Gino Cioffi1,2, David J Cote3,4,5, Quinn T Ostrom2,6, Carol Kruchko2, Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan1,2. 1. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 2. Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Hinsdale, IL. 3. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 6. Section of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, Department of Medicine, Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common and most lethal primary malignant brain tumor. Extent of surgical resection is one of the most important prognostic factors associated with improved survival. Historically, patients living in nonmetropolitan counties in the United States have limited access to optimal treatment and health care services. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is an association between urbanicity and surgical treatment patterns among US patients with primary GB. METHODS: Cases with histologically confirmed, primary GB diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 were obtained from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the association between urbanicity and receipt of surgical treatment (gross total resection [GTR]/subtotal resection [STR] vs biopsy only/none) and extent of resection (GTR vs STR), adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, race, US regional division, and primary tumor site. RESULTS: Patients residing in nonmetropolitan counties were 7% less likely to receive surgical treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.96, P < .0001). Among those who received surgical treatment, metropolitan status was not significantly associated with receiving GTR vs STR (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.04, P = .620). CONCLUSIONS: Among US patients with GB, urbanicity is associated with receipt of surgical treatment, but among patients who receive surgery, urbanicity is not associated with extent of resection. These results point to potential differences in access to health care for those in nonmetropolitan areas that warrant further exploration.
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common and most lethal primary malignant brain tumor. Extent of surgical resection is one of the most important prognostic factors associated with improved survival. Historically, patients living in nonmetropolitan counties in the United States have limited access to optimal treatment and health care services. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is an association between urbanicity and surgical treatment patterns among US patients with primary GB. METHODS: Cases with histologically confirmed, primary GB diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 were obtained from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the association between urbanicity and receipt of surgical treatment (gross total resection [GTR]/subtotal resection [STR] vs biopsy only/none) and extent of resection (GTR vs STR), adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, race, US regional division, and primary tumor site. RESULTS: Patients residing in nonmetropolitan counties were 7% less likely to receive surgical treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.96, P < .0001). Among those who received surgical treatment, metropolitan status was not significantly associated with receiving GTR vs STR (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.04, P = .620). CONCLUSIONS: Among US patients with GB, urbanicity is associated with receipt of surgical treatment, but among patients who receive surgery, urbanicity is not associated with extent of resection. These results point to potential differences in access to health care for those in nonmetropolitan areas that warrant further exploration.
Authors: Vignesh Raman; Mohamed A Adam; Megan C Turner; Harvey G Moore; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Joshua B Rubin; Justin D Lathia; Michael E Berens; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Debraj Mukherjee; Hasan A Zaidi; Thomas Kosztowski; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Henry Brem; David C Chang; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-03
Authors: M Lacroix; D Abi-Said; D R Fourney; Z L Gokaslan; W Shi; F DeMonte; F F Lang; I E McCutcheon; S J Hassenbusch; E Holland; K Hess; C Michael; D Miller; R Sawaya Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Orin Bloch; Seunggu J Han; Soonmee Cha; Matthew Z Sun; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Andrew T Parsa Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Monika E Hegi; Annie-Claire Diserens; Thierry Gorlia; Marie-France Hamou; Nicolas de Tribolet; Michael Weller; Johan M Kros; Johannes A Hainfellner; Warren Mason; Luigi Mariani; Jacoline E C Bromberg; Peter Hau; René O Mirimanoff; J Gregory Cairncross; Robert C Janzer; Roger Stupp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew M Grabowski; Pablo F Recinos; Amy S Nowacki; Jason L Schroeder; Lilyana Angelov; Gene H Barnett; Michael A Vogelbaum Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Gi-Ming Wang; Gino Cioffi; Nirav Patil; Kristin A Waite; Robert Lanese; Quinn T Ostrom; Carol Kruchko; Michael E Berens; James R Connor; Justin D Lathia; Joshua B Rubin; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 13.029