User login
Impact of Socioeconomic Disparities and Facility Type on Overall Survival in Stage I vs Stage IV Amelanotic Melanoma: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database
PURPOSE
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding socioeconomic factors, facility type, and overall survival in stage I vs stage IV Amelanotic Melanoma.
BACKGROUND
Amelanotic Melanoma (AM) is a rare form of melanoma that lacks pigment and accounts for approximately 5% of melanomas. Light skin color and increasing age are important risk factors. Although curable when diagnosed early, it is often missed or mistaken for other benign conditions. A study investigating the impact of facility type on overall survival between stage I vs stage IV AM has yet to be done.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with Amelanotic Melanoma (ICD-8730) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to compare demographic features and overall survival (n = 2147). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics for all AM patients were collected. Median household income and facility type were compared between patients diagnosed with stage I and stage IV AM using Pearson Chi- Square test. Breslow thickness and overall survival between stage I and stage IV were evaluated using independent t-test and Kaplan-Meier test, respectively. All variables were evaluated for a significance of P < .05.
RESULTS
Most cases analyzed were White (98.1%), male (58.6%), and had Medicare as the primary payor at diagnosis (51.1%). Of 2147 cases, 497 were stage I (23.1%) and 164 were stage IV AM (7.6%) with a mean age at diagnosis of 66.05 and 63.72 years, respectively. There was a significant difference in overall survival between stage I (mean = 118.7 months) and stage 4 (mean = 42.4 months, P < 0.001). The average Breslow thickness was 1.17mm in stage I and 2.59mm in stage IV (P<0.05). More patients diagnosed at stage I used academic facilities than those diagnosed at stage IV (43.9% vs 33.8%, P<0.05). Most patients diagnosed at stage I were high income compared to patients diagnosed at stage IV (55% vs 43.2%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
With the overall survival of stage IV AM being significantly worse, we hope this study can provide a starting point in the study and prevention of disparities in the early diagnosis of AM.
PURPOSE
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding socioeconomic factors, facility type, and overall survival in stage I vs stage IV Amelanotic Melanoma.
BACKGROUND
Amelanotic Melanoma (AM) is a rare form of melanoma that lacks pigment and accounts for approximately 5% of melanomas. Light skin color and increasing age are important risk factors. Although curable when diagnosed early, it is often missed or mistaken for other benign conditions. A study investigating the impact of facility type on overall survival between stage I vs stage IV AM has yet to be done.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with Amelanotic Melanoma (ICD-8730) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to compare demographic features and overall survival (n = 2147). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics for all AM patients were collected. Median household income and facility type were compared between patients diagnosed with stage I and stage IV AM using Pearson Chi- Square test. Breslow thickness and overall survival between stage I and stage IV were evaluated using independent t-test and Kaplan-Meier test, respectively. All variables were evaluated for a significance of P < .05.
RESULTS
Most cases analyzed were White (98.1%), male (58.6%), and had Medicare as the primary payor at diagnosis (51.1%). Of 2147 cases, 497 were stage I (23.1%) and 164 were stage IV AM (7.6%) with a mean age at diagnosis of 66.05 and 63.72 years, respectively. There was a significant difference in overall survival between stage I (mean = 118.7 months) and stage 4 (mean = 42.4 months, P < 0.001). The average Breslow thickness was 1.17mm in stage I and 2.59mm in stage IV (P<0.05). More patients diagnosed at stage I used academic facilities than those diagnosed at stage IV (43.9% vs 33.8%, P<0.05). Most patients diagnosed at stage I were high income compared to patients diagnosed at stage IV (55% vs 43.2%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
With the overall survival of stage IV AM being significantly worse, we hope this study can provide a starting point in the study and prevention of disparities in the early diagnosis of AM.
PURPOSE
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding socioeconomic factors, facility type, and overall survival in stage I vs stage IV Amelanotic Melanoma.
BACKGROUND
Amelanotic Melanoma (AM) is a rare form of melanoma that lacks pigment and accounts for approximately 5% of melanomas. Light skin color and increasing age are important risk factors. Although curable when diagnosed early, it is often missed or mistaken for other benign conditions. A study investigating the impact of facility type on overall survival between stage I vs stage IV AM has yet to be done.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with Amelanotic Melanoma (ICD-8730) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to compare demographic features and overall survival (n = 2147). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics for all AM patients were collected. Median household income and facility type were compared between patients diagnosed with stage I and stage IV AM using Pearson Chi- Square test. Breslow thickness and overall survival between stage I and stage IV were evaluated using independent t-test and Kaplan-Meier test, respectively. All variables were evaluated for a significance of P < .05.
