Differences in Rural Versus Urban Patients With Prostate Cancer in Diagnosis and Treatment: An Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1200/OP.23.00547
Xinglei Shen, Katelyn Kane, Aaron J Katz, Deborah Usinger, Ying Cao, Ronald C Chen
{"title":"Differences in Rural Versus Urban Patients With Prostate Cancer in Diagnosis and Treatment: An Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort.","authors":"Xinglei Shen, Katelyn Kane, Aaron J Katz, Deborah Usinger, Ying Cao, Ronald C Chen","doi":"10.1200/OP.23.00547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patients living in rural communities have greater barriers to cancer care and poorer outcomes. We hypothesized that rural patients with prostate cancer have less access and receive different treatments compared with urban patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a population-based prospective cohort, the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study, to compare differences in prostate cancer diagnosis, access to care, and treatment in patients by geographic residence. The 2013 rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) was used to determine urban (RUCC 1-3) versus rural (RUCC 4-9) location of residence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with rural residence comprised 25% of the cohort (364 of 1,444); they were less likely to be White race and had lower income and educational attainment. Rural patients were more likely to have <12 cores on biopsy (47.1% <i>v</i> 35.7%; <i>P</i> < .001) and less likely (40.8% <i>v</i> 47.6%; <i>P</i> = .04) to receive multidisciplinary consultation. We observed significant differences in treatment between urban and rural patients, including rural patients receiving less active surveillance or observation (22.6% <i>v</i> 28.7%), especially in low-risk cancer (33.2% <i>v</i> 40.7%). On multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient and diagnostic factors, rural residence was associated with less use of active surveillance or observation over radical treatment (ie, surgery or radiation therapy; odds ratio, 0.49 <i>v</i> urban; <i>P</i> < .001) in patients with low-risk cancer.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with prostate cancer who live in rural versus urban areas experience several differences in care that are likely clinically meaningful, including fewer cores in the diagnostic biopsy, less utilization of multidisciplinary consultation, less use of active surveillance, or observation for low-risk disease. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions in mitigating these disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.23.00547","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Patients living in rural communities have greater barriers to cancer care and poorer outcomes. We hypothesized that rural patients with prostate cancer have less access and receive different treatments compared with urban patients.

Methods: We used a population-based prospective cohort, the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study, to compare differences in prostate cancer diagnosis, access to care, and treatment in patients by geographic residence. The 2013 rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) was used to determine urban (RUCC 1-3) versus rural (RUCC 4-9) location of residence.

Results: Patients with rural residence comprised 25% of the cohort (364 of 1,444); they were less likely to be White race and had lower income and educational attainment. Rural patients were more likely to have <12 cores on biopsy (47.1% v 35.7%; P < .001) and less likely (40.8% v 47.6%; P = .04) to receive multidisciplinary consultation. We observed significant differences in treatment between urban and rural patients, including rural patients receiving less active surveillance or observation (22.6% v 28.7%), especially in low-risk cancer (33.2% v 40.7%). On multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient and diagnostic factors, rural residence was associated with less use of active surveillance or observation over radical treatment (ie, surgery or radiation therapy; odds ratio, 0.49 v urban; P < .001) in patients with low-risk cancer.

Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer who live in rural versus urban areas experience several differences in care that are likely clinically meaningful, including fewer cores in the diagnostic biopsy, less utilization of multidisciplinary consultation, less use of active surveillance, or observation for low-risk disease. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions in mitigating these disparities.

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
农村与城市前列腺癌患者在诊断和治疗方面的差异:基于人群的队列分析。
目的:生活在农村社区的患者获得癌症治疗的障碍更大,治疗效果更差。我们假设,与城市患者相比,农村前列腺癌患者获得治疗的机会更少,接受的治疗方法也不同:我们利用一个基于人群的前瞻性队列--北卡罗来纳州前列腺癌比较效果和生存研究--来比较不同地理居住地的前列腺癌患者在诊断、就医和治疗方面的差异。2013年城乡连续编码(RUCC)用于确定城市(RUCC 1-3)与农村(RUCC 4-9)的居住地:居住在农村的患者占队列的 25%(1,444 人中的 364 人);他们不太可能是白种人,收入和教育程度也较低。农村患者接受多学科会诊的几率更高(40.8% 对 47.6%;P = .04),而城市患者接受多学科会诊的几率更低(35.7% 对 35.7%;P < .001)。我们观察到城市和农村患者在治疗方面存在明显差异,包括农村患者接受主动监测或观察的比例较低(22.6% 对 28.7%),尤其是低风险癌症患者(33.2% 对 40.7%)。在对患者和诊断因素进行调整后进行的多变量分析中,居住在农村的低风险癌症患者较少接受积极监测或观察,而较少接受根治性治疗(即手术或放疗;几率比,0.49 对城市;P < .001):结论:居住在农村地区的前列腺癌患者与居住在城市地区的前列腺癌患者在治疗方面存在一些差异,这些差异很可能具有临床意义,包括诊断性活检的取芯较少、较少使用多学科会诊、较少使用主动监测或对低风险疾病进行观察。今后还需要开展研究,评估干预措施在缩小这些差异方面的效果。
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Patient, Parent, and Oncologist Perspectives and Recommendations on the Right Way to Talk About Prognosis in Advanced Childhood Cancer. Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline Clinical Insights. "Rehabbed to Death" in Oncology: Where Do We Go From Here? Impact of an Etoposide Chemotherapy Shortage on Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Natural Experiment. Association of Community-Level Social Vulnerability With Clinical Trial Discussion and Participation Among Cancer Survivors.
×
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