Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Decompositions of the Contribution of Treatment Disparities to Survival Disparities in Stage I–II Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

  • Pancreatic Tumors
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Higher socioeconomic status (SES) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) race/ethnicity are associated with higher treatment rates and longer overall survival (OS) among US patients with stage I–II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The proportion of OS disparities mediated through treatment disparities (PM) and the proportion predicted to be eliminated (PE) if treatment disparities were eliminated are unknown.

Methods

We analyzed 2007–2015 data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) census tract-level database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) using causal mediation analysis methods to understand the extent to which treatment disparities mediate OS disparities. In the first set of decompositions, race/ethnicity was controlled for as a covariate proximal to SES, and lower SES strata were compared with the highest SES stratum. In the second set, an intersectional perspective was taken and each SES-race/ethnicity combination was compared with highest SES-NHW patients, who had the highest treatment rates and longest OS.

Results

The SEER and NCDB cohorts contained 16,921 patients and 44,638 patients, respectively. When race/ethnicity was controlled for, PMs ranged from 43 to 48% and PEs ranged from 46 to 50% for various lower SES strata. When separately comparing each SES-race/ethnicity combination with the highest SES-NHW patients, results were similar for lower SES-NHW patients but differed markedly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients, for whom PMs ranged from 60 to 80% and PEs ranged from 55 to 75% for most lower SES strata.

Conclusions

These results suggest that efforts to reduce treatment disparities are worthwhile, particularly for NHB and Hispanic patients, and simultaneously point to the importance of non-treatment-related causal pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swords DS, Mulvihill SJ, Brooke BS, Skarda DE, Firpo MA, Scaife CL. Disparities in utilization of treatment for clinical stage I–II pancreatic adenocarcinoma by area socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Surgery. 2019;165(4):751–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Swords DS, Mulvihill SJ, Brooke BS, Firpo MA, Scaife CL. Size and importance of socioeconomic status-based disparities in use of surgery in nonadvanced stage gastrointestinal cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(2):333–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis: a practitioner’s guide. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:17–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Valeri L, VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis allowing for exposure–mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(2):137–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009;2:457–68.

    Google Scholar 

  6. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(12):1339–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. VanderWeele TJ. Causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):582–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Valeri L, VanderWeele TJ. SAS macro for causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology. 2015;26(2):e23–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. VanderWeele TJ. A unification of mediation and interaction: a 4-way decomposition. Epidemiology. 2014;25(5):749–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Legal Forum. 1989(1):139–67.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson JW, VanderWeele TJ. Intersectional decomposition analysis with differential exposure, effects, and construct. Soc Sci Med. 2019;226:254–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Swords DS, Scaife CL. ASO author reflections: socioeconomic disparities in use of surgery for gastrointestinal cancers are large and impactful in poor-prognosis cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(2):342–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. VanderWeele TJ. Policy-relevant proportions for direct effects. Epidemiology. 2013;24(1):175–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. National Cancer Institue Surveillance, Epidemiology, and end results program: census tract-level SES database. 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/databases/census-tract/index.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2020.

  15. Swords DS, Firpo MA, Johnson KM, Boucher KM, Scaife CL, Mulvihill SJ. Implications of inaccurate clinical nodal staging in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surgery. 2017;162(1):104–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Baugh KA, Tran Cao HS, van Buren G, et al. Understaging of clinical stage I pancreatic cancer and the impact of multimodality therapy. Surgery. 2019;165(2):307–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Swords DS, Mulvihill SJ, Skarda DE, et al. Hospital-level variation in utilization of surgery for clinical stage I–II pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):133–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chawla A, Wo J, Castillo CF, et al. Clinical staging in pancreatic adenocarcinoma underestimates extent of disease. Pancreatology. 2020;20(4):691–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu M, Tatalovich Z, Gibson JT, Cronin KA. Using a composite index of socioeconomic status to investigate health disparities while protecting the confidentiality of cancer registry data. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25(1):81–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethinic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12(8):703–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu L, Deapen D, Bernstein L. Socioeconomic status and cancers of the female breast and reproductive organs: a comparison across racial/ethnic populations in Los Angeles County, California (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1998;9(4):369–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. VanderWeele TJ. Principles of confounder selection. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(3):211–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sauer BC, Brookhart A, Roy J, Vanderweele T. A review of covariate selection for non-experimental comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(11):1139–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pearl J. Myth, confusion, and science of causal analysis [Unpublished Manuscript]. 2009. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r348-warning.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020.

