The Impact of Food Insecurity on the Management and Survival of Stage I-III Esophageal Cancer

{"title":"The Impact of Food Insecurity on the Management and Survival of Stage I-III Esophageal Cancer","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.atssr.2024.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes; however, the connection with cancer care is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of county-level food insecurity on the surgical management and survival of patients with esophageal cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients with stage I to III esophageal cancer were identified from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data (2010-2016). County-level food insecurity rates were obtained from the Map the Meal Gap data (2010-2016), divided into quartiles: high, marginal, low, and very low. Multivariable and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between food insecurity and surgical intervention and the relationship between food insecurity and recommendation and receipt of surgery, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate 5-year cancer-specific survival.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 11,114 patients were identified, most of whom were male (78.8%) and non-Hispanic White (77.7%); 44.8% had stage III disease. The odds of undergoing surgical intervention were 27% lower among patients in high–food insecurity counties compared with very low–food insecurity counties (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82). The odds of a patient’s being recommended surgery but not undergoing it was 38% higher among patients in high–food insecurity counties compared with very low–food insecurity counties (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08-1.75). Patients in higher–food insecurity counties had worse survival when compared with patients in very low–food insecurity counties (high: hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.16-1.36).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Among patients with esophageal cancer, significant disparities in surgical resection and survival are associated with high county-level food insecurity. Interventions focused on these communities may help reduce inequities in esophageal cancer care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72234,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","volume":"2 3","pages":"Pages 524-527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124001050/pdfft?md5=5912b175cbdcca40dfefa9edccc09238&pid=1-s2.0-S2772993124001050-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124001050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes; however, the connection with cancer care is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of county-level food insecurity on the surgical management and survival of patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods

Patients with stage I to III esophageal cancer were identified from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data (2010-2016). County-level food insecurity rates were obtained from the Map the Meal Gap data (2010-2016), divided into quartiles: high, marginal, low, and very low. Multivariable and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between food insecurity and surgical intervention and the relationship between food insecurity and recommendation and receipt of surgery, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate 5-year cancer-specific survival.

Results

A total of 11,114 patients were identified, most of whom were male (78.8%) and non-Hispanic White (77.7%); 44.8% had stage III disease. The odds of undergoing surgical intervention were 27% lower among patients in high–food insecurity counties compared with very low–food insecurity counties (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82). The odds of a patient’s being recommended surgery but not undergoing it was 38% higher among patients in high–food insecurity counties compared with very low–food insecurity counties (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08-1.75). Patients in higher–food insecurity counties had worse survival when compared with patients in very low–food insecurity counties (high: hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.16-1.36).

Conclusions

Among patients with esophageal cancer, significant disparities in surgical resection and survival are associated with high county-level food insecurity. Interventions focused on these communities may help reduce inequities in esophageal cancer care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食物不安全对 I-III 期食管癌的管理和生存的影响
背景食物不安全与不良的健康结果有关;然而,人们对食物不安全与癌症治疗之间的关系还不甚了解。本研究旨在评估县级食品不安全对食管癌患者手术治疗和生存的影响。方法从监测流行病学和最终结果数据(2010-2016 年)中识别出 I 至 III 期食管癌患者。县级粮食不安全率来自 Map the Meal Gap 数据(2010-2016 年),分为四等分:高、边缘、低和极低。多变量和多项式逻辑回归分析分别用于检验食物不安全与手术干预之间的关系,以及食物不安全与手术建议和接受手术之间的关系。结果 共发现 11,114 名患者,其中大部分为男性(78.8%)和非西班牙裔白人(77.7%);44.8%的患者为 III 期疾病。与极低粮食不安全县相比,高度粮食不安全县的患者接受手术干预的几率要低 27%(几率比 0.73;95% CI,0.64-0.82)。与粮食极不安全县相比,粮食高度不安全县的患者被建议手术但未接受手术的几率要高出 38%(几率比,1.38;95% CI,1.08-1.75)。结论在食管癌患者中,手术切除率和生存率的显著差异与县级粮食不安全程度高有关。针对这些社区的干预措施可能有助于减少食管癌治疗中的不公平现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
53 days
期刊最新文献
Erratum Contents Perceptions of Frailty and Prehabilitation Among Thoracic Surgeons: Findings From a National Survey Pulmonary Artery Vasa Vasorum Damage in Severe COVID-19–Induced Pulmonary Fibrosis Single-Stage Surgical Approach to Aortoesophageal Fistula After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1