Dataset Information

Survival by Hispanic ethnicity among patients with cancer participating in SWOG clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Racial disparities in cancer outcomes have been described. To the authors' knowledge, it remains unclear whether patients of Hispanic ethnicity have better or worse survival outcomes. In the current study, the authors evaluated whether Hispanic participants in SWOG clinical trials had different survival outcomes compared with non-Hispanics. METHODS:Adult patients registered in SWOG phase 2/3 clinical trials between 1986 and 2012 were analyzed. Studies of similar histology and stage of disease were combined. Within each analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to examine differences in outcome by ethnicity. Multivariate Cox regression was used to estimate the association between ethnicity and survival outcomes, controlling for major disease-specific prognostic factors and demographic variables plus area-level income and education to account for socioeconomic status. RESULTS:A total of 29,338 patients registered to 38 trials were included; 5% of these patients were Hispanic. Hispanic patients were more likely to be younger and from areas of lower income and education (all P<.05). No differences in survival were observed across tumor types except in the patients with advanced stage prostate cancer, in whom the authors observed an association between Hispanic ethnicity and worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 1.36; P = .007), and cancer-specific survival (HR, 1.42; P = .013). After adjusting for multiple comparisons, no differences in outcomes were noted. CONCLUSIONS:Hispanic patients participating in SWOG trials who received uniform treatment and follow-up were found to have similar survival outcomes compared with non-Hispanic patients, with the single exception of those patients with advanced stage prostate cancer. The results of the current study demonstrate that Hispanic patients receiving uniform treatment and follow-up have similar outcomes compared with non-Hispanics. Cancer 2018;124:1760-9. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

SUBMITTER: Chavez-MacGregor M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5963502 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival by Hispanic ethnicity among patients with cancer participating in SWOG clinical trials.

Chavez-MacGregor Mariana M Unger Joseph M JM Moseley Anna A Ramsey Scott D SD Hershman Dawn L DL

Cancer 20180125 8

<h4>Background</h4>Racial disparities in cancer outcomes have been described. To the authors' knowledge, it remains unclear whether patients of Hispanic ethnicity have better or worse survival outcomes. In the current study, the authors evaluated whether Hispanic participants in SWOG clinical trials had different survival outcomes compared with non-Hispanics.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult patients registered in SWOG phase 2/3 clinical trials between 1986 and 2012 were analyzed. Studies of similar histolo ...[more]

PMID: 29370458

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecently, tremendous prominence has been given to the investigation of the effect of different research processes as part of the Cancer Moonshot. More than half a century ago, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) established a network of publicly funded cancer cooperative research groups to systematically evaluate new treatments for efficacy and safety.ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which positive NCI-sponsored cancer treatment trials have benefited patients with cancer in the US population.Design, setting, and participantsThis investigation used study data from SWOG, an NCI-sponsored network cooperative research group. All treatment trials during SWOG's 60-year history (1956-2016) were identified for which the new, experimental therapy provided a statistically significant improvement in overall survival. It was assumed that the new, proven treatments from these trials established new standards for cancer care in the treatment community. Twenty-three positive SWOG treatment trials were identified from a variety of different disease settings.Main outcomes and measuresThis study estimated population life-years gained from the 23 treatment trials through 2015 by mapping the effect of the new treatments onto the US cancer population using an area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curve approach that combined trial-specific hazard function and hazard ratio results, along with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and life table data. Calculations were age adjusted. The US dollar return on investment was estimated as the ratio of the total investment by the NCI in the treatment trial program divided by the estimate of life-years gained.ResultsIn total, 12 361 patients were enrolled to the 23 positive trials from 1965 to 2012. The study estimated that 3.34 million (95% confidence limit, 2.39-4.15 million) life-years were gained from these 23 trials through 2015. Estimates were greater than 2 million life-years gained under most model simulations. The US dollar return on investment was $125 per life-year gained.Conclusions and relevanceSWOG treatment trials have had a substantial impact on population survival for patients with cancer over 60 years. The NCI's investment in its cancer cooperative group research program has provided exceptional value and benefit to the American public through its research programs generating positive cancer treatment trials.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00004001, NCT00075764, and NCT00644228.

