Tiefu Shen

The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Survival After Cancer in the United States : Findings From the National Program of Cancer Registries Patterns of Care Study

Understanding the ways in which socioeconomic status (SES) affects mortality is important for defining strategies to eliminate the unequal burden of cancer by race and ethnicity in the United States.

Toward a broader definition of heat-related death: comparison of mortality estimates from medical examiners' classification with those from total death differentials during the July 1995 heat wave in Chicago, Illinois

The classification of heat-related deaths solely according to body temperatures underestimates the magnitude of heat-related mortality during heat waves. Broader classifications are often used, but their utility in defining the mortality and identifying at-risk populations has not been evaluated. Using death data from the July 1995 heat wave in Chicago, the authors compared heat-related mortality rates based on the classification of heat-related deaths by the Cook County Medical Examiners Office (CCMEO), with excess mortality rates based on total mortality differentials during and before the heat wave. In July 1995, the overall mortality in Chicago was 19 deaths per 100,000 population for heat-related mortality and 24 to 26 deaths per 100,000 population for excess mortality. Across Chicago community areas, the two mortality rates were closely related (r = 0.73-0.79; p < .01), but heat-related mortality rates were lower than excess mortality rates in community areas where excess mortality rates were higher (slope < 1; p < .01), a finding indicating an underestimation of heat-related deaths in such areas. The underestimation could not be explained by uncertainties in estimating excess mortality rates or by differences in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics among communities. These results support using the broader CCMEO classification of heat-related deaths as a relative indicator to target communities for prevention and relief efforts, but not as an adequate measure of actual heat-related mortality in a high-risk neighborhood.

Factors associated with initial treatment and survival for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the CDC-NPCR Patterns of Care Study (PoC1)

BackgroundDespite the large number of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, there is as yet no consensus concerning appropriate treatment. The purpose of this study was to describe the initial treatment patterns for localized prostate cancer in a population-based sample and to determine the clinical and patient characteristics associated with initial treatment and overall survival.MethodsThe analysis included 3,300 patients from seven states, diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in 1997. We examined the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with four treatment options: radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, and watchful waiting. Diagnostic and treatment information was abstracted from medical records. Socioeconomic measures were derived from the 2000 Census based on the patients residence at time of diagnosis. Vital status through December 31, 2002, was obtained from medical records and linkages to state vital statistics files and the National Death Index. Multiple logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards models identified factors associated with initial treatment and overall survival, respectively.ResultsPatients with clinically localized prostate cancer received the following treatments: radical prostatectomy (39.7%), radiation therapy (31.4%), hormone therapy (10.3%), or watchful waiting (18.6%). After multivariable adjustment, the following variables were associated with conservative treatment (hormone therapy or watchful waiting): older age, black race, being unmarried, having public insurance, having non-screen detected cancer, having normal digital rectal exam results, PSA values above 20, low Gleason score (2-4), comorbidity, and state of residence. Among patients receiving definitive treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy), older age, being unmarried, PSA values above 10, unknown Gleason score, state of residence, as well as black race in patients under 60 years of age, were associated with receipt of radiation therapy. Overall survival was related to younger age, being married, Gleason score under 8, radical prostatectomy, and state of residence. Comorbidity was only associated with risk of death within the first three years of diagnosis.ConclusionsIn the absence of clear-cut evidence favoring one treatment modality over another, it is important to understand the factors that inform treatment selection. Since state of residence was a significant predictor of both treatment as well as overall survival, true regional differences probably exist in how physicians and patients select treatment options. Factors affecting treatment choice and treatment effectiveness need to be further explored in future population-based studies.

Breast cancer survival in the US and Europe: A CONCORD high-resolution study.

