Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN.
Chest. 2020 Aug;158(2):787-796. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.042. Epub 2020 May 6.
To eliminate them, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care and outcome disparities need to be better understood.
How does rurality interact with NSCLC care and outcome disparities?
We examined guideline-concordant use of active treatment for NSCLC across five institutions in one community-based health care system spanning 44% of the Delta Regional Authority catchment area from 2011 to 2017. Institution- and patient-level rurality were based on Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. Chi-squared, F-tests, and logistic regressions were used to analyze differences across institutions and rurality; survival was examined using log-rank tests and Cox regression.
Of 6,259 patients, 47% resided in rural areas; two of five institutions were rurally located and provided care for 20% of patients. Compared with rural residents at rural institutions, urban and rural residents attending urban institutions were more likely to receive stage-preferred treatment: OR 1.68 (95%CI, 1.44-1.96), and 1.33 (1.11-1.61), respectively, after adjusting for insurance, age, and clinical stage. Urban and rural residents attending urban institutions had a lower hazard of death compared with rural residents attending rural institutions: hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (0.64-0.75) and 0.61 (0.55-0.67), respectively. Among recipients of stage-preferred treatment, care at urban institutions remained less hazardous: HR 0.7 (0.63-0.79). When further stratified by stage, care for late-stage patients at urban institutions remained less hazardous: HR 0.8 (0.71-0.91).
Rurality-associated treatment and survival disparities were present at the patient and institution levels, but the institution-level disparity was greater. Rural residents receiving care at urban institutions had similar outcomes to urban residents receiving care at urban hospitals. To overcome rurality-associated NSCLC survival disparity, interventions should preferentially target the institution level, including expanding access to higher-quality guideline-concordant care.
为了消除这些差异,需要更好地了解非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的护理和结果差异。
农村地区与 NSCLC 护理和结果差异之间如何相互作用?
我们检查了在 2011 年至 2017 年期间,一个社区医疗保健系统中的五个机构中,根据五个机构中的五项机构,对 NSCLC 进行的一致治疗的指南。机构和患者的农村地区是基于农村-城市通勤区代码。卡方检验、F 检验和逻辑回归用于分析机构和农村地区之间的差异;使用对数秩检验和 Cox 回归检查生存情况。
在 6259 名患者中,有 47%的人居住在农村地区;其中两个机构位于农村地区,为 20%的患者提供护理。与农村地区的农村居民相比,城市和农村居民在城市机构接受治疗的情况下,更有可能接受首选的治疗:调整保险、年龄和临床分期后,比值比分别为 1.68(95%CI,1.44-1.96)和 1.33(1.11-1.61)。与农村地区的农村居民相比,城市和农村居民在城市机构接受治疗的情况下,死亡风险较低:风险比(HR)分别为 0.69(0.64-0.75)和 0.61(0.55-0.67)。在接受首选治疗的患者中,城市机构的治疗仍然风险较低:HR 为 0.7(0.63-0.79)。当按阶段进一步分层时,城市机构对晚期患者的治疗仍然风险较低:HR 为 0.8(0.71-0.91)。
患者和机构层面都存在与农村地区相关的治疗和生存差异,但机构层面的差异更大。在城市机构接受治疗的农村居民与在城市医院接受治疗的城市居民的结果相似。为了克服与农村地区相关的 NSCLC 生存差异,干预措施应优先针对机构层面,包括扩大获得更高质量的指南一致治疗的机会。