RESULTS
Most cases analyzed were White (98.1%), male (58.6%), and had Medicare as the primary payor at diagnosis (51.1%). Of 2147 cases, 497 were stage I (23.1%) and 164 were stage IV AM (7.6%) with a mean age at diagnosis of 66.05 and 63.72 years, respectively. There was a significant difference in overall survival between stage I (mean = 118.7 months) and stage 4 (mean = 42.4 months, P < 0.001). The average Breslow thickness was 1.17mm in stage I and 2.59mm in stage IV (P<0.05). More patients diagnosed at stage I used academic facilities than those diagnosed at stage IV (43.9% vs 33.8%, P<0.05). Most patients diagnosed at stage I were high income compared to patients diagnosed at stage IV (55% vs 43.2%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
With the overall survival of stage IV AM being significantly worse, we hope this study can provide a starting point in the study and prevention of disparities in the early diagnosis of AM.
Survival of Follicular Thyroid Cancer Between Surgical Subtypes: A SEER Database Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Follicular thyroid cancer (FTC) is a common endocrine malignancy that is mainly treated with surgical resection. Few prior studies have investigated the optimal type of surgery for this FTC, particularly at a national registry level. The aim of this study is to examine the differences between surgical subtypes in the management of FTC.
METHODS
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database who were diagnosed with FTC between 2000-2020 were selected. The surgeries were categorized into sublobectomy, lobectomy, subtotal thyroidectomy, or thyroidectomy groups based on the surgical procedure performed. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, radiation status, time to treatment, household income, and population size. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 9,983 patients were included. Using Kaplan-Meier, there was improved survival for patients that received surgery (p<0.001). Patients who underwent lobectomy had greater survival than all groups (p<0.001) while thyroidectomy had greater survival compared to sub-lobectomy (p=0.015). On Chi-square, differences at one- and five-year survival were present between surgical groups (p=0.022 and p<0.001, respectively). However, logistic regression showed no survival difference between surgery type at one- and five-years. Additional findings include regional and distal staging having worse survival at one- and five-years (p’s<0.001) while median household income >$75,000 and receipt of radiation improved survival at one-year (p’s<0.05). Household income >$75,000 and radiation status no longer improved survival at five-years. Patients living outside metropolitan areas showed an improved survival at fiveyears (p=0.036).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the preliminary Kaplan- Meier and Chi-square analysis showed that there are significant differences in survival between different surgery subtypes. However, after controlling for multiple variables, no survival differences were observed between surgical types. Despite minimal differences in FTC survival based on the type of surgical intervention, clinical factors like stage and radiation and socioeconomic factors like household income and population size may influence FTC survival. Identifying and controlling for these variables should be considered in future research on FTC.
INTRODUCTION
Follicular thyroid cancer (FTC) is a common endocrine malignancy that is mainly treated with surgical resection. Few prior studies have investigated the optimal type of surgery for this FTC, particularly at a national registry level. The aim of this study is to examine the differences between surgical subtypes in the management of FTC.
METHODS
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database who were diagnosed with FTC between 2000-2020 were selected. The surgeries were categorized into sublobectomy, lobectomy, subtotal thyroidectomy, or thyroidectomy groups based on the surgical procedure performed. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, radiation status, time to treatment, household income, and population size. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 9,983 patients were included. Using Kaplan-Meier, there was improved survival for patients that received surgery (p<0.001). Patients who underwent lobectomy had greater survival than all groups (p<0.001) while thyroidectomy had greater survival compared to sub-lobectomy (p=0.015). On Chi-square, differences at one- and five-year survival were present between surgical groups (p=0.022 and p<0.001, respectively). However, logistic regression showed no survival difference between surgery type at one- and five-years. Additional findings include regional and distal staging having worse survival at one- and five-years (p’s<0.001) while median household income >$75,000 and receipt of radiation improved survival at one-year (p’s<0.05). Household income >$75,000 and radiation status no longer improved survival at five-years. Patients living outside metropolitan areas showed an improved survival at fiveyears (p=0.036).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the preliminary Kaplan- Meier and Chi-square analysis showed that there are significant differences in survival between different surgery subtypes. However, after controlling for multiple variables, no survival differences were observed between surgical types. Despite minimal differences in FTC survival based on the type of surgical intervention, clinical factors like stage and radiation and socioeconomic factors like household income and population size may influence FTC survival. Identifying and controlling for these variables should be considered in future research on FTC.
