| Literature DB >> 26710924 |
Kendra Schwartz1,2, Julie J Ruterbusch2,3, Joanne S Colt4, David C Miller5, Wong-Ho Chow6, Mark P Purdue4.
Abstract
We examined the overall survival of a population-based cohort of black and white patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to better understand the paradox of poorer RCC survival despite more frequent diagnosis at lower stage among blacks. Renal cell carcinoma patients (699 white, 252 black) diagnosed between 2002 and 2007 in metropolitan Detroit were followed for vital status in the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry. Hazard ratios (HR) of death for black versus white race and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models stratified by demographic and prognostic factors, and in models successively adjusted for clinical factors, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors. Mean follow-up time was 88.4 months for white patients and 89.6 months for black patients (P = 0.49), with 202 white deaths and 89 black deaths (P = 0.06). While black race was weakly associated with poorer overall survival (P = 0.053), black patients <65 years at diagnosis or with tumors <4 cm in size had significantly poorer survival than their white counterparts (HR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.01 and HR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.51-3.06, respectively). The racial disparities within these two subgroups were minimally affected by adjustment for clinical/treatment factors (HR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.19 and HR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.27-2.99), but were substantially reduced when renal-relevant comorbidities were added (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.89-1.91 and HR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16-2.66). After further adjustment for socioeconomic factors, the survival disparities were essentially null (HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.71-1.85 and HR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67-1.98). In this population-based sample of RCC patients, younger black patients and those with small tumors had poorer overall survival than whites. The disparity was explained primarily by racial differences in renal-relevant comorbidities, particularly chronic renal failure, and socioeconomic deprivation. Future research should focus on younger patients and those with smaller tumors to better understand how these factors may contribute to the survival disparity.Entities:
Keywords: Age; race; renal cell carcinoma; survival; tumor size
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26710924 PMCID: PMC4735764 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of black and white study participants, Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results renal cell carcinoma cases diagnosed between 2002 and 2007
| White ( | Black ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Sex | |||
| Male | 396 (0.57) | 148 (0.59) | 0.57 |
| Female | 303 (0.43) | 104 (0.41) | |
| Age at diagnosis | |||
| <65 years | 461 (0.66) | 182 (0.72) | 0.07 |
| ≥65 years | 238 (0.34) | 70 (0.28) | |
| Mean (SD) | 58.8 (11.6) | 57.6 (10.5) | 0.15 |
| Tumor size (cm) | |||
| ≤4 cm | 348 (0.50) | 135 (0.54) | 0.63 |
| 4–7 cm | 190 (0.27) | 66 (0.26) | |
| >7 cm | 147 (0.21) | 48 (0.19) | |
| Unknown | 14 (0.02) | 3 (0.01) | |
| Mean (SD) | 5.3 (4.9) | 4.9 (3.2) | 0.12 |
| AJCC stage | |||
| I | 452 (0.65) | 182 (0.72) | 0.03 |
| II | 75 (0.11) | 29 (0.12) | |
