Article

A black-white comparison of the quality of stage-specific colon cancer treatment

Prevention Research Center, Department of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30310-1495, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 02/2010; 116(3):713-22. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24757
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several studies have attributed racial disparities in cancer incidence and mortality to variances in socioeconomic status and health insurance coverage. However, an Institute of Medicine report found that blacks received lower quality care than whites after controlling for health insurance, income, and disease severity.
To examine the effects of race on colorectal cancer outcomes within a single setting, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study that analyzed the cancer registry, billing, and medical records of 365 university hospital patients (175 blacks and 190 whites) diagnosed with stage II-IV colon cancer between 2000 and 2005. Racial differences in the quality (effectiveness and timeliness) of stage-specific colon cancer treatment (colectomy and chemotherapy) were examined after adjusting for socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, sex, age, and marital status.
Blacks and whites had similar sociodemographic characteristics, tumor stage and site, quality of care, and health outcomes. Age and diagnostic stage were predictors of quality of care and mortality. Although few patients (5.8%) were uninsured, they were more likely to present at advanced stages (61.9% at stage IV) and die (76.2%) than privately insured and publicly insured patients (p = .002).
In a population without racial differences in socioeconomic status or insurance coverage, patients receive the same quality of care, regardless of racial distinction, and have similar health outcomes. Age, diagnostic stage, and health insurance coverage remained independently associated with mortality. Future studies of disparities in colon cancer treatment should examine sociocultural barriers to accessing appropriate care in various healthcare settings.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Christopher R Flowers, Apr 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasing evidence indicates insurance status plays a role in the outcome of trauma patients; however its role on outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unclear. A retrospective review was queried within the National Trauma Data Bank. Moderate to severe TBI insured patients were compared with their uninsured counterparts with respect to demographics, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent risk factors for mortality. Of 52,344 moderate to severe TBI patients, 41,711 (79.7%) were insured. Compared with the uninsured, insured TBI patients were older (46.1 +/- 22.4 vs. 37.3 +/- 16.3 years, P < 0.0001), more severely injured (ISS > or =16: 78.4% vs. 74.4%, P < 0.0001), had longer intensive care unit length of stay (6.0 +/- 9.4 vs. 5.1 +/- 7.6, P < 0.0001) and had higher mortality (9.3% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.0001). However, when controlling for confounding variables, the presence of insurance had a significant protective effect on mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.97, P = 0.007). This effect was most noticeable in patients with head abbreviated injury score = 5 (adjusted odds ratio 0.7; 95% confidence interval: 0.6-0.8, P < 0.0001), indicating insured severe TBI patients have improved outcomes compared with their uninsured counterparts. There is no clear explanation for this finding however the role of insurance in outcomes after trauma remains a topic for further investigation.
    The American surgeon 10/2010; 76(10):1108-11. · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Like many health professionals who care for people with cancer, I entered the field because of specific patients who touched my heart. They still do. In an effort to weave together my personal view of what the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) stands for and the purpose the organization serves, my presidential theme this year is "Patients. Pathways. Progress." Patients come first. Caring for patients is the most important, rewarding aspect of being an oncology professional. At its best, the relationship between doctor and patient is compassionate and honest-and a relationship of mutual respect. Many professional organizations have an interest in cancer, but no other society is so focused on the entire spectrum of cancer care, education, and research. Nor is any other society as particularly interested in bringing new treatments to our patients through clinical trials as ASCO is. Clinical trials are the crux for improving treatments for people with cancer and are critical for continued progress against the disease. "Pathways" has several meanings. Some pathways are molecular-like the cancer cell's machinery of destruction, which we have only begun to understand in recent years. But there are other equally important pathways, including the pathways new therapies follow as they move from bench to bedside and the pathways patients follow during the course of their diseases. Improved understanding of these pathways will lead to new approaches in cancer care, allowing doctors to provide targeted therapies that deliver improved, personalized treatment. The best pathway for patients to gain access to new therapies is through clinical trials. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program, a nationwide network of cancer centers and physicians, represent the United States' most important pathway for accelerating progress against cancer. This year, the Institute of Medicine released a report on major challenges facing the Cooperative Group Program. Chief among them is the fact that funding for the program has been nearly flat since 2002. ASCO has called for a doubling of funding for cooperative group research within five years and supports the full implementation of the Institute of Medicine recommendations to revitalize the program. ASCO harnesses the expertise and resources of its 28,000 members to bring all of these pathways together for the greater good of patients. Progress against cancer is being made every day-measurable both in our improved understanding of the disease and in our ability to treat it. A report issued in December 2009 by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries found that rates of new diagnoses and rates of death resulting from all cancers combined have declined significantly in recent years for men and women overall and for most racial and ethnic populations in the United States. The pace of progress can be and needs to be hastened. Much remains to be done. Sustained national investment in cancer research is needed to bring better, more effective, less toxic treatments to people living with cancer. Pathways to progress continue in the clinic as doctors strive to find the right treatments for the right patients, to understand what represents the right treatments, and to partner with patients and caregivers for access to those treatments. This report demonstrates that significant progress is being made on the front lines of clinical cancer research. But although our nation's investment in this research is paying off, we must never forget the magnitude of what lies ahead. Cancer remains the number two killer of Americans. Future progress depends on continued commitment, from both ASCO and the larger medical community. George W. Sledge Jr, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 11/2010; 28(36):5327-47. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2742 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is lack of literature addressing factors that influence the process of care for patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the forms of social support available for patients with relapsed lymphoma considering stem cell transplantation and examined the influence of support on treatment delay. Data were collected from 119 patients with relapsed lymphoma using a questionnaire to capture sociodemographic information and emotional, informational, and instrumental forms of social support. Sixty-four percent of the patients were married, 56% had children over 18 years of age, 43% were employed, and 72% had private health insurance. Family members formed a major source of emotional support (83%), while 47% of patients considered personal prayers to be important. While 79% of patients received clinical support from nurses, few received formal group support or formal peer support (6.7% and 1.7% respectively). Support from extended family and peer groups reduced the likelihood of treatment delays. The potential benefits of peer group support should be reinforced for patients considering transplantation given how infrequent this form of social support is utilized and its positive impact on the process of care. Future studies should test the impact of social support on health outcomes especially among the underserved population.
    Social Work in Health Care 11/2011; 50(10):815-27. DOI:10.1080/00981389.2011.595889 · 0.62 Impact Factor
Show more