PURPOSE: Compared to urban populations, rural populations rank poorly on numerous health indicators, including cancer outcomes. We examined the relationship of rural residence with stage and treatment among patients with prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry we identified all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. Patients were classified as residing in a rural area, a large town or an urban area using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification. Our primary outcomes included indicators of prostate cancer treatment and treatment types but we also examined disease stage and mortality. We used the chi-square tests to assess differences between groups and estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between rural residence and treatment. RESULTS: We identified 51,024 men diagnosed with localized or metastatic prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. The overall incidence of prostate cancer decreased during the study period from 416 to 304/100,000 men while the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 336 to 538/100,000. Rural residents were less likely to undergo treatment than urban residents even when stratified by low, intermediate and high risk disease (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89; and aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, respectively). Rural status did not affect the receipt of radiation therapy compared to other treatment types. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer treatment differs between urban and rural residents. Rural residents are less likely to receive treatment even when stratified by disease risk.
PURPOSE: Compared to urban populations, rural populations rank poorly on numerous health indicators, including cancer outcomes. We examined the relationship of rural residence with stage and treatment among patients with prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry we identified all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. Patients were classified as residing in a rural area, a large town or an urban area using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification. Our primary outcomes included indicators of prostate cancer treatment and treatment types but we also examined disease stage and mortality. We used the chi-square tests to assess differences between groups and estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between rural residence and treatment. RESULTS: We identified 51,024 men diagnosed with localized or metastatic prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. The overall incidence of prostate cancer decreased during the study period from 416 to 304/100,000 men while the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 336 to 538/100,000. Rural residents were less likely to undergo treatment than urban residents even when stratified by low, intermediate and high risk disease (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89; and aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, respectively). Rural status did not affect the receipt of radiation therapy compared to other treatment types. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer treatment differs between urban and rural residents. Rural residents are less likely to receive treatment even when stratified by disease risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
health services accessibility; healthcare disparities; patient outcome assessment; prostatic neoplasms; rural population
Authors: Mieke J Aarts; Evert L Koldewijn; Philip M Poortmans; Jan Willem W Coebergh; Marieke Louwman Journal: Urology Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Maria O Celaya; Judy R Rees; Jennifer J Gibson; Bruce L Riddle; E Robert Greenberg Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chun Chieh Lin; Suanna S Bruinooge; M Kelsey Kirkwood; Dawn L Hershman; Ahmedin Jemal; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; James B Yu; Shane Hopkins; Michael Goldstein; Dean Bajorin; Sharon H Giordano; Michael Kosty; Anna Arnone; Amy Hanley; Stephanie Stevens; Christine Olsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeremy P Cetnar; John M Hampton; Amy A Williamson; Tracy Downs; Dian Wang; Jean B Owen; Byron Crouse; Nathan Jones; J Frank Wilson; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Urology Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Joseph M Unger; Anna Moseley; Banu Symington; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Scott D Ramsey; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-08-03
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816