Jude K A des Bordes1, David S Lopez2,3, Michael D Swartz4, Robert J Volk5. 1. Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1465, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. desbordes@netzero.net. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Division of Urology, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) morbidity and mortality occur across various populations. We investigated the sociodemographic correlates of treatment and disparities in the application of cure-intended (i.e., radical prostatectomy [RP], radiation therapy [RT]) treatment strategies in localized PCa among Texas residents diagnosed with PCa. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Texas Cancer Registry on men diagnosed with stage T1 or T2 PCa between 2004 and 2009. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to explore independent associations between cure-intended treatment modalities and sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status [SES], and geographic location (rural versus urban)) using patients who did not receive definitive treatment as comparison group. RESULTS: Of 46,971 patients with available treatment data, age-adjusted treatment rates were 39.1% RP, 30.7% RT, and 30.2% for all other non-curative modalities. Compared to patients under 60 years, those ≥60 were less likely to receive RP, patients between 60 and 80 years were more likely to undergo RT, while those 80 years or older were less likely. Non-Hispanic blacks (OR =0.55, 95% CI, 0.50-0.59) and Hispanics (OR = 0.68, 95%CI, 0.62-0.74) were less likely to receive RP compared with whites. Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive RT (OR = 0.78, 95%CI, 0.72-0.85) than blacks and whites. People of low SES were 35% (OR = 0.65, 95%CI, 0.60-0.69) and 15% (OR = 0.85, 95%CI, 0.79-0.90) less likely to receive RP and RT, respectively, compared with those of high SES. Rural-urban status was not associated with cure-intended treatment. CONCLUSION: Potential sociodemographic disparities exist in the application of cure-intended treatment in localized prostate cancer in Texas particularly in race/ethnicity and SES.
PURPOSE: Disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) morbidity and mortality occur across various populations. We investigated the sociodemographic correlates of treatment and disparities in the application of cure-intended (i.e., radical prostatectomy [RP], radiation therapy [RT]) treatment strategies in localized PCa among Texas residents diagnosed with PCa. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Texas Cancer Registry on men diagnosed with stage T1 or T2 PCa between 2004 and 2009. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to explore independent associations between cure-intended treatment modalities and sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status [SES], and geographic location (rural versus urban)) using patients who did not receive definitive treatment as comparison group. RESULTS: Of 46,971 patients with available treatment data, age-adjusted treatment rates were 39.1% RP, 30.7% RT, and 30.2% for all other non-curative modalities. Compared to patients under 60 years, those ≥60 were less likely to receive RP, patients between 60 and 80 years were more likely to undergo RT, while those 80 years or older were less likely. Non-Hispanic blacks (OR =0.55, 95% CI, 0.50-0.59) and Hispanics (OR = 0.68, 95%CI, 0.62-0.74) were less likely to receive RP compared with whites. Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive RT (OR = 0.78, 95%CI, 0.72-0.85) than blacks and whites. People of low SES were 35% (OR = 0.65, 95%CI, 0.60-0.69) and 15% (OR = 0.85, 95%CI, 0.79-0.90) less likely to receive RP and RT, respectively, compared with those of high SES. Rural-urban status was not associated with cure-intended treatment. CONCLUSION: Potential sociodemographic disparities exist in the application of cure-intended treatment in localized prostate cancer in Texas particularly in race/ethnicity and SES.
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; Mah-Jabeen Soobader; S V Subramanian; Rosa Carson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Vickie L Shavers; Martin L Brown; Arnold L Potosky; Carrie N Klabunde; W W Davis; Judd W Moul; Angela Fahey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L C Harlan; A Potosky; F D Gilliland; R Hoffman; P C Albertsen; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; J L Stanford; R A Stephenson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-12-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elisabetta Rapiti; Gerald Fioretta; Robin Schaffar; Isabel Neyroud-Caspar; Helena M Verkooijen; Franz Schmidlin; Raymond Miralbell; Roberto Zanetti; Christine Bouchardy Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; C Holly A Andrilla; Michael P Porter; Roger A Rosenblatt; Shilpen Patel; Mark P Doescher Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; William C Hunt; Frank D Gilliland; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Elyn H Wang; James B Yu; Robert Abouassally; Neal J Meropol; Gregory Cooper; Nilay D Shah; Stephen B Williams; Christopher Gonzalez; Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov; Hui Zhu; Simon P Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Tatyana A Shamliyan; Brent C Taylor; Robert L Kane Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Cathryn Murphy; Marie Knoll; Gabriel A Benavidez; Kelsey R Day; Radhika Ranganathan; Parthenia Luke; Anja Zgodic; Kewei Shi; Melinda A Merrell; Elizabeth L Crouch; Heather M Brandt; Jan M Eberth Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 3.390