Socioeconomic Status and Chemotherapy Use for Melanoma in Older People.

University of North Texas Health Science Center.
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement 03/2011; 30(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1017/S0714980810000796
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The study objective was to examine the association, among older persons with cutaneous melanoma, between areal socioeconomic status (SES) and receiving chemotherapy. SEER-Medicare-linked database (1,239 white men and women aged ≥ 66, with invasive melanoma [regional and distant stages]; 1991-1999) was used. SES was measured by census tract poverty level (average of 1990 and 2000 Census data). Covariates were sociodemographics, tumor characteristics, and comorbidity index. Residing in poorer SES areas was associated with a lower likelihood for receiving chemotherapy among patients in the overall sample (adjusted odds ratios = OR 0.97, 95% confidence interval = CI 0.95-0.99), and those with regional stage at diagnosis (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.98). These findings reflect socioeconomic disparities in chemotherapy use for melanoma among older white patients in the United States.

Download full-text


Available from: James S Goodwin, Sep 29, 2015
20 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite a known optimal treatment protocol for the management of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), many patients fail to receive complete surgical resection or post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). The underlying reasons behind this disparity are unclear. Our study investigates the influence of regional health system resources on the surgical management and PORT receipt in patients with GBM. Surgical intervention, PORT receipt and patient data for patients diagnosed with GBM were obtained from the years 2004 to 2008 from the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and combined with the health system data from the Area Resource File. Four logistic models were constructed to test the effect of health system characteristics on surgical treatment choice and PORT receipt among health service areas (HSAs). We found that younger, married patients in HSAs with higher median incomes were significantly more likely to receive both gross total resection (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.002) and PORT (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.008). The density of radiation oncology equipped hospitals was also a significant predictor of PORT receipt (p = 0.002). Our findings suggest regional variations in of neuro-oncology services and income may have impact on GBM management. Policies aimed at narrowing disparities in treatment may need to focus on addressing regional variations in oncology resources.
    Journal of Neuro-Oncology 02/2013; 112(3). DOI:10.1007/s11060-013-1068-8 · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine U.S. treatment patterns for pathologic staging practices in patients with thick head and neck melanomas (HNM). Patients with thick HNM without clinical evidence of in-transit, regional, or distant metastatic spread at presentation were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Treatment trends for patients were summarized, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify associations between varying practice patterns. A total of 1,230 patients with HNM meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Surgical staging procedures were utilized in 53.5 %, including both sentinel lymph node biopsy (37 %) and elective neck dissection (16 %). Patients undergoing a surgical staging procedure were younger (64 vs. 77 years, p < 0.001) with smaller tumors (6.3 vs. 6.6 mm, p = 0.008). The rate of occult nodal disease was 22 % in patients undergoing a surgical staging procedure. The presence of a positive regional node in this subgroup of patients was associated with a significant reduction in disease-specific (44 vs. 59 months, p < 0.001) and overall survival (40 vs. 53 months, p < 0.001) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a positive node was the most significant factor for reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 2.36, 95 % confidence interval 1.71-3.23) and disease-specific survival (hazard ratio 2.84, 95 % confidence interval 1.99-4.06). Pathologic staging procedures provide independent prognostic information for patients with thick HNM. Despite this, current practice patterns demonstrate underutilization, particularly in elderly patients. Further work is needed to address the barriers to pathologic staging implementation in patients with thick HNM.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 08/2013; 20(13). DOI:10.1245/s10434-013-3160-x · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: This article sought to elucidate how aspects of poverty and culture may contribute to race- and ethnicity-based disparities in cutaneous melanoma outcomes. Methods: We identified published studies addressing the social determinants of melanoma. Selected review articles included US-based studies comprised of patients representing adults, children, and adolescents. Results: African Americans and Hispanics diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma are more likely to present with more advanced stages of disease at diagnosis and have higher rates of mortality than their nonminority counterparts. These disparities may be a consequence of economic, social, and cultural barriers such as low income, public forms of health insurance, lower levels of education, lower levels of melanoma awareness and knowledge, and lower rates of participation in melanoma screening. No studies in the literature examined the potential impact of social injustice, English proficiency, immigrant status, and health literacy. Conclusions: Substantial gaps exist in our knowledge of the pathways linking social determinants and race- and ethnicity-based disparities in melanoma. More studies are warranted to inform the development of effective interventions aimed at narrowing inequities and improving cutaneous melanoma outcomes among minority populations.
    Cancer control: journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 10/2014; 21(4):343-349. · 3.50 Impact Factor
Show more