Background: The current standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM) constitutes maximal safe surgical resection, followed by fractionated radiation and temozolomide. This treatment regimen is logistically burdensome, and in a health care system in which access to care is variable, there may be patients with worsened outcomes due to inadequate access to optimal treatment. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with diagnoses of GBM in 2006-2014. Patients were grouped according to insurance status: private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured. Treatments provided (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy) were compared between groups in univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 61614 patients were analyzed. Compared with private insurance, the odds of surgery for Medicaid and uninsured patients were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.87), respectively (P < 0.001). The multivariable odds of receiving radiotherapy were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96), 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.68), and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.43-0.52) for Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, respectively (all P < 0.001). In addition, the odds of receiving chemotherapy were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.99), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.49-0.57), and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.38-0.46) for Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusion: Insurance status and type of insurance coverage appear to impact treatments rendered for GBM, independently of other variables. Furthermore, we find that such differential access to care significantly impacts survival. Ensuring adequate access to care for all patients with diagnoses of glioblastoma is critical to optimize survival, especially as therapies continue to advance.
Background: The current standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM) constitutes maximal safe surgical resection, followed by fractionated radiation and temozolomide. This treatment regimen is logistically burdensome, and in a health care system in which access to care is variable, there may be patients with worsened outcomes due to inadequate access to optimal treatment. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with diagnoses of GBM in 2006-2014. Patients were grouped according to insurance status: private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured. Treatments provided (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy) were compared between groups in univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 61614 patients were analyzed. Compared with private insurance, the odds of surgery for Medicaid and uninsured patients were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.87), respectively (P < 0.001). The multivariable odds of receiving radiotherapy were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96), 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.68), and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.43-0.52) for Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, respectively (all P < 0.001). In addition, the odds of receiving chemotherapy were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.99), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.49-0.57), and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.38-0.46) for Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusion: Insurance status and type of insurance coverage appear to impact treatments rendered for GBM, independently of other variables. Furthermore, we find that such differential access to care significantly impacts survival. Ensuring adequate access to care for all patients with diagnoses of glioblastoma is critical to optimize survival, especially as therapies continue to advance.
Authors: S Jay Olshansky; Douglas J Passaro; Ronald C Hershow; Jennifer Layden; Bruce A Carnes; Jacob Brody; Leonard Hayflick; Robert N Butler; David B Allison; David S Ludwig Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew Koshy; John L Villano; Therese A Dolecek; Andrew Howard; Usama Mahmood; Steven J Chmura; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Bridget J McCarthy Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Mieke J Aarts; Valery E P P Lemmens; Marieke W J Louwman; Anton E Kunst; Jan Willem W Coebergh Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Matthew A Powell; Noor Al-Hammadi; Ling Chen; J Philip Miller; Phillip Y Roland; David G Mutch; William A Cliby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn Maree Field; Mark Andrew Rosenthal; Merve Yilmaz; Mark Tacey; Kate Drummond Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 2.601
Authors: Sudheer R Thumma; Robert K Fairbanks; Wayne T Lamoreaux; Alexander R Mackay; John J Demakas; Barton S Cooke; Ameer L Elaimy; Peter W Hanson; Christopher M Lee Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Anshit Goyal; Victor M Lu; Mohammed Ali Alvi; Mohamad Bydon; Sani H Kizilbash; Terry C Burns Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Krissia M Rivera Perla; Oliver Y Tang; Shayla N M Durfey; Tito Vivas-Buitrago; Wendy J Sherman; Ian Parney; Joon H Uhm; Alyx B Porter; Heinrich Elinzano; Steven A Toms; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Victor M Lu; Daniel G Eichberg; Evan M Luther; Ashish H Shah; David J Daniels; Ossama M Maher; Toba N Niazi Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Theodore Wang; Anthony Pham; Stella Yoo; Frank J Attenello; Richard Jennelle; Naveed Wagle; Eric L Chang; Gabriel Zada Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Aaron Bower; Fang-Chi Hsu; Kathryn E Weaver; Caleb Yelton; Rebecca Merrill; Robert Wicks; Mike Soike; Angelica Hutchinson; Emory McTyre; Adrian Laxton; Stephen Tatter; Christina Cramer; Michael Chan; Glenn Lesser; Roy E Strowd Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Jie Lin; Julie A Bytnar; Brett J Theeler; Katherine A McGlynn; Craig D Shriver; Kangmin Zhu Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 6.921