INTRODUCTION
Follicular thyroid cancer (FTC) is a common endocrine malignancy that is mainly treated with surgical resection. Few prior studies have investigated the optimal type of surgery for this FTC, particularly at a national registry level. The aim of this study is to examine the differences between surgical subtypes in the management of FTC.
METHODS
Patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database who were diagnosed with FTC between 2000-2020 were selected. The surgeries were categorized into sublobectomy, lobectomy, subtotal thyroidectomy, or thyroidectomy groups based on the surgical procedure performed. Additional variables were collected including age, sex, race, stage, radiation status, time to treatment, household income, and population size. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 9,983 patients were included. Using Kaplan-Meier, there was improved survival for patients that received surgery (p<0.001). Patients who underwent lobectomy had greater survival than all groups (p<0.001) while thyroidectomy had greater survival compared to sub-lobectomy (p=0.015). On Chi-square, differences at one- and five-year survival were present between surgical groups (p=0.022 and p<0.001, respectively). However, logistic regression showed no survival difference between surgery type at one- and five-years. Additional findings include regional and distal staging having worse survival at one- and five-years (p’s<0.001) while median household income >$75,000 and receipt of radiation improved survival at one-year (p’s<0.05). Household income >$75,000 and radiation status no longer improved survival at five-years. Patients living outside metropolitan areas showed an improved survival at fiveyears (p=0.036).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the preliminary Kaplan- Meier and Chi-square analysis showed that there are significant differences in survival between different surgery subtypes. However, after controlling for multiple variables, no survival differences were observed between surgical types. Despite minimal differences in FTC survival based on the type of surgical intervention, clinical factors like stage and radiation and socioeconomic factors like household income and population size may influence FTC survival. Identifying and controlling for these variables should be considered in future research on FTC.
Palliative Care Disparities in Small Cell Carcinoma of the Prostate: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database
Purpose
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding palliative care utilization patterns in smallcell carcinoma of the prostate.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting males. One of the most aggressive malignancies of the prostate is small cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate. Almost 70% of patients diagnosed with SCC present with the disseminated disease with a low 5-year survival rate of less than 2%. The role of palliative care can be beneficial in metastatic prostate cancer given its largely incurable course. Despite evidence favoring palliative care for prostate cancer in several patient populations, it remains under-utilized. Palliative care utilization patterns in SCC of the prostate have not yet been studied.
Methods
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with all subtypes of AJCC staged metastatic SCC of the prostate between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to determine palliative care usage (n = 615). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
Data Analysis
Variables were evaluated for significance (P < .05) in relation to the receipt of palliative care using Pearson Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Kaplan- Meier tests. Multivariate analysis was performed via binary logistics regression.
Results
Among the 961 patients diagnosed with SCC of the prostate, 64% had metastatic disease (n = 615). The metastatic cohort was more likely to receive palliative care than those that did not have distant metastasis (24.2% vs 5.7%, P < .001). Palliative care use has grown between 2004 (n = 6) and 2017 (n = 20). Patients that were uninsured were more likely than insured patients to receive palliative care (50% vs 23.5%, P = .003; 95% CI, 0.051- 0.546). Non-Hispanic patients were also more likely than Hispanic patients to receive palliative care (P = .033; 95% CI, 1.154-28.140). New England locations had the highest utilization of palliative care (43.%, P = .009). Factors that impacted palliative care use included facility region, insurance status, and Hispanic status. As palliative care continues to be utilized more frequently, we hope that this study can provide a starting point in studying and preventing palliative treatment disparities.
Purpose
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding palliative care utilization patterns in smallcell carcinoma of the prostate.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting males. One of the most aggressive malignancies of the prostate is small cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate. Almost 70% of patients diagnosed with SCC present with the disseminated disease with a low 5-year survival rate of less than 2%. The role of palliative care can be beneficial in metastatic prostate cancer given its largely incurable course. Despite evidence favoring palliative care for prostate cancer in several patient populations, it remains under-utilized. Palliative care utilization patterns in SCC of the prostate have not yet been studied.
Methods
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with all subtypes of AJCC staged metastatic SCC of the prostate between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to determine palliative care usage (n = 615). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
Data Analysis
Variables were evaluated for significance (P < .05) in relation to the receipt of palliative care using Pearson Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Kaplan- Meier tests. Multivariate analysis was performed via binary logistics regression.