  25. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med. 1985;41:87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ford CL, Airhihenbuwa, C.O. Critical race theory, race equity, and public health: toward antiracism praxis. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S30–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. The Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1453–63.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hardeman RR, Medina EM, Kozhimannil KB. Structural racism and supporting black lives: the role of health professionals. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2113–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Brookings Institute: Examining the Black-White wealth gap. 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/. Accessed 6 May 2020.

  30. Discacciati A, Bellavia A, Lee JJ, Mazumdar M, Valeri L. Med4way: a Stata command to investigate mediating and interactive mechanisms using the four-way effect decomposition. Int J Epidemiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hernan MA, Cole SR, Margolick J, Cohen M, Robins JM. Structural accelerated failure time models for survival analysis in studies with time-varying treatments. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(7):477–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity, politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1991;43(6):1241–99.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jackson JW. Explaining intersectionality through description, counterfactual thinking, and mediation analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(7):785–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson JW, Williams DR, VanderWeele TJ. Disparities at the intersection of marginalized groups. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016;51(10):1349–59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Giobbie-Hurder A, Gelber RD, Regan MM. Challenges of guarantee-time bias. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2963–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ding P VT. Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. Biometrika. 2016;103:483–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith LH, VanderWeele TJ. Mediational E-values: approximate sensitivity analysis for unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. Epidemiology. 2019;30(6):835–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. VanderWeele TJ. Unmeasured confounding and hazard scales: sensitivity analysis for total, direct, and indirect effects. Eur J Epidemiol. 2013;28(2):113–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Norton EC, Miller MM, Kleinman LC. Computing adjusted risk ratios and risk differences in Stata. Stata J. 2013;13(3):492–509.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stensrud MJ, Hernan MA. Why test for proportional hazards. JAMA. 2020;323(14):1401–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. McDowell BD, Chapman CG, Smith BJ, Button AM, Chrischilles EA, Mezhir JJ. Pancreatectomy predicts improved survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of an instrumental variable analysis. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):740–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Swords DS, Mulvihill SJ, Brooke BS, Stoddard GJ, Firpo MA, Scaife CL. County-level variation in use of surgery and cancer-specific survival for stage I-II pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sridhar P, Misir P, Kwak H, et al. Impact of race, insurance status, and primary language on the presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma at a safety-net hospital. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):389–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Powers BD, Fulp W, Dhahri A, et al. The impact of socioeconomic deprivation on clinical outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma at a high-volume cancer center: a retrospective cohort analysis. Ann Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Markt SC, Tang T, Cronin AM, et al. Insurance status and cancer treatment mediate the association between race/ethnicity and cervical cancer survival. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0193047.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. O’Connor JM, Sedghi T, Dhodapkar M, Kane MJ, Gross CP. Factors associated with cancer disparities among low-, medium-, and high-income US counties. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183146.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Finkelstein A, Zhou A, Taubman S, Doyle J. Health care hotspotting: a randomized, controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(2):152–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Mallin K, Browner A, Palis B, et al. Incident cases captured in the national cancer database compared with those in U.S. population based central cancer registries in 2012–2014. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(6):1604–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Data Use Agreement for SEER Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy Information. 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/data/ChemotherapyRadiation-SEER-DUA.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2020.

  50. Healy MA, Morris AM, Abrahamse P, Ward KC, Kato I, Veenstra CM. The accuracy of chemotherapy ascertainment among colorectal cancer patients in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry program. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):481.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Vansteelandt S, Daniel RM. Interventional effects for mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiology. 2017;28(2):258–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Nguyen QC, Osypuk TL, Schmidt NM, Glymour MM, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. Practical guidance for conducting mediation analysis with multiple mediators using inverse odds ratio weighting. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(5):349–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Douglas S. Swords MD, MS & Courtney L. Scaife MD

Authors
  1. Douglas S. Swords MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Courtney L. Scaife MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas S. Swords MD, MS.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The NCDB data used in this study are derived from a deidentified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology employed or the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigator.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swords, D.S., Scaife, C.L. Decompositions of the Contribution of Treatment Disparities to Survival Disparities in Stage I–II Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 3157–3168 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09267-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09267-y

Search

Navigation