Tullika Garg1, Laura C Pinheiro2, Coral L Atoria2, S Machele Donat3, Joel S Weissman4, Harry W Herr3, Elena B Elkin2. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora and Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Denver, Colorado. Electronic address: tullika.garg@ucdenver.edu. 2. Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Men are diagnosed with bladder cancer at 3 times the rate of women. However, women present with advanced disease and have poorer survival, suggesting delays in bladder cancer diagnosis. Hematuria is the presenting symptom in most cases. We assessed gender differences in hematuria evaluation in older adults with bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) cancer registry linked with Medicare claims we identified Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old or older diagnosed with bladder cancer between 2000 and 2007 with a claim for hematuria in the year before diagnosis. We examined the impact of gender, and demographic and clinical factors on time from initial hematuria claim to urology visit and on time from initial hematuria claim to hematuria evaluation, including cystoscopy, upper urinary tract imaging and urine cytology. RESULTS: Of 35,646 patients with a hematuria claim in the year preceding bladder cancer diagnosis 97% had a urology visit claim. Mean time to urology visit was 27 days (range 0 to 377). Time to urology visit was longer for women than for men (adjusted HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.87-0.92). Women were more likely to undergo delayed (after greater than 30 days) hematuria evaluation (adjusted OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: We observed longer time to a urology visit for women than for men presenting with hematuria. These findings may explain stage differences in bladder cancer diagnosis and inform efforts to decrease gender disparities in bladder cancer stage and outcomes.
PURPOSE:Men are diagnosed with bladder cancer at 3 times the rate of women. However, women present with advanced disease and have poorer survival, suggesting delays in bladder cancer diagnosis. Hematuria is the presenting symptom in most cases. We assessed gender differences in hematuria evaluation in older adults with bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) cancer registry linked with Medicare claims we identified Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old or older diagnosed with bladder cancer between 2000 and 2007 with a claim for hematuria in the year before diagnosis. We examined the impact of gender, and demographic and clinical factors on time from initial hematuria claim to urology visit and on time from initial hematuria claim to hematuria evaluation, including cystoscopy, upper urinary tract imaging and urine cytology. RESULTS: Of 35,646 patients with a hematuria claim in the year preceding bladder cancer diagnosis 97% had a urology visit claim. Mean time to urology visit was 27 days (range 0 to 377). Time to urology visit was longer for women than for men (adjusted HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.87-0.92). Women were more likely to undergo delayed (after greater than 30 days) hematuria evaluation (adjusted OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: We observed longer time to a urology visit for women than for men presenting with hematuria. These findings may explain stage differences in bladder cancer diagnosis and inform efforts to decrease gender disparities in bladder cancer stage and outcomes.
Authors: G D Grossfeld; J S Wolf; M S Litwan; H Hricak; C L Shuler; D C Agerter; P R Carroll Journal: Am Fam Physician Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 3.292
Authors: Ricardo F Sánchez-Ortiz; William C Huang; Rosemarie Mick; Keith N Van Arsdalen; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: P Hartge; E B Harvey; W M Linehan; D T Silverman; J W Sullivan; R N Hoover; J F Fraumeni Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1990-10-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Armin Henning; Marlies Wehrberger; Stephan Madersbacher; Armin Pycha; Thomas Martini; Evi Comploj; Klaus Jeschke; Christian Tripolt; Michael Rauchenwald Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Peter E Clark; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Philippe E Spiess; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ronald K Loo; Stephen F Lieberman; Jeff M Slezak; Howard M Landa; Albert J Mariani; Gary Nicolaisen; Ann M Aspera; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Mohammad Abufaraj; Shahrokh Shariat; Marco Moschini; Florian Rohrer; Kyriaki Papantoniou; Elizabeth Devore; Monica McGrath; Xuehong Zhang; Sarah Markt; Eva Schernhammer Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196