Objective: The goal of this research was to analyze if disparities in route of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer exist in Florida. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, Florida inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases (2014-2016) were examined to find cases of patients with endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy in the state. Logistic regression models were used to compare patient- and hospital-level factors associated with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open surgery, and complications in patients having open hysterectomy versus MIS. Results: Overall, 6513 patients met the inclusion criteria. MIS was performed in 81.4% of cases. The odds of using a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy (vaginal, robotic, or laparoscopic) were significantly lower for black women (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.50) as well as for other non-white patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84). Patients with Medicaid (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.30-0.59) or Medicare managed care (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.91), or who received care at a teaching hospital (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98) or government hospital (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38-0.65) were also less likely to receive MIS. Patients receiving care at a high-volume (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.30-2.20) or medium-volume (OR: 3.11; 95% CI: 2.37-4.08) hospital, or patients who were located in the Central (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.17-2.48) or Peninsula (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.56) regions, compared to the Florida Panhandle, had greater odds of receiving MIS. Conclusions: Although Florida has a high adoption of MIS for treating endometrial cancer, disparities persist. Efforts of state-level entities should focus on improving access to minimally invasive hysterectomy for racial minorities with endometrial cancer.
Objective: The goal of this research was to analyze if disparities in route of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer exist in Florida. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, Florida inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases (2014-2016) were examined to find cases of patients with endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy in the state. Logistic regression models were used to compare patient- and hospital-level factors associated with having minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open surgery, and complications in patients having open hysterectomy versus MIS. Results: Overall, 6513 patients met the inclusion criteria. MIS was performed in 81.4% of cases. The odds of using a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy (vaginal, robotic, or laparoscopic) were significantly lower for black women (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.50) as well as for other non-white patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84). Patients with Medicaid (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.30-0.59) or Medicare managed care (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.91), or who received care at a teaching hospital (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98) or government hospital (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38-0.65) were also less likely to receive MIS. Patients receiving care at a high-volume (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.30-2.20) or medium-volume (OR: 3.11; 95% CI: 2.37-4.08) hospital, or patients who were located in the Central (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.17-2.48) or Peninsula (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.56) regions, compared to the Florida Panhandle, had greater odds of receiving MIS. Conclusions: Although Florida has a high adoption of MIS for treating endometrial cancer, disparities persist. Efforts of state-level entities should focus on improving access to minimally invasive hysterectomy for racial minorities with endometrial cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
endometrial cancer; health disparities; hysterectomy; minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Jason C Barnett; John P Judd; Jennifer M Wu; Charles D Scales; Evan R Myers; Laura J Havrilesky Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Tiffany L Beck; Christopher B Morse; Heidi J Gray; Barbara A Goff; Renata R Urban; John B Liao Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jennifer Scalici; Brittney B Laughlin; Michael A Finan; Bin Wang; Rodney P Rocconi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Wui-Jin Koh; Benjamin E Greer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sachin M Apte; Susana M Campos; John Chan; Kathleen R Cho; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Nefertiti Dupont; Patricia J Eifel; Amanda Nickles Fader; Christine M Fisher; David K Gaffney; Suzanne George; Ernest Han; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Lainie Martin; David Mutch; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; William Small; Nelson Teng; Todd Tillmanns; Fidel A Valea; Nicole McMillian; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: John K Chan; Austin B Gardner; Katie Taylor; Caroline A Thompson; Kevin Blansit; Xinhua Yu; Daniel S Kapp Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Evelyn M Schepers; Erik W van Zwet; Andries R H Twijnstra; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.344