Results
Among the 961 patients diagnosed with SCC of the prostate, 64% had metastatic disease (n = 615). The metastatic cohort was more likely to receive palliative care than those that did not have distant metastasis (24.2% vs 5.7%, P < .001). Palliative care use has grown between 2004 (n = 6) and 2017 (n = 20). Patients that were uninsured were more likely than insured patients to receive palliative care (50% vs 23.5%, P = .003; 95% CI, 0.051- 0.546). Non-Hispanic patients were also more likely than Hispanic patients to receive palliative care (P = .033; 95% CI, 1.154-28.140). New England locations had the highest utilization of palliative care (43.%, P = .009). Factors that impacted palliative care use included facility region, insurance status, and Hispanic status. As palliative care continues to be utilized more frequently, we hope that this study can provide a starting point in studying and preventing palliative treatment disparities.
Purpose
This study addresses a gap in knowledge regarding palliative care utilization patterns in smallcell carcinoma of the prostate.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting males. One of the most aggressive malignancies of the prostate is small cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate. Almost 70% of patients diagnosed with SCC present with the disseminated disease with a low 5-year survival rate of less than 2%. The role of palliative care can be beneficial in metastatic prostate cancer given its largely incurable course. Despite evidence favoring palliative care for prostate cancer in several patient populations, it remains under-utilized. Palliative care utilization patterns in SCC of the prostate have not yet been studied.
Methods
This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with all subtypes of AJCC staged metastatic SCC of the prostate between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to determine palliative care usage (n = 615). Exclusion criteria included missing data.
Data Analysis
Variables were evaluated for significance (P < .05) in relation to the receipt of palliative care using Pearson Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Kaplan- Meier tests. Multivariate analysis was performed via binary logistics regression.
Results
Among the 961 patients diagnosed with SCC of the prostate, 64% had metastatic disease (n = 615). The metastatic cohort was more likely to receive palliative care than those that did not have distant metastasis (24.2% vs 5.7%, P < .001). Palliative care use has grown between 2004 (n = 6) and 2017 (n = 20). Patients that were uninsured were more likely than insured patients to receive palliative care (50% vs 23.5%, P = .003; 95% CI, 0.051- 0.546). Non-Hispanic patients were also more likely than Hispanic patients to receive palliative care (P = .033; 95% CI, 1.154-28.140). New England locations had the highest utilization of palliative care (43.%, P = .009). Factors that impacted palliative care use included facility region, insurance status, and Hispanic status. As palliative care continues to be utilized more frequently, we hope that this study can provide a starting point in studying and preventing palliative treatment disparities.
Trends in Palliative Care Utilization and Facility Type for Stage IV Esophageal Cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis
Background
Palliative Care (PC) addresses quality of life and patient satisfaction with care. Recognized as a board-certified subspeciality in 2006, the utilization and implementation of PC has been evolving. Stage IV esophageal cancer has a 5-year survival rate of 15% to 20%, making it a good candidate for PC. This study aims to look at trends in PC interventions and facility type.
Methods
This study looked at 8808 patients with stage IV esophageal cancer who received PC interventions from 2004 to 2018 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The NCDB codes 4 different kinds of PC: surgical, radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management. All PC interventions function to “alleviate symptoms, but no attempt to diagnose, stage, or treat the primary tumor is made.” Data was grouped into 5-year time increments: 2004- 2008 (time 1), 2009-2013 (time 2), 2014-2018 (time 3). Exclusion criteria was concurrent tumors and missing data. Cross tabulation analysis was performed using Pearson chi-square and ANOVA tests.
Results
For all PC interventions, 9.0% were surgical, 42.5% radiation, 41.1% chemotherapy, and 7.4% pain management. Surgical interventions decreased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 360), 2 (n = 228), and 3 (n = 200). Radiation PC utilization remained nearly constant (n = 1157, n = 1147, n = 1397) over the same time increments. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy and pain management increased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 713), 2 (n = 1053), and 3 (n = 1795) and times 1 (n = 129) 2 (n = 224), and 3 (n = 291), respectively. For surgical PC, facility type shifted from academic institutions, occurring 45% of all cases in time 1 to 30% by time 3. Radiation PC remained constant with a slight predominance of comprehensive cancer community facilities. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy PC facility type also remained constant, with a slight preference for comprehensive cancer community facilities. Pain management shifted from a predominance of academic/research facilities in time 1 (38.0%) to comprehensive cancer community facilities by time 3 (38.1%).