| III or IV | 139 (0.20) | 32 (0.13) | |
| Missing | 33 (0.05) | 9 (0.04) | |
| Histology | |||
| Clear cell | 533 (0.76) | 148 (0.59) | <0.01 |
| Papillary | 76 (0.11) | 65 (0.26) | |
| Chromophobe | 42 (0.06) | 17 (0.07) | |
| Cystic | 36 (0.05) | 16 (0.06) | |
| Other | 12 (0.02) | 6 (0.02) | |
| Fuhrman grade | |||
| I | 80 (0.11) | 21 (0.08) | 0.35 |
| II | 311 (0.44) | 117 (0.46) | |
| III and IV | 204 (0.29) | 79 (0.31) | |
| Missing | 104 (0.15) | 35 (0.14) | |
| Surgical treatment | |||
| None | 26 (0.04) | 10 (0.04) | 0.54 |
| Open radical nephrectomy | 323 (0.46) | 104 (0.41) | |
| Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy | 220 (0.31) | 83 (0.33) | |
| Nephron‐sparing surgery | 130 (0.19) | 55 (0.22) | |
| Symptomatology | |||
| Asymptomatic | 275 (0.39) | 113 (0.45) | 0.01 |
| Local | 261 (0.37) | 71 (0.28) | |
| Systemic | 107 (0.15) | 51 (0.20) | |
| Unknown | 56 (0.08) | 17 (0.07) | |
| History of renal‐relevant comorbidities | |||
| None | 297 (0.42) | 60 (0.24) | <0.01 |
| Hypertension only | 288 (0.41) | 115 (0.46) | |
| Diabetes only | 26 (0.04) | 6 (0.02) | |
| Hypertension and diabetes (without renal failure) | 78 (0.11) | 39 (0.15) | |
| Chronic renal failure | 10 (0.01) | 32 (0.13) | |
| Deprivation index | |||
| Q1 (lowest) | 204 (0.29) | 15 (0.06) | <0.01 |
| Q2 | 187 (0.27) | 21 (0.08) | |
| Q3 | 216 (0.31) | 15 (0.06) | |
| Q4 | 72 (0.10) | 98 (0.39) | |
| Q5 (highest) | 20 (0.03) | 103 (0.41) | |
| Education | |||
| Less than high school | 81 (0.12) | 69 (0.27) | <0.01 |
| High school graduate | 262 (0.37) | 72 (0.29) | |
| 1–3 years of college | 178 (0.25) | 78 (0.31) | |
| College graduate | 178 (0.25) | 33 (0.13) | |
| Vital status | |||
| Alive | 497 (71.1) | 163 (64.7) | 0.06 |
| Deceased | 202 (28.9) | 89 (35.3) | |
P value calculations do not include unknown values.
The deprivation index was developed using data from the 2000 U.S. census and includes the following variables: (1) the proportion of households with no vehicle available; (2) the proportion of households with no telephone available; (3) the proportion of the population 16 years of age and older that is unemployed; (4) the proportion of the population living in a crowded residence; and (5) the proportion of the population living below the poverty level. The first quintile (Q1) indicates a census tract with the lowest economic deprivation; 1.9% of households without a vehicle, 0.4% of households without a telephone, 2.5% unemployment, 0.9% over‐crowding, and 2.1% of the population living below the poverty level. The highest quintile (Q5) has 29.9% of households without a vehicle, 10.4% of households without a telephone, 22.5% unemployment, 9.5% over‐crowding, and 35.1% of the population living below the poverty level.
Univariate hazard of death for black racea stratified by prognostic and demographic variables, Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results renal cell carcinoma cases diagnosed between 2002 and 2007
| Black race |
| |
|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | ||
| Overall | 1.28 (1.00–1.64) | 0.053 |
| By sex | ||
| Male | 1.18 (0.86–1.62) | 0.309 |
| Female | 1.43 (0.96–2.14) | 0.079 |
| By age at diagnosis | ||
| <65 years | 1.46 (1.06–2.01) | 0.020 |
| 65+ years | 1.12 (0.75–1.68) | 0.588 |
| By tumor size (cm) | ||
| ≤4 cm | 2.15 (1.51–3.06) | <0.001 |
| >4 cm | 0.81 (0.56–1.19) | 0.284 |
| By AJCC stage | ||
| I | 1.67 (1.20–2.33) | 0.002 |
| II | 0.55 (0.23–1.32) | 0.178 |
| III | 1.73 (0.83–3.60) | 0.145 |
| IV | 0.95 (0.51–1.78) | 0.880 |
