Vidya Puthenpura1, Maureen E Canavan2, Jenny N Poynter3, Michael Roth4, Farzana D Pashankar1, Beth A Jones5, Asher M Marks1. 1. Section of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics Patient Care, Division of Pediatrics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disparities in survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and geography in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors have not been well studied. PROCEDURE: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was conducted for AYA patients diagnosed with primary CNS tumors. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were calculated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity, SES, rurality, and hazard of death. RESULTS: All minority groups showed an increased hazard of death with greatest disparities in the high-grade glioma cohort. Lower SES was associated with an increased hazard of death in non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients (aHR 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.24), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients (aHR 1.34; 95% CI 1.00-1.80), and patients aged 25-29 years (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.55). Mediation analysis showed an indirect effect of SES on the effect of race/ethnicity on the hazard of death only among NHB patients, with SES accounting for 33.7% of the association between NHB and hazard of death. Rurality was associated with an increased hazard of death for patients in the lowest SES tertile (aHR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59) and NHW patients (aHR 1.20; 95% CI 1.08-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified as a racial/ethnic minority, patients with a lower SES, and patients residing in rural areas had an increased hazard of death. Further studies are needed to understand and address the biological, psychosocial, societal, and economic factors that impact AYA neuro-oncology patients at highest risk of experiencing poorer outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Disparities in survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and geography in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors have not been well studied. PROCEDURE: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was conducted for AYA patients diagnosed with primary CNS tumors. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were calculated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity, SES, rurality, and hazard of death. RESULTS: All minority groups showed an increased hazard of death with greatest disparities in the high-grade glioma cohort. Lower SES was associated with an increased hazard of death in non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients (aHR 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.24), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients (aHR 1.34; 95% CI 1.00-1.80), and patients aged 25-29 years (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.55). Mediation analysis showed an indirect effect of SES on the effect of race/ethnicity on the hazard of death only among NHB patients, with SES accounting for 33.7% of the association between NHB and hazard of death. Rurality was associated with an increased hazard of death for patients in the lowest SES tertile (aHR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59) and NHW patients (aHR 1.20; 95% CI 1.08-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified as a racial/ethnic minority, patients with a lower SES, and patients residing in rural areas had an increased hazard of death. Further studies are needed to understand and address the biological, psychosocial, societal, and economic factors that impact AYA neuro-oncology patients at highest risk of experiencing poorer outcomes.
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter M de Blank; Jonathan L Finlay; James G Gurney; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Duncan S Stearns; Johannes E Wolff; Max Liu; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Harland N Sather; Nyla A Heerema; Michael E Trigg; Paul S Gaynon; Leslie L Robison Journal: Blood Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: John H Stewart; Alain G Bertoni; Jennifer L Staten; Edward A Levine; Cary P Gross Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ashley Wilder Smith; Nita L Seibel; Denise R Lewis; Karen H Albritton; Donald F Blair; Charles D Blanke; W Archie Bleyer; David R Freyer; Ann M Geiger; Brandon Hayes-Lattin; James V Tricoli; Lynne I Wagner; Bradley J Zebrack Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexander G Yearley; Julian Bryan Iorgulescu; Ennio Antonio Chiocca; Pier Paolo Peruzzi; Timothy R Smith; David A Reardon; Michael A Mooney Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Amy M Berkman; Clark R Andersen; Branko Cuglievan; David C McCall; Philip J Lupo; Susan K Parsons; Courtney D DiNardo; Nicholas J Short; Nitin Jain; Tapan M Kadia; J A Livingston; Michael E Roth Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.090