Breast cancer survival is reportedly higher in the US than in Europe. The first worldwide study (CONCORD) found wide international differences in age‐standardized survival. The aim of this study is to explain these survival differences. Population‐based data on stage at diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow‐up were collected for about 20,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 15–99 years during 1996–98 in 7 US states and 12 European countries. Age‐standardized net survival and the excess hazard of death up to 5 years after diagnosis were estimated by jurisdiction (registry, country, European region), age and stage with flexible parametric models. Breast cancers were generally less advanced in the US than in Europe. Stage also varied less between US states than between European jurisdictions. Early, node‐negative tumors were more frequent in the US (39%) than in Europe (32%), while locally advanced tumors were twice as frequent in Europe (8%), and metastatic tumors of similar frequency (5–6%). Net survival in Northern, Western and Southern Europe (81–84%) was similar to that in the US (84%), but lower in Eastern Europe (69%). For the first 3 years after diagnosis the mean excess hazard was higher in Eastern Europe than elsewhere: the difference was most marked for women aged 70–99 years, and mainly confined to women with locally advanced or metastatic tumors. Differences in breast cancer survival between Europe and the US in the late 1990s were mainly explained by lower survival in Eastern Europe, where low healthcare expenditure may have constrained the quality of treatment.

Colorectal cancer survival in the USA and Europe: a CONCORD high-resolution study

Objectives To assess the extent to which stage at diagnosis and adherence to treatment guidelines may explain the persistent differences in colorectal cancer survival between the USA and Europe. Design A high-resolution study using detailed clinical data on Dukes’ stage, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up, collected directly from medical records by trained abstractors under a single protocol, with standardised quality control and central statistical analysis. Setting and participants 21 population-based registries in seven US states and nine European countries provided data for random samples comprising 12 523 adults (15–99 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 1996–1998. Outcome measures Logistic regression models were used to compare adherence to ‘standard care’ in the USA and Europe. Net survival and excess risk of death were estimated with flexible parametric models. Results The proportion of Dukes’ A and B tumours was similar in the USA and Europe, while that of Dukes’ C was more frequent in the USA (38% vs 21%) and of Dukes’ D more frequent in Europe (22% vs 10%). Resection with curative intent was more frequent in the USA (85% vs 75%). Elderly patients (75–99 years) were 70–90% less likely to receive radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Age-standardised 5-year net survival was similar in the USA (58%) and Northern and Western Europe (54–56%) and lowest in Eastern Europe (42%). The mean excess hazard up to 5 years after diagnosis was highest in Eastern Europe, especially among elderly patients and those with Dukes’ D tumours. Conclusions The wide differences in colorectal cancer survival between Europe and the USA in the late 1990s are probably attributable to earlier stage and more extensive use of surgery and adjuvant treatment in the USA. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer received surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy less often than younger patients, despite evidence that they could also have benefited.

A vision for cancer incidence surveillance in the United States.

A comprehensive framework for cancer surveillance should span the entire lifespan and be capable of providing information on risk, burden, disparity, cost, cancer care, survival, and death. Cancer incidence, the point in the continuum when an individual is diagnosed with cancer, has a strong, well-developed system to produce information about newly diagnosed cancer cases. However, in the future, this system must be enhanced and integrated with other cancer surveillance networks and other systems to provide timely information on the burden of newly diagnosed patients with respect to various cross-cutting population characteristics (e.g., social, economic, race/ethnic, urbanicity, or access to care) to define, monitor, and reduce incidence and various disparities noted among population groups. Collaboration in data collection, standard setting, surveillance activities, research, education and training, data use, and advocacy among all registries and national programs will be important to the continued success of the cancer incidence surveillance system. The cancer registry is an integral part of the infrastructure to reduce the burden of cancer, including the numbers of newly diagnosed cases.

