Age-, Race-, and Ethnicity-Related Differences in the Treatment of Nonmetastatic Rectal Cancer: A Patterns of Care Study From the National Cancer Data Base
Recent studies suggest that older patients and minorities are less likely to receive surgical and adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. We analyzed the independent effect of age and race/ethnicity on treatment for rectal cancer controlling for comorbidity and socioeconomic status using a nationwide sample
We identified 35,695 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2003 and 2005 using the National Cancer Data Base. Comorbidity was calculated from medical records and administrative data. Educational level and income were estimated from census data. Characteristics were compared across groups by χ2 tests. Odds ratios of surgical and adjuvant therapy and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by logistic regression.
A total of 51% of patients were age ≥65, 8.7% were African American, and 4.9% were Hispanic. Younger patients, African Americans, and Hispanics were more likely to present with advanced disease compared with older, white patients (P < .001). Age ≥65 was associated with underuse of surgery and adjuvant therapy (P < .001). Only 85.1% of African Americans were resected, compared with 90.7% of whites (adjusted odds ratio, .62; 95% confidence interval, .54–.71). Among resected patients, race/ethnicity had no effect on rates of sphincter preservation or adjuvant therapy.
A high proportion of older patients with rectal cancer do not receive appropriate surgical or adjuvant therapy, even when controlling for comorbidity. African American patients are also less likely to undergo resection, but are equally likely to undergo sphincter preservation and adjuvant therapy compared with whites. Efforts are needed to uncover the root causes underlying these observations and optimize treatment of rectal cancer.
KeywordsRectal cancer NCDB Age Race Surgery Adjuvant therapy
- 3.Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1985;312:1475–2Google Scholar
- 11.National Cancer Data Base. Commission on Cancer. Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/index.html. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 12.Commission on Cancer. Approvals categories. Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/categories.html. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 16.Cancer Program Approval. Commission on Cancer. Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/whatis.html. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 17.Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards. Chicago: Commission on Cancer, 2004Google Scholar
- 18.SEER Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 19.Cancer Surveillance System. National Program of Cancer Registries. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/training/css.htm. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 20.National Program of Cancer Registries. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/training/css.htm. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 22.Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, et al. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000Google Scholar
- 23.Fleming ID Cooper JS, Henson DE, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 5th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997Google Scholar
- 24.Phillips JL, Stewart A, Tary P. Facility Oncology Data Standards. Chicago: American College of Surgeons, 2002Google Scholar
- 25.Economic Research Service. USDA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 26.US Department of Health and Human Services. Poverty guidelines, research, and measurement. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty. Accessed February 1, 2008
- 47.Krieger N, Waterman PD, Chen JT, et al. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:471–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar