Cargando…

Income level and treatment selection in prostate cancer: analysis of a North Carolina population-based cohort

BACKGROUND: Disparities in treatment selection based on socioeconomic status for prostate cancer exist. However, the association between patient-level income with treatment selection priorities and treatment received has not been studied. METHODS: A population-based cohort of 1382 individuals with n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rock, Crosby, Cao, Ying, Katz, Aaron J, Usinger, Deborah, Walden, Sarah, Chen, Ronald C, Shen, Xinglei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10212533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37104733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkad032
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Disparities in treatment selection based on socioeconomic status for prostate cancer exist. However, the association between patient-level income with treatment selection priorities and treatment received has not been studied. METHODS: A population-based cohort of 1382 individuals with newly diagnosed prostate cancer was enrolled throughout North Carolina prior to treatment. Patients self-reported household income and were asked about the importance of 12 factors contributing to their treatment decision-making process. Diagnosis details and primary treatment received were abstracted from medical records and cancer registry data. RESULTS: Patients with lower income were diagnosed with more advanced disease (P < .01). Cure was deemed to be “very important” by more than 90% of patients at all income levels. However, patients with lower vs higher household income were more likely to rate factors beyond cure as “very important” such as cost (P < .01), effect on daily activities (P = .01), duration of treatment (P < .01), recovery time (P < .01), and burden on family and friends (P < .01). On multivariable analysis, high vs low income was associated with increased utilization of radical prostatectomy (odds ratio = 2.01, 95% confidence interval = 1.33 to 3.04; P < .01) and decreased use of radiotherapy (odds ratio = 0.48, 95% confidence interval = 0.31 to 0.75; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: New insights from this study on the association between income and treatment decision-making priorities provide potential avenues for future interventions to reduce disparities in cancer care.