Rationale and design of the National Program of Cancer Registries' breast, colon, and prostate cancer patterns of care study

AbstractBackground: Investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), are collaborating with public health professionals from seven states and the District of Columbia to conduct the Patterns of Care study to assess the quality of cancer data and to determine whether stage-specific treatments are being carried out. Methods: To assess the quality and completeness of cancer care data in the United States, trained staff from the Patterns of Care study are abstracting medical records to obtain detailed clinical data on treatment, tumor characteristics, stage at diagnosis, and demographics of representative samples of patients diagnosed with breast, colon, and prostate cancer. Altogether staff from each of the eight participating cancer registries will abstract 500 cases of breast, prostate, and colon/rectum/anus cancer for the CONCORD study and an additional 150 cases of localized breast cancer, 100 cases of stage III colon cancer, and 100 cases of localized prostate cancer for the Patterns of Care study. Chi-square tests will be used to compare routine registry data with re-abstracted data. The investigators will use logistic regression techniques to describe the characteristics of patients with localized breast and prostate cancer and stage III colon cancer. Age, race, sex, type of insurance, and comorbidity will be examined as predictors of the use of those treatments that are consistent with consensus guidelines. The investigators plan to use data from the CONCORD study to determine whether treatment factors are the reason for the reported differences between relative survival rates in the United States and Europe. Conclusions Results from the methodology used in the Patterns of Care study will provide, for the first time, detailed information about the quality and completeness of stage and treatment data that are routinely collected by states participating in the NPCR. It will add significantly to our understanding of factors that determine receipt of treatment in compliance with established guidelines. As part of the CONCORD study, it will also examine differences in survival among cancer patients with breast, prostate, and colon/rectum/anus cancers in the United States and Europe.

Survival difference between non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white women with localized breast cancer: the impact of guideline-concordant therapy.

OBJECTIVES This study examined the impact of guideline-concordant therapy on the survival difference between non-Hispanic black (NHB) and non-Hispanic white (NHW) women with localized breast cancer. METHODS Data analyzed were from the CDCs NPCR Patterns of Care study in which seven population-based state cancer registries participated. We randomly selected 2,362 women who were diagnosed with a first primary localized breast cancer in 1997. Data were abstracted from hospital records, supplemented by information from physician offices and by linkages with state vital records and the National Death Index database. RESULTS NHB women were more likely than NHW women to receive breast conserving surgery without radiation therapy. In addition, the percentage of NHB women with hormone receptor-positive tumors who received hormonal therapy was lower than that of NHW women. Among those with a tumor size > 3 cm, NHB women were more likely than NHW women to receive multiagent chemotherapy. After controlling for age, the risk of dying from all causes of death was 2.35 times as high for NHB women compared to NHW women. Controlling for treatment further reduced black-white difference in survival with adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables. CONCLUSION NHB women were less likely than NHW women to receive guideline-concordant radiation therapy after breast conserving therapy and hormonal therapy but were more likely to receive chemotherapy. Racial differences in treatment contribute significantly to the worse survival of NHB women compared with NHW women.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer: Results from a CDC-NPCR Patterns of Care Study

Objective To evaluate adjuvant chemotherapy use for Stage III colon cancer. Methods This analysis included 973 patients with surgically treated stage III colon cancer. Socioeconomic information from the 2000 census was linked to patients’ residential census tracts. Vital status through 12/31/02 was obtained from medical records and linkage to state vital statistics files and the National Death Index. Results Adjuvant chemotherapy was received by 67%. Treatment varied by state of residence, with Colorado, Rhode Island and New York residents more likely to receive chemotherapy than Louisiana residents. Older age, increasing comorbidities, divorced/widowed marital status, and residence in lower education areas or non-working class neighborhoods were associated with lower chemotherapy use. Survival varied by state but after adjustment for sex, sociodemographic and health factors, was significantly higher only for California and Rhode Island. Older age and lower educational attainment were associated with lower survival. Chemotherapy was protective for all comorbidity groups. Conclusion Although adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage III colon cancer improves survival, some patients did not receive standard of care, demonstrating the need for cancer treatment surveillance. Interstate differences likely resulted from differences in local practice patterns, acceptance of treatment, and access.