| By histology | ||
| Clear cell | 1.34 (0.98–1.83) | 0.069 |
| Papillary | 1.00 (0.54–1.82) | 0.987 |
| Chromophobe | 1.05 (0.33–3.32) | 0.939 |
| Cystic | 2.18 (0.84–5.65) | 0.110 |
| Other | 0.89 (0.27–3.00) | 0.856 |
| By Fuhrman grade | ||
| I and II | 1.37 (0.94–1.99) | 0.104 |
| III and IV | 1.30 (0.87–1.93) | 0.199 |
| By surgical treatment | ||
| None | 1.19 (0.50–2.86) | 0.693 |
| Open radical nephrectomy | 1.33 (0.94–1.87) | 0.108 |
| Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy | 1.49 (0.91–2.44) | 0.116 |
| Nephron‐sparing surgery | 1.13 (0.57–2.24) | 0.723 |
| By symptomatology | ||
| Asymptomatic | 1.37 (0.92–2.06) | 0.126 |
| Local | 0.98 (0.61–1.57) | 0.915 |
| Systemic | 1.09 (0.65–1.83) | 0.736 |
| By history of renal‐relevant comorbidities | ||
| None | 1.38 (0.83–2.29) | 0.212 |
| Hypertension only | 1.02 (0.68–1.53) | 0.919 |
| Diabetes only | 0.78 (0.17–3.59) | 0.748 |
| Hypertension and diabetes (without chronic renal failure) | 0.85 (0.46–1.58) | 0.609 |
| Chronic renal failure | 1.25 (0.50–3.13) | 0.642 |
| By deprivation index | ||
| Q1 (lowest) | 1.52 (0.61–3.82) | 0.373 |
| Q2 | 0.74 (0.30–1.85) | 0.524 |
| Q3 | 0.67 (0.21–2.13) | 0.494 |
| Q4 | 0.94 (0.57–1.57) | 0.816 |
| Q5 (highest) | 1.46 (0.58–3.68) | 0.429 |
| By education | ||
| Less than high school | 1.27 (0.75–2.15) | 0.378 |
| High school graduate | 1.10 (0.70–1.74) | 0.673 |
| 1–3 years of college | 1.41 (0.90–2.22) | 0.135 |
| College graduate | 0.90 (0.40–2.02) | 0.807 |
Compared to white race.
See Table 1 footnote for definition.
Figure 1Racial differences in overall survival by age at diagnosis, Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results renal cell carcinoma cases diagnosed between 2002 and 2007. (A) Less than 65 years and (B) 65 years or older at diagnosis.
Figure 2Racial differences in overall survival by tumor size, Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results renal cell carcinoma cases diagnosed between 2002 and 2007. (A) Tumors 4 cm or less and (B) tumors >4 cm.
Relative hazard of death for black race compared to white race, sequentially adjusted for prognostic variables, Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results renal cell carcinoma cases diagnosed between 2002 and 2007
| Unadjusted | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical/treatment | Plus comorbidities | Plus SES | ||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |
| Overall | 1.28 (1.00–1.64) | 1.32 (0.98–1.79) | 1.17 (0.87–1.57) | 0.93 (0.65–1.35) |
| Age at diagnosis | ||||
| <65 | 1.46 (1.06–2.01) | 1.49 (1.01–2.19) | 1.30 (0.89–1.91) | 1.14 (0.71–1.85) |
| ≥65 | 1.12 (0.75–1.68) | 1.04 (0.64–1.68) | 0.86 (0.53–1.38) | 0.64 (0.36–1.14) |
| Tumor size | ||||
| ≤4 cm | 2.15 (1.51–3.06) | 1.95 (1.27–2.99) | 1.76 (1.16–2.66) | 1.15 (0.67–1.98) |
| >4 cm | 0.81 (0.56–1.19) | 0.93 (0.59–1.47) | 0.80 (0.51–1.26) | 0.74 (0.44–1.27) |
| AJCC stage | ||||
| I | 1.67 (1.20–2.33) | 1.67 (1.17–2.40) | 1.33 (0.90–1.94) | 0.91 (0.56–1.47) |
| II–IV | 1.10 (0.73–1.67) | 1.00 (0.61–1.62) | 0.95 (0.58–1.54) | 0.88 (0.49–1.60) |
Model 1: Adjusted for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor size, AJCC stage, histology, Fuhrman grade, symptomatology, nephron‐sparing surgery.
Model 2: Adjusted for all model 1 variables plus history of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal failure.
Model 3: Adjusted for all model 2 variables plus education level and deprivation index.
For stratified analyses, models are not adjusted for that strata variable.