Conclusions
Radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management have been growing in utilization, while there has been a downtrend in surgical PC. All PC interventions (besides surgery) have been increasing across all facility locations, with PC predominantly being implemented in community cancer programs.
Background
Palliative Care (PC) addresses quality of life and patient satisfaction with care. Recognized as a board-certified subspeciality in 2006, the utilization and implementation of PC has been evolving. Stage IV esophageal cancer has a 5-year survival rate of 15% to 20%, making it a good candidate for PC. This study aims to look at trends in PC interventions and facility type.
Methods
This study looked at 8808 patients with stage IV esophageal cancer who received PC interventions from 2004 to 2018 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The NCDB codes 4 different kinds of PC: surgical, radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management. All PC interventions function to “alleviate symptoms, but no attempt to diagnose, stage, or treat the primary tumor is made.” Data was grouped into 5-year time increments: 2004- 2008 (time 1), 2009-2013 (time 2), 2014-2018 (time 3). Exclusion criteria was concurrent tumors and missing data. Cross tabulation analysis was performed using Pearson chi-square and ANOVA tests.
Results
For all PC interventions, 9.0% were surgical, 42.5% radiation, 41.1% chemotherapy, and 7.4% pain management. Surgical interventions decreased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 360), 2 (n = 228), and 3 (n = 200). Radiation PC utilization remained nearly constant (n = 1157, n = 1147, n = 1397) over the same time increments. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy and pain management increased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 713), 2 (n = 1053), and 3 (n = 1795) and times 1 (n = 129) 2 (n = 224), and 3 (n = 291), respectively. For surgical PC, facility type shifted from academic institutions, occurring 45% of all cases in time 1 to 30% by time 3. Radiation PC remained constant with a slight predominance of comprehensive cancer community facilities. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy PC facility type also remained constant, with a slight preference for comprehensive cancer community facilities. Pain management shifted from a predominance of academic/research facilities in time 1 (38.0%) to comprehensive cancer community facilities by time 3 (38.1%).
Conclusions
Radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management have been growing in utilization, while there has been a downtrend in surgical PC. All PC interventions (besides surgery) have been increasing across all facility locations, with PC predominantly being implemented in community cancer programs.
Background
Palliative Care (PC) addresses quality of life and patient satisfaction with care. Recognized as a board-certified subspeciality in 2006, the utilization and implementation of PC has been evolving. Stage IV esophageal cancer has a 5-year survival rate of 15% to 20%, making it a good candidate for PC. This study aims to look at trends in PC interventions and facility type.
Methods
This study looked at 8808 patients with stage IV esophageal cancer who received PC interventions from 2004 to 2018 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The NCDB codes 4 different kinds of PC: surgical, radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management. All PC interventions function to “alleviate symptoms, but no attempt to diagnose, stage, or treat the primary tumor is made.” Data was grouped into 5-year time increments: 2004- 2008 (time 1), 2009-2013 (time 2), 2014-2018 (time 3). Exclusion criteria was concurrent tumors and missing data. Cross tabulation analysis was performed using Pearson chi-square and ANOVA tests.
Results
For all PC interventions, 9.0% were surgical, 42.5% radiation, 41.1% chemotherapy, and 7.4% pain management. Surgical interventions decreased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 360), 2 (n = 228), and 3 (n = 200). Radiation PC utilization remained nearly constant (n = 1157, n = 1147, n = 1397) over the same time increments. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy and pain management increased over time, indicated by interventions administered at times 1 (n = 713), 2 (n = 1053), and 3 (n = 1795) and times 1 (n = 129) 2 (n = 224), and 3 (n = 291), respectively. For surgical PC, facility type shifted from academic institutions, occurring 45% of all cases in time 1 to 30% by time 3. Radiation PC remained constant with a slight predominance of comprehensive cancer community facilities. Chemotherapy/hormone therapy PC facility type also remained constant, with a slight preference for comprehensive cancer community facilities. Pain management shifted from a predominance of academic/research facilities in time 1 (38.0%) to comprehensive cancer community facilities by time 3 (38.1%).
Conclusions
Radiation, chemotherapy/hormone therapy, and pain management have been growing in utilization, while there has been a downtrend in surgical PC. All PC interventions (besides surgery) have been increasing across all facility locations, with PC predominantly being implemented in community cancer programs.