Katherine A Hrebinko1, Caroline Rieser1, Ibrahim Nassour2, Samer Tohme2, Lindsay M Sabik3, Sidrah Khan1, David S Medich4, Amer H Zureikat2, Richard S Hoehn5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Rshoehn@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.
BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Dennis J Hanseman; Vikrom K Dhar; Derek E Go; Michael J Edwards; Shimul A Shah Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Koffi Wima; Matthew A Vestal; Drew J Weilage; Dennis J Hanseman; Daniel E Abbott; Shimul A Shah Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Isaac G Alty; Edward Christopher Dee; James C Cusack; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Robert N Goldstone; Todd D Francone; Jennifer Y Wo; Motaz Qadan Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Alison R Althans; Justin T Brady; Melissa L Times; Deborah S Keller; Alexis R Harvey; Molly E Kelly; Nilam D Patel; Scott R Steele Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Stefanos G Millas; Zeinab M Alawadi; Curtis J Wray; Eric J Silberfein; Richard J Escamilla; Burzeen E Karanjawala; Tien C Ko; Lillian S Kao Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Elliot Wakeam; Nathanael D Hevelone; Rebecca Maine; Jabaris Swain; Stuart A Lipsitz; Samuel R G Finlayson; Stanley W Ashley; Joel S Weissman Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Zaid Muslim; Syed S Razi; Kostantinos Poulikidis; M Jawad Latif; Joanna F Weber; Cliff P Connery; Faiz Y Bhora Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2022-07-11