Project description:ImportancePatients with cancer are at risk for unplanned hospitalizations during treatment which can increase the cost of care.ObjectivesTo determine demographic and clinical factors associated with healthcare utilization and costs among clinical trial participants.Design, setting, and patientsWe conducted a retrospective analysis among breast cancer patients over the age of 65 treated on SWOG clinical trials from 1999 to 2011 with trial data linked to Medicare claims.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes were healthcare utilization (emergency room visits (ER), hospitalizations) and costs from Medicare Claims. Demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors were captured from clinical trial records. We identified cardiovascular comorbidities/risk factors (CVD-RFs) of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease (CAD) from Medicare claims. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to assess the association between CVD-RFs and outcomes.ResultsAmong the 708 patients included in the analysis, 160 (22.6%) experienced 234 separate hospitalizations, and 193 (27.3%) experienced 311 separate ER visits. Black race was associated with an increase in hospitalizations (OR [95% CI], 2.52 [1.10-5.79], p = 0.03), but not emergency room visits compared to white race. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and CAD were all independently associated with increased risk of both hospitalizations and ER visit. Hypertension had the strongest association, with more than a threefold risk of hospitalization for those with hypertension compared to those without (OR [95% CI], 3.16 [1.85-5.40], p < 0.001). For those with ≥ 3 RFs, the risk of hospitalization was nearly 3 times greater compared to 0 or 1 CVD-RFs (OR [95% CI], 2.74 [1.71-4.38], p < 0.001). Similar results were seen for ER visits. In the first 12 months after trial registration, patients with diabetes ($38,324 vs $30,923, 23.9% increase, p = 0.05), hypercholesterolemia ($34,168 vs $30,661, 11.4% increase, p = 0.02), and CAD ($37,781 vs $31,698, 19.2% increase, p = 0.04) had statistically significantly higher total healthcare costs. Additionally, those with ≥ 2 significant CVD-RFs ($35,353 vs. $28,899, 22.3% increase, p = 0.005) had statistically significantly higher total healthcare costs.ConclusionsAmong participants treated on clinical trials, black race and presence of multiple cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with a substantial increase in ER visits, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Efforts to reduce unplanned hospitalizations should focus on this high-risk group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Aberrant DNA methylation is known to occur in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), whereas methylation signatures and prognostic markers have been proposed. The objective of the current study was to evaluate all CpG sites of the genome and identify prognostic methylation markers for overall survival in patients with AML with normal karyotype (AML-NK). METHODS:AML-NK samples from 7 SWOG trials were analyzed using a novel genome-wide approach called "CHARMcox" (comprehensive high-throughput array-based relative methylation analysis combined with the Cox proportional hazards model) controlling for known clinical covariates. CHARMcox was applied to a phase 1 discovery cohort (72 patients) to identify survival-associated methylation regions (SAMRs). Subsequently, using bisulfite pyrosequencing, SAMRs were studied in phase 2 model-building (65 patients) and phase 3 validation (65 patients) cohorts. An independent external cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) AML study (LAML) was used for further validation (93 patients). RESULTS:Two SAMRs, located at the CpG island shores of leucine zipper tumor suppressor 2 (LZTS2) and nuclear receptor subfamily 6 group a member 1 (NR6A1), respectively, were identified. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that hypomethylation of either LZTS2 or NR6A1 was associated with worse overall survival in the SWOG cohort (P<.001). The prognosis was validated in patients with AML-NK from the TCGA-LAML cohort. Methylation values below the median at both markers predicted worse overall survival (SWOG: hazard ratio, 1.89 [P<.001]; and TCGA-LAML: hazard ratio, 2.08 [P=.006]). The C-statistic was 0.71 for both cohorts, and the impact was independent of the Fms-related tyrosine kinase 3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) status. CONCLUSIONS:The 2 methylation markers, measurable by clinically applicable assays such as bisulfite pyrosequencing, are promising for risk stratification among patients with AML-NK. Cancer 2017;123:2472-81. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundHispanic persons living in the United States (U.S.) are at higher risk of infection and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with non-Hispanic persons. Whether this disparity exists among critically ill patients with COVID-19 is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate ethnic disparities in mortality among critically ill adults with COVID-19 enrolled in the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID).MethodsMulticenter cohort study of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICU) at 67 U.S. hospitals from March 4 to May 9, 2020. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate 28-day mortality across racial/ethnic groups.ResultsA total of 2153 patients were included (994 [46.2%] Hispanic and 1159 [53.8%] non-Hispanic White). The median (IQR) age was 62 (51-71) years (non-Hispanic White, 66 [57-74] years; Hispanic, 56 [46-67] years), and 1462 (67.9%) were men. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic patients were younger; were less likely to have hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or heart failure; and had longer duration of symptoms prior to ICU admission. During median (IQR) follow-up of 14 (7-24) days, 785 patients (36.5%) died. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, clinical characteristics, and hospital size, Hispanic patients had higher odds of death compared with non-Hispanic White patients (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.12-1.84).ConclusionsAmong critically ill adults with COVID-19, Hispanic patients were more likely to die than non-Hispanic White patients, even though they were younger and had lower comorbidity burden. This finding highlights the need to provide earlier access to care to Hispanic individuals with COVID-19, especially given our finding of longer duration of symptoms prior to ICU admission among Hispanic patients. In addition, there is a critical need to address ongoing disparities in post hospital discharge care for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:ImportanceStudies showing that patients with cancer from rural areas have worse outcomes than their urban counterparts have relied on cancer population data and did not account for differences in access to care. Clinical trial patients receive protocol-directed care by design, so large clinical trial databases are ideal for examining the impact of rural vs urban residency on outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare the geographic distribution and survival outcomes for rural vs urban patients with cancer treated in clinical trials.Design, setting, and participantsIn this comparative effectiveness retrospective cohort analysis, 36 995 patients from all 50 states enrolled in 44 phase 3 and phase 2/3 SWOG (formerly the Southwest Oncology Group) treatment trials from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2012, were examined. Seventeen different cancer-specific analysis cohorts were constructed. Data through January 30, 2018, were analyzed.Main outcomes and measuresRural vs urban residency was defined using the Rural-Urban Continuum Codes developed by the US Department of Agriculture. Multivariate Cox regression was used to estimate the association of residency with overall survival, progression-free survival, and cancer-specific survival, controlling for major disease-specific prognostic factors and demographic variables and stratifying by study. Different definitions of rurality were examined. The distribution of rural vs urban patients by geographic region was described.ResultsOverall, 27.7% of patients were 65 years or older (range across 17 cohort analyses, 7.8%-74.5%), 40.3% were female in the non-sex-specific analyses (range across 17 cohort analyses, 28.1%-45.9%), and 10.8% were black (range across 17 cohort analyses, 1.9%-22.4%). Overall, 19.4% of patients (7184 of 36 995) were from rural locations. Rural patients were more likely to be aged 65 years or older (rural, 30.7% aged ≥65 years vs urban, 27.0% aged ≥65 years; difference, 3.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-4.9%; P < .001), were less likely to be black (rural, 5.4% vs urban, 12.1%; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 6.1%-7.3%; P < .001), were similar with respect to sex (rural, 40.4% female vs urban, 39.7% female; difference, 0.6%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 2.6%; P = .53), and were well represented within major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast). Clinical prognostic factors were similar. In multivariable regression, rural patients with adjuvant-stage estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer had worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P = .008) and cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .02). No other statistically significant differences for overall, progression-free, or cancer-specific survival were found. Results were consistent regardless of the definition of rurality.Conclusions and relevanceRural and urban patients with uniform access to cancer care through participation in a SWOG clinical trial had similar outcomes. This finding suggests that improving access to uniform treatment strategies for patients with cancer may help resolve the disparity in cancer outcomes between rural and urban patients.

Dataset Information

Survival by Hispanic ethnicity among patients with cancer participating in SWOG clinical trials.

Publications

Survival by Hispanic ethnicity among patients with cancer participating in SWOG clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets