Same People, Different Results: Categorizing Cancer Registry Cases Across the Rural-Urban Continuum.

BACKGROUND: Many rural-urban indexes are utilized in cancer research. This variation introduces inconsistencies between studies. Recommendations on index use have prioritized geographical unit over feasibility of inclusion in analysis. We evaluated rural-urban indexes and recommend one for use to increase comparability across studies. METHODS: We assessed 9 US rural-urban indexes regarding their respective rural and urban code ranges; geographical unit, land area, and population distributions; percent agreement; suitability for analysis; and integration feasibility for national, state, and local cancer research. We referenced 1569 Wisconsin Pancreatic Cancer Registry patients to demonstrate how index choice affects patient categorization. RESULTS: Six indexes categorized rural and urban areas. Indexes agreed on binary rural-urban designation for 88.8% of the US population. As ternary variables, they agreed for 83.4%. For cancer registry patients, this decreased to 73.4% and 60.4% agreement, respectively. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) performed the best in differentiating metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties; availability for retrospective and prospective studies; and continuous coding for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Urban/rural patient categorization changed with index selection. We conclude that RUCC is an appropriate and feasible rural-urban index to include in cancer research, as it is standardly available in national cancer registries, can be matched to patient's county of residence for local research, and it had the least amount of fluctuation of the indices analyzed. Utilizing RUCC as a continuous variable across studies with a rural-urban component will increase reproducibility and comparability of results and eliminate rural-urban index choice as a potential source of discrepancy between studies.

Colon Cancer Survival Among South Asian Americans: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of a National Dataset.

INTRODUCTION: Colon cancer (CC) is one of the most common cancers among South Asian Americans (SAAs). The objective of this study was to measure differences in risk-adjusted survival among SAAs with CC compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs) using a representative national dataset from the United States. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with CC in the National Cancer Database (2004-2020) was performed. Differences in presentation, management, median overall survival (OS), three-year survival, and five-year survival between SAAs and NHWs were compared. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression were used to assess differences in survival outcomes, adjusting for demographics, presentation, and treatments received. RESULTS: Data from 2873 SAA and 639,488 NHW patients with CC were analyzed. SAAs were younger at diagnosis (62.2 versus 69.5 y, P < 0.001), higher stage (stage III [29.0% versus 26.2%, P = 0.001] or Stage IV [21.4% versus 20.0%, P = 0.001]), and experienced delays to first treatment (SAA 5.9% versus 4.9%, P = 0.003). SAAs with CC had higher OS (median not achieved versus 68.1 mo for NHWs), three-year survival (76.3% versus 63.4%), and five-year survival (69.1% versus 52.9%). On multivariable Cox regression, SAAs with CC had a lower risk of death across all stages (hazard ratio: 0.64, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this national study, SAA patients with CC presented earlier in life with more advanced disease, and a higher proportion experienced treatment delay compared to NHW patients. Despite these differences, SAAs had better adjusted OS than NHW, warranting further exploration of tumor biology and socioeconomic determinants of cancer outcomes in SAAs.

Association of Neighborhood Disadvantage with Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: While lower socioeconomic status has been shown to correlate with worse outcomes in cancer care, data correlating neighborhood-level metrics with outcomes are scarce. We aim to explore the association between neighborhood disadvantage and both short- and long-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 243 patients who underwent resection for PDAC at a single institution between 1 January 2010 and 15 September 2021. To measure neighborhood disadvantage, the cohort was divided into tertiles by Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Short-term outcomes of interest were minor complications, major complications, unplanned readmission within 30 days, prolonged hospitalization, and delayed gastric emptying (DGE). The long-term outcome of interest was overall survival. Logistic regression was used to test short-term outcomes; Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier method were used for long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The median ADI of the cohort was 49 (IQR 32-64.5). On adjusted analysis, the high-ADI group demonstrated greater odds of suffering a major complication (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-6.40; p = 0.01) and of an unplanned readmission (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.16-9.28; p = 0.03) compared with the low-ADI group. There were no significant differences between groups in the odds of minor complications, prolonged hospitalization, or DGE (all p > 0.05). High ADI did not confer an increased hazard of death (p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We found that worse neighborhood disadvantage is associated with a higher risk of major complication and unplanned readmission after pancreatectomy for PDAC.

