Article

Racial differences in the receipt of bowel surveillance following potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery.

Macro International, QRC Division, Bethesda, MD 20814-3202, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 01/2004; 38(6 Pt 2):1885-903. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00207.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate racial differences in posttreatment bowel surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery in a large population of Medicare patients.
We used a large population-based dataset: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked to Medicare data.
This is a retrospective cohort study. We analyzed data from 44,768 non-Hispanic white, 2,921 black, and 4,416 patients from other racial/ethnic groups, aged 65 and older at diagnosis, who had a diagnosis of local or regional colorectal cancer between 1986 and 1996, and were followed through December 31, 1998. Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to investigate the relation of race and receipt of posttreatment bowel surveillance.
Sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics were collected at the time of diagnosis for all members of the cohort. Surgery and bowel surveillance with colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema were obtained from Medicare claims using ICD-9-CM and CPT-4 codes.
The chance of surveillance within 18 months of surgery was 57 percent, 48 percent, and 45 percent for non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and others, respectively. After adjusting for sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics, blacks were 25 percent less likely than whites to receive surveillance if diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 (RR = 0.75, 95 percent CI = 0.70-0.81).
Elderly blacks were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to receive posttreatment bowel surveillance and this result was not explained by measured racial differences in sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics. More research is needed to explore the influences of patient- and provider-level factors on racial differences in posttreatment bowel surveillance.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Kevin Knopf, Jul 09, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surveillance colonoscopy is commonly recommended following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer. We determined factors associated with patients undergoing a least one colonoscopy within five years of surgery. In this historical cohort study, data on 3918 patients age 30 years or older residing in Alberta, Canada, who had undergone a potentially curative surgical resection for local or regional stage colorectal cancer between 1983 and 1995 were obtained from the provincial cancer registry, ministry of health and cancer clinic charts. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability of undergoing a post-operative colonoscopy were calculated for patient, tumor and treatment-related variables of interest. A colonoscopy was performed within five years of surgery in 1979 patients. The probability of undergoing a colonoscopy for those diagnosed in the 1990s was greater than for those diagnosed earlier (0.65 vs 0.55, P < 0.0001). The majority of the difference was seen at one-year following surgery, consistent with changes in surveillance practices. Those most likely to undergo a colonoscopy were those under age 70 (0.74 vs 0.50 for those age 70-79, P < 0.0001), who underwent a pre-operative colonoscopy (0.69 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001), and who underwent a resection with reanastomosis (0.62 vs 0.47 for abdominoperineal resection, P < 0.0001) by a surgeon who performs colonoscopies (0.68 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001). The majority of patients undergo colonoscopy following colorectal cancer surgery. However, there are important variations in surveillance practices across different patient and treatment characteristics.
    BMC Cancer 04/2004; 4:14. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-4-14 · 3.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this analysis is to describe factors associated with colorectal surveillance following diagnosis and treatment of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Subjects were identified as part of the HMO Cancer Research Network's study of colorectal cancer survivors. To be eligible for the main study, patients had to be part of the staff model components of health maintenance organizations in southeastern Michigan and Minnesota. Using computerized databases, individuals were identified who were 40 years or older with incident nonmetastatic colorectal cancer diagnosed between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2000. Using data current through 2002, we analyzed the cohort using chi-square test statistics, life tables, and Cox proportional hazards models to understand variations in posttreatment surveillance practices. Subjects were followed up from date of diagnosis to date of recurrence, death, disenrollment from the health plan, or loss to follow-up, which ever came first. We assessed factors associated with colorectal surveillance at 1, 3, and 5 years after treatment. We also included an analysis comparing those who received an exam and those who didn't regardless of exam timing. A total of 908 patients were eligible for the main study. Of these, we excluded subjects who were not white or African American (n = 27), resulting in an analytic sample of 881 (97% of the eligible cohort). Twenty-five percent of subjects were African American, 43% were female, and 48% were aged 70 years or older. The proportion who received an exam at 1 year was 18%, at 3 years was 60%, and at 5 years was 67%. Chi-square tests showed that African Americans were statistically significantly less likely than whites to receive an exam at all three time points. The Cox proportional hazards model for examinations regardless of timing and adjusted for confounders showed that African Americans were still less likely than whites to receive an exam (hazard ratio = 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.75). The same trend in undersurveillance was also observed for those 80 years of age or older at diagnosis, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.26 to 0.57). Our data indicate that colorectal cancer survivors who are African American or aged 80 years or more at diagnosis are less likely to receive posttreatment colorectal surveillance. Whether these differences are due to system or patient level barriers needs further study.
    JNCI Monographs 02/2005; DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi045
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many consensus guidelines recommend routine surveillance to detect recurrent disease among cancer survivors. We compare surveillance care receipt to guideline recommendations. Cohorts of patients aged 30 years or older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, or prostate cancer between 1990 and 1995 and treated with curative intent were identified (n = 100 per site). Receipt and indications for examinations and procedures were abstracted from medical records for as long as 5 years after treatment. Kaplan-Meier product estimates were used to estimate time to initial and subsequent service receipt. Most cancer patients received the recommended minimum number of physical examinations after treatment. In fact, a sizable number of cancer survivors received physical examinations at a frequency in excess of what is currently recommended. Similarly, most of these cancer survivors received recommended testing for local recurrence. Yet, less than two thirds of colorectal cancer patients received recommended colon examinations in the initial year after treatment. Among colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients who received recommended initial local recurrence testing, repeat testing tended to occur more frequently than what is currently recommended. The use of testing for metastatic disease that is not recommended in guidelines is also commonplace among these cancer survivors. Among cohorts of cancer patients, we found wide variation in the use of surveillance care, including patterns of care receipt reflective of both underuse and overuse relative to guideline recommendations. Clinical reasons for these variations and the cost and health implications deserve further study.
    Medical Care 07/2005; 43(6):592-9. DOI:10.1097/01.mlr.0000163656.62562.c4 · 2.94 Impact Factor