Amy Klapheke1, Stanley A Yap2, Kevin Pan3, Rosemary D Cress4. 1. Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA. Electronic address: aklapheke@crgc-cancer.org. 2. Department of Urology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA. 3. Davis High School, Davis, CA. 4. Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how socioeconomic status and other demographic factors are associated with the receipt of chemotherapy and subsequent survival in patients diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer. METHODS: Using data from the California Cancer Registry, we identified 3,667 patients diagnosed with metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder between 1988 and 2014. The characteristics of patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy as part of the first course of treatment were compared using chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of chemotherapy treatment. Fine and Gray competing-risks regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate bladder cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Less than half (46.3%) of patients received chemotherapy. Patients from the lowest socioeconomic quintile were half as likely to have chemotherapy as those from highest quintile (odds ratio = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Unmarried patients were significantly less likely to receive treatment (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.7). Not receiving chemotherapy was associated with greater mortality from bladder cancer (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3, 1.5) and from all causes (hazard ratio = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8, 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: We found clear disparities in chemotherapy treatment and survival with respect to socioeconomic and marital status. Future studies should explore the possible reasons why patients with low socioeconomic status and who are unmarried are less likely to have chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how socioeconomic status and other demographic factors are associated with the receipt of chemotherapy and subsequent survival in patients diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer. METHODS: Using data from the California Cancer Registry, we identified 3,667 patients diagnosed with metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder between 1988 and 2014. The characteristics of patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy as part of the first course of treatment were compared using chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of chemotherapy treatment. Fine and Gray competing-risks regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate bladder cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Less than half (46.3%) of patients received chemotherapy. Patients from the lowest socioeconomic quintile were half as likely to have chemotherapy as those from highest quintile (odds ratio = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Unmarried patients were significantly less likely to receive treatment (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.7). Not receiving chemotherapy was associated with greater mortality from bladder cancer (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3, 1.5) and from all causes (hazard ratio = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8, 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: We found clear disparities in chemotherapy treatment and survival with respect to socioeconomic and marital status. Future studies should explore the possible reasons why patients with low socioeconomic status and who are unmarried are less likely to have chemotherapy.
Authors: Maximilian Burger; James W F Catto; Guido Dalbagni; H Barton Grossman; Harry Herr; Pierre Karakiewicz; Wassim Kassouf; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Carlo La Vecchia; Shahrokh Shariat; Yair Lotan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ifeanyichukwu I Megwalu; Anna Vlahiotis; Mohamed Radwan; Jay F Piccirillo; Adam S Kibel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rosemary D Cress; Alan M Zaslavsky; Dee W West; Robert E Wolf; Martha C Felter; John Z Ayanian Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: George R Prout; Margaret N Wesley; Peter G McCarron; Vivien W Chen; Raymond S Greenberg; Robert M Mayberry; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Thierry Lebret; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Harman Maxim Bruins; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; James Dunn; Mathieu Rouanne; Yann Neuzillet; Erik Veskimäe; Antoine G van der Heijden; Georgios Gakis; Maria J Ribal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John M Sung; Jeremy W Martin; Francis A Jefferson; Daniel A Sidhom; Keyhan Piranviseh; Melissa Huang; Nobel Nguyen; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Hoda Anton-Culver; Ramy F Youssef Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Beth Russell; Christel Häggström; Lars Holmberg; Fredrik Liedberg; Truls Gårdmark; Richard T Bryan; Pardeep Kumar; Mieke Van Hemelrijck Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-01-07
Authors: Beth Russell; Mieke V Hemelrijck; Truls Gårdmark; Lars Holmberg; Pardeep Kumar; Andrea Bellavia; Christel Häggström Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Mohd Nasrullah Nik Ab Kadir; Suhaily Mohd Hairon; Najib Majdi Yaacob; Azizah Ab Manan; Nabihah Ali Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390