Carolina Villanueva1, Jenny Chang2, Argyrios Ziogas3, Robert E Bristow4, Verónica M Vieira5. 1. Program in Public Health, Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences, University of California, Anteater Instruction & Research Building, 653 East Peltason Drive, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. Electronic address: hcvillan@uci.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, 205 Irvine Hall, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. Electronic address: jjchang@uci.edu. 3. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, 205 Irvine Hall, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. Electronic address: aziogas@uci.edu. 4. Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, 333 City Boulevard West, Ste 1400, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. Electronic address: rbristow@uci.edu. 5. Program in Public Health, Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences, University of California, Anteater Instruction & Research Building, 653 East Peltason Drive, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA; Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA. Electronic address: vvieira@uci.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that geographic location may independently contribute to ovarian cancer survival. We aimed to investigate how the association between residential location and ovarian cancer-specific survival in California varies by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. METHODS: Additive Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between geographic location throughout California and survival among 29,844 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1996 and 2014. We conducted permutation tests to determine a global P-value for significance of location. Adjusted analyses considered distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality-of-care hospital, and receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care. Models were also stratified by stage, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Location was significant in unadjusted models (P = 0.009 among all stages) but not in adjusted models (P = 0.20). HRs ranged from 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.93) in Southern Central Valley to 1.41 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.73) in Northern California but were attenuated after adjustment (maximum HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.27). Better survival was generally observed for patients traveling longer distances for care. Associations between survival and proximity to closest high-quality-of-care hospitals were null except for women of lowest socioeconomic status living furthest away (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, geographic variations observed in ovarian cancer-specific survival were due to important predictors such as receiving guideline-adherent care. Improving access to expert care and ensuring receipt of guideline-adherent treatment should be priorities in optimizing ovarian cancer survival.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that geographic location may independently contribute to ovarian cancer survival. We aimed to investigate how the association between residential location and ovarian cancer-specific survival in California varies by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. METHODS: Additive Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between geographic location throughout California and survival among 29,844 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1996 and 2014. We conducted permutation tests to determine a global P-value for significance of location. Adjusted analyses considered distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality-of-care hospital, and receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care. Models were also stratified by stage, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Location was significant in unadjusted models (P = 0.009 among all stages) but not in adjusted models (P = 0.20). HRs ranged from 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.93) in Southern Central Valley to 1.41 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.73) in Northern California but were attenuated after adjustment (maximum HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.27). Better survival was generally observed for patients traveling longer distances for care. Associations between survival and proximity to closest high-quality-of-care hospitals were null except for women of lowest socioeconomic status living furthest away (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, geographic variations observed in ovarian cancer-specific survival were due to important predictors such as receiving guideline-adherent care. Improving access to expert care and ensuring receipt of guideline-adherent treatment should be priorities in optimizing ovarian cancer survival.
Authors: Daniel Polsky; Katrina A Armstrong; Thomas C Randall; Richard N Ross; Orit Even-Shoshan; Paul R Rosenbaum; Jeffrey H Silber Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Linda C Harlan; Amanda L Greene; Limin X Clegg; Margaret Mooney; Jennifer L Stevens; Martin L Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Zainab Siddiq; Rebecca Arend; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Sharyn N Lewin; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544