Tomi Akinyemiju1,2,3, Swati Sakhuja4, Neomi Vin-Raviv5,6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA. tomiakin@uky.edu. 2. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. tomiakin@uky.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40508, USA. tomiakin@uky.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA. 5. University of Northern Colorado Cancer Rehabilitation Institute, Greeley, CO, USA. 6. School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an important etiologic and prognostic factor for cancer, but few studies have assessed hospitalization outcomes among patients with both conditions. METHODS: Data was obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). Study variables were assessed using ICD-9 codes on adults aged 40 years and over admitted to a US hospital between 2007 and 2011 with primary diagnosis of either breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. We examined in-hospital mortality, post-surgical complications, and discharge disposition among cancer patients with MetS and compared with non-MetS patients. RESULTS: Hospitalized breast (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.46), colorectal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.35-0.49), and prostate (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.49) cancer patients with MetS had significantly reduced odds of in-hospital mortality. The odds of post-surgical complications among breast (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39) and prostate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37) cancer patients with MetS were higher, but lower by 7% among colorectal cancer patients with MetS. Additionally, breast (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.11-1.32) and colorectal (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) cancer patients with MetS had significantly higher odds for discharge to a skilled nursing facility compared with those without MetS, but this was not statistically significant among prostate cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse health outcomes were significantly higher among hospitalized patients with a primary diagnosis of cancer and MetS. Future studies are needed to identify clinical strategies for detecting and managing patients with MetS to reduce the likelihood of poor inpatient outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an important etiologic and prognostic factor for cancer, but few studies have assessed hospitalization outcomes among patients with both conditions. METHODS: Data was obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). Study variables were assessed using ICD-9 codes on adults aged 40 years and over admitted to a US hospital between 2007 and 2011 with primary diagnosis of either breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. We examined in-hospital mortality, post-surgical complications, and discharge disposition among cancerpatients with MetS and compared with non-MetS patients. RESULTS: Hospitalized breast (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.46), colorectal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.35-0.49), and prostate (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.49) cancerpatients with MetS had significantly reduced odds of in-hospital mortality. The odds of post-surgical complications among breast (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39) and prostate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.37) cancerpatients with MetS were higher, but lower by 7% among colorectal cancerpatients with MetS. Additionally, breast (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.11-1.32) and colorectal (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) cancerpatients with MetS had significantly higher odds for discharge to a skilled nursing facility compared with those without MetS, but this was not statistically significant among prostate cancerpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse health outcomes were significantly higher among hospitalized patients with a primary diagnosis of cancer and MetS. Future studies are needed to identify clinical strategies for detecting and managing patients with MetS to reduce the likelihood of poor inpatient outcomes.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nathan A Berger; Panos Savvides; Siran M Koroukian; Eva F Kahana; Gary T Deimling; Julia H Rose; Karen F Bowman; Robert H Miller Journal: Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc Date: 2006
Authors: Tomi F Akinyemiju; Neomi Vin-Raviv; Daniel Chavez-Yenter; Xueyan Zhao; Henna Budhwani Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Abdulla Shehab; Bayan Al-Dabbagh; Wael Almahmeed; Nazar Bustani; Nicolaas Nagelkerke; Abdulla Alnaeemi; Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali Journal: Open Cardiovasc Med J Date: 2012-07-13
Authors: Alecia M Blaszczak; Somashekar G Krishna; Phil A Hart; David Bradley; Willa Hsueh; Luis F Lara; Hisham Hussan; Alice Hinton; Darwin L Conwell; Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2020-08-23 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Shelly Soffer; Eyal Zimlichman; Benjamin S Glicksberg; Orly Efros; Matthew A Levin; Robert Freeman; David L Reich; Eyal Klang Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Shelly Soffer; Eyal Zimlichman; Matthew A Levin; Alexis M Zebrowski; Benjamin S Glicksberg; Robert Freeman; David L Reich; Eyal Klang Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2022-03-24