basch; Brittny Major; Paul Novotny; John Taylor; Jan Buckner; J Kellogg Parsons; Michael Morris; Jon C Tilburt Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Nynikka R Palmer; Janet K Shim; Celia P Kaplan; Dean Schillinger; Sarah D Blaschko; Benjamin N Breyer; Rena J Pasick Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.692