Regional variation in cancer-directed surgery and mortality among women with epithelial ovarian cancer in the Medicare population.

Center of Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine 04102, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 10/2010; 116(20):4840-8. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25242
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Regional differences in health services can point to disparities in access to healthcare. The authors performed a population-based cohort study to examine differences in ovarian cancer treatment and mortality according to geographic region.
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify 4589 women aged ≥65 years with ovarian cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2002 who had Medicare claims filed from 1998 to 2005. Hospital Referral Region (HRR) was assigned according to patient zip code. The authors calculated the proportion of women in each HRR who underwent cancer-directed surgery. With HRR as the predictor of interest, mortality and the receipt of cancer-directed surgery were described in multivariate analyses.
Among 4589 women with ovarian cancer, 3286 underwent cancer-directed surgery. The receipt of cancer-directed surgery varied by HRR (range, 53%-88%). Women were less likely to undergo cancer-directed surgery if they were older, nonwhite, had higher stage disease, or had more comorbidities. For example, white women were more likely to undergo such surgery (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.82) compared with all nonwhite women. HRR was a significant predictor of cancer-directed surgery (P = .01). A significant correlation was observed between HRR and all-cause mortality (P = .02); however, after adjusting for cancer-directed surgery, that correlation was no longer significant (P = .10).
There was regional variation in mortality among Medicare recipients with ovarian cancer, and access to cancer-directed surgery explained some of that variation. Improving access to high-quality cancer surgery for ovarian cancer may improve outcomes, particularly for minorities and for older women.


Available from: Edward Trimble, Oct 29, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the impact of geographic location on advanced-stage ovarian cancer care adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines in relation to race and socioeconomic status (SES). Patients diagnosed with Stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer (1/1/96-12/31/06) were identified from the California Cancer Registry. Generalized additive models were created to assess the effect of spatial distributions of geographic location, proximity to a high-volume hospital (≥20 cases/year), distance travelled to receive care, race, and SES on adherence to NCCN guidelines, with simultaneous smoothing of geographic location and adjustment for confounding variables. Disparities in geographic predictors of treatment adherence were analyzed with the x(2) test for equality of proportions. Of the 11,770 patients identified, 45.4% were treated according to NCCN guidelines. Black race (OR=1.49, 95%CI=1.21-1.83), low-SES (OR=1.46, 95%CI=1.24-1.72), and geographic location ≥80km/50mi from a high-volume hospital (OR=1.88, 95%CI=1.61-2.19) were independently associated with an increased risk of non-adherent care, while high-volume hospital treatment (OR=0.59, 95%CI=0.53-0.66) and travel distance to receive care ≥32km/20mi (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.69-0.92) were independently protective. SES was inversely associated with location ≥80km/50mi from a high-volume hospital, ranging from 6.3% (high-SES) to 33.0% (low-SES) (p<0.0001). White patients were significantly more likely to travel ≥32km/20mi to receive care (21.8%) compared to Blacks (14.4%), Hispanics (15.9%), and Asian/Pacific Islanders (15.5%) (p<0.0001). Geographic proximity to a high-volume hospital and travel distance to receive treatment are independently associated with NCCN guideline adherent care for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Geographic barriers to standard ovarian cancer treatment disproportionately affect racial minorities and women of low-SES.
    Gynecologic Oncology 03/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.561 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Choice of therapy in early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial, and no broad consensus exists as to how patient and tumor characteristics should be used to guide choice of therapy. We have previously reported on decision making in early HCC by liver surgeons. In the present study, we quantified the impact of clinical factors on choice of therapy for early HCC by gastroenterologists and hepatologists. Physicians who treat HCC were invited to complete a web-based survey including ten case scenarios that systematically varied across seven clinical factors. Choice of therapy-liver transplantation (LT), liver resection (LR), radiofrequency ablation or intra-arterial therapy-was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression models. Tumor number and size, type of resection required, biological Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and platelet count had the largest effects on choice of therapy. For example, LR was more likely to be recommended over LT for patients with small solitary tumors versus multiple tumors [relative risk ratio (RRR) 3.63], those who would require a minor versus major LR (RRR 3.39), those with lower biological MELD score (6 vs. 10; RRR 1.95), and those with a higher platelet count (150,000/μL vs. 70,000/μL; RRR 2.77). In contrast, serum α-fetoprotein level and etiology of cirrhosis were not associated with choice of therapy. No physician-related factors studied had an impact on choice of therapy. The clinical factors weighed most heavily by gastroenterologists and hepatologists are quite similar to those considered important by surgeons. There was good consensus among gastroenterologists and hepatologists as to the factors used to choose therapy.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 02/2014; 21(6). DOI:10.1245/s10434-014-3536-6 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Half of ovarian cancer patients are over the age of 65, and as the population ages, the number of older women with ovarian cancer is increasing. Older women with ovarian cancer receive less surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, suffer worse toxicity from surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, and have worse survival. Performance status has been shown to be an inadequate tool to predict toxicity of older patients from therapy. Use of formal geriatric assessment tools is a promising direction for stratifying older patients on trials. We review current data on outcomes with surgery and chemotherapy in the older population, and discus geriatric assessment tools being studied to aid decisions regarding which older patients will tolerate standard therapy and which will not. Modified treatment regimens and interventions to decrease morbidities in the vulnerable older population should be useful.
    Gynecologic Oncology 11/2014; 136(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.028 · 3.69 Impact Factor

Similar Publications