Treatment Inequity: Examining the Influence of Non-Hispanic Black Race and Ethnicity on Pancreatic Cancer Care and Survival in Wisconsin.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated race and ethnicity-based disparities in first course treatment and overall survival among Wisconsin pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: We identified adults diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the Wisconsin Cancer Reporting System from 2004 through 2017. We assessed race and ethnicity-based disparities in first course of treatment via adjusted logistic regression and overall survival via 4 incremental Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: The study included 8,490 patients: 91.3% (n = 7,755) non-Hispanic White; 5.1% (n = 437) non-Hispanic Black, 1.8% (n = 151) Hispanic, 0.6% Native American (n = 53), and 0.6% Asian (n = 51) race and ethnicities. Non-Hispanic Black patients had lower odds of treatment than non-Hispanic White patients for full patient (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41-0.65) and Medicare cohorts (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.55). Non-Hispanic Black patients had lower odds of receiving surgery than non-Hispanic White patients (full cohort OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48-0.92]; Medicare cohort OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.34-0.93]). Non-Hispanic Black patients experienced worse survival than non-Hispanic White patients in the first 2 incremental Cox proportional hazard regression models (model II HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31). After adding insurance and treatment course, non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients experienced similar survival (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09). CONCLUSION: Non-Hispanic Black patients were almost 50% less likely to receive any treatment and 33% less likely to receive surgery than non-Hispanic White patients. After including treatment course, non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patient survival was similar. Increasing non-Hispanic Black patient treatment rates by addressing structural factors affecting treatment availability and employing culturally humble approaches to treatment discussions may mitigate these disparities.

The current status of survivorship care provision at the state level: a Wisconsin-based assessment.

PURPOSE: As the number of cancer survivors grows, the responsibility for addressing their unique physical and emotional needs also increases. Survivorship care services vary by geography, health system, and insurance coverage. We aimed to understand the state of survivorship care services in Wisconsin's cancer facilities. METHODS: The selection of cancer treatment facilities sought to provide a geographically representative sample. An adapted Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index was comprised of questions regarding different aspects of survivorship practices. Areas of interest included disciplines incorporated, services provided, standards of care, and discussion of late-term effects, among others. RESULTS: Out of 90 sites invited, 40 responded (44.4%). Oncologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners were the most common follow-up care disciplines. Risk reduction services, dietary services, access to physical activity, and behavioral health specialist referral were described as standards of care in less than half of sites. All sites reported working with community partners, 92.5% of which worked with YMCA-related programs. Discussion of long-term effects was a standard of care for all sites. Effects such as emotional distress and health practice changes were frequently discussed with almost all patients, while sexual functioning and fertility were not. CONCLUSIONS: Services and specialties related to behavioral health, fertility/sexual health, and rehabilitation and physical activity varied between sites. Such services may be offered less often due to variable insurance coverage. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Policy solutions should be explored to increase insurance coverage and provision rates of necessary survivorship services to keep up with the projected increase in demand. Given imperfect and evolving measurement tools to assess needs for cancer survivorship care services, cancer survivors should feel empowered to voice when they have unmet needs and request referrals.

Survey of Radon Testing and Mitigation by Wisconsin Residents, Landlords, and School Districts.

INTRODUCTION: Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, the leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers, and is estimated to cause 21,000 deaths every year. Radon is especially prevalent in the upper Midwest. This study aimed to assess radon testing and mitigation practices among residential homeowners, landlords, and school districts in Wisconsin. METHODS: Two survey sample datasets were used to assess radon testing and mitigation in residential homes: the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) and Wisconsin Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Wisconsin landlords and school administrators were surveyed to assess radon testing and mitigation in rental properties and schools, respectively. RESULTS: Approximately 30% of Wisconsin homeowners (22.1% from SHOW and 39.9% from BRFSS) have tested their properties for radon. Similarly, 31.0% of Wisconsin landlords (40/129) and 35.1% of Wisconsin school districts (78/222) have tested their schools for radon. Of homeowners with elevated radon, about 60% mitigated. School districts whose radon levels tested high most commonly did not mitigate, with costs and/or lack of funding cited as the most common barrier. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Radon testing and mitigation practices are inadequate in Wisconsin, and future work will seek to determine the best methods to increase testing and mitigation and reduce radon-induced lung cancer deaths in Wisconsin.