Rural vs urban colorectal and lung cancer patients: Differences in stage at presentation

Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Impact Factor: 4.45). 11/2007; 205(5):636-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.04.043
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rural surgeons are often uneasy when their outcomes are compared with those of urban surgeons because they perceive that rural patients typically present with worse disease. Rural patients with cancer are commonly thought to present at a later stage of disease, although this is based largely on anecdotal evidence.
Retrospective, descriptive analysis of cancer stage at presentation of rural versus urban patients with two common cancers (lung, colorectal) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from the National Cancer Institute. Rural versus urban designations were based on rural-urban continuum codes from the US Department of Agriculture. We constructed an ordinal logistic regression model to compare stage at presentation between rural and urban colorectal and lung cancer patients, while controlling for other factors that might be associated with late stage at presentation, including age, race, gender, marital status, income level, and level of education.
In univariate and multivariate analyses, patients with colorectal and lung cancer from rural areas were not more likely to present at later stage. The ordinal logistic regression model indicated that urban patients are more likely to present with late-stage colorectal and lung cancer, compared with rural patients (p < 0.001). For colon cancer, other factors notably associated with stage IV disease were low-income, African-American race, age younger than 65 years, divorce, male gender, and language isolation. For lung cancer, factors notably associated with stage IV disease were African-American race, divorce, male gender, and language isolation.
Urban rather than rural residence appears to be associated with later stages of lung and colorectal cancer at presentation. This finding is contrary to the common assumption that rural patients present at later stages of disease.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: More than 50 million people reside in rural America. However, the impact of patient rurality on colon cancer care has been incompletely characterized, despite its known impact on screening. Our study sought to examine the impact of patient rurality on quality and comprehensive colon cancer care. We constructed a retrospective cohort of 123,129 patients with stage 0 to IV colon cancer. Rural residence was established based on the patient medical service study area designated by the registry. The study was conducted using the 1996-2008 California Cancer Registry. All of the patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2008 with tumors located in the colon were eligible for inclusion in this study. Baseline characteristics were compared by rurality status. Multivariate regression models then were used to examine the impact of rurality on stage in the entire cohort, adequate lymphadenectomy in stage I to III disease, and receipt of chemotherapy for stage III disease. Proportional-hazards regression was used to examine the impact of rurality on cancer-specific survival. Of all of the patients diagnosed with colon cancer, 18,735 (15%) resided in rural areas. Our multivariate models demonstrate that rurality was associated with later stage of diagnosis, inadequate lymphadenectomy in stage I to III disease, and lower likelihood of receiving chemotherapy for stage III disease. In addition, rurality was associated with worse cancer-specific survival. We could not account for socioeconomic status directly, although we used insurance status as a surrogate. Furthermore, we did not have access to treatment location or distance traveled. We also could not account for provider or hospital case volume, patient comorbidities, or complications. A significant portion of patients treated for colon cancer live in rural areas. Yet, rural residence is associated with modest differences in stage, adherence to quality measures, and survival. Future endeavors should help improve care to this vulnerable population (see video, Supplemental Digital Content 1,
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 04/2015; 58(4):415-422. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000173 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The objective of this article is to identify whether there is a difference in survival from prostate cancer in urban and rural areas of Scotland and to identify potential inequalities in incidence, disease characteristics and the treatment of prostate cancer between these areas. Subjects/patients and methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken. Retrospective analysis of data from Information Services Division and regional cancer databases from 2005 to 2010 was performed. A comparison of NHS Highland & Western Isles as the rural group with NHS Lothian as the urban group was made. Data were collected on patient and disease characteristics, first treatment and mortality. Non-parametric continuous data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical data were assessed using a two-tailed Z test. The p value for statistical significance was set at < 0.05. Results: The incidence of prostate cancer was higher in rural areas. Rural patients were older at diagnosis (p < 0.0001), presented with higher risk disease (p < 0.0001) and underwent less curative treatment (p < 0.0001). There was potentially poorer survival in rural areas. Conclusions: Men living in rural areas of Scotland present with more aggressive prostate cancer and may have poorer survival. This could be due to high levels of PSA testing in urban areas, therefore further studies are needed to identify patterns of PSA testing in Scotland. These inequalities will be highlighted to the Scottish Government to inform the ‘Detect Cancer Early’ campaign for its second phase in 2015.
    Japanese Journal of Clinical Urology 11/2013; DOI:10.1177/2051415813512303
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Urban sprawl has the potential to influence cancer mortality via direct and indirect effects on obesity, access to health services, physical activity, transportation choices and other correlates of sprawl and urbanization. This paper presents a cross-sectional analysis of associations between urban sprawl and cancer mortality in urban and suburban counties of the United States. This ecological analysis was designed to examine whether urban sprawl is associated with total and obesity-related cancer mortality and to what extent these associations differed in different regions of the US. A major focus of our analyses was to adequately account for spatial heterogeneity in mortality. Therefore, we fit a series of regression models, stratified by gender, successively testing for the presence of spatial heterogeneity. Our resulting models included county level variables related to race, smoking, obesity, access to health services, insurance status, socioeconomic position, and broad geographic region as well as a measure of urban sprawl and several interactions. Our most complex models also included random effects to account for any county-level spatial autocorrelation that remained unexplained by these variables. Total cancer mortality rates were higher in less sprawling areas and contrary to our initial hypothesis; this was also true of obesity related cancers in six of seven U.S. regions (census divisions) where there were statistically significant associations between the sprawl index and mortality. We also found significant interactions (p < 0.05) between region and urban sprawl for total and obesity related cancer mortality in both sexes. Thus, the association between urban sprawl and cancer mortality differs in different regions of the US. Despite higher levels of obesity in more sprawling counties in the US, mortality from obesity related cancer was not greater in such counties. Identification of disparities in cancer mortality within and between geographic regions is an ongoing public health challenge and an opportunity for further analytical work identifying potential causes of these disparities. Future analyses of urban sprawl and health outcomes should consider exploring regional and international variation in associations between sprawl and health.
    International Journal of Health Geographics 01/2014; 13(1):3. DOI:10.1186/1476-072X-13-3 · 2.62 Impact Factor