Dataset Information

Comparison of Survival among Colon Cancer Patients in the U.S. Military Health System and Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Access to health care is associated with cancer survival. The U.S. military health system (MHS) provides universal health care to beneficiaries, reducing barriers to medical care access. However, it is unknown whether the universal care has translated into improved survival among patients with colon cancer. We compared survival of patients with colon cancer in the MHS to that in the U.S. general population and assessed whether stage at diagnosis differed between the two populations and thus could contribute to survival difference.

Methods

The data were from Department of Defense's (DoD) Automated Central Tumor Registry (ACTUR) and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, respectively. The ACTUR (N = 11,907) and SEER patients (N = 23,814) were matched to demographics and diagnosis year with a matching ratio of 1:2. Multivariable Cox regression model was used to estimate all-cause mortality for ACTUR compared with SEER.

Results

ACTUR patients exhibited better survival than their SEER counterparts (HR, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.87) overall and in most subgroups by age, in both men and women, and in whites and blacks. The better survival remained when the comparison was stratified by tumor stage.

Conclusions

Patients with colon cancer in a universal health care system had better survival than patients in the general population.

Impact

Universal care access is important to improve survival of patients with colon cancer.

SUBMITTER: Lin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477343 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, immunotherapy (IO) has shown striking survival improvement in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) for improvement in outcomes should not be disregarded. This study aimed to compare the treatment patterns and illustrate the impact of radiotherapy on the cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with unresected locally advanced stage III NSCLC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with stage III NSCLC patients who did not undergo surgery from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2001 and 2016, and three continuous years were regarded as one unit. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, we identified the CSS and OS. Then, a linear regression model was graphed to analyze the correlation between median survival of CSS or OS and calendar years in the radiotherapy alone, chemotherapy alone, and CRT groups.ResultsA total of 20986 patients were included in this study. In the overall cohort, CSS and OS improved consistently. To explore the reason for the improved survival, patients were divided into three different cohorts: radiotherapy alone, chemotherapy alone, and CRT. From 2001 to 2015, the median CSS improved persistently, 7, 8, 8, 9, and 11 months in the radiotherapy alone group and 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 months in the CRT group, but improvement in outcomes was less consistent in the chemotherapy alone group (10, 9, 11, 12, 12 months). To better visualize the correlation between CSS and calendar year, linear regression was performed, yielding r2 = 0.8032, P = 0.0395 for the radiotherapy alone group; r2 = 0.7206, P = 0.0689 for the chemotherapy alone group; and r2 = 0.9878, P = 0.0006 for the CRT group. Similar findings were observed in the OS data. In addition to this, we also analyzed different pathological types and also obtained the same results.ConclusionsThe survival of patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC has improved substantially, and the most pronounced and consistent improvements were observed in the CRT group. In addition to IO, radiotherapy played an essential role in the treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC in the past years and should be considered in the design of clinical trials.

Project description:Surgical resection is the primary treatment for colon cancer, but use of laparoscopic approaches varies widely despite demonstrated short- and long-term benefits.The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with laparoscopic colon cancer resection and to quantify variation based on patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics.Bayesian cross-classified, multilevel logistic models calculated adjusted ORs and CIs for patient, surgeon, hospital, and geographic characteristics and unexplained variability (predicted vs. observed values) using adjusted median odds ratios for hospitals and counties.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare claims database (2008-2011) supplemented with county-level American Community Survey (2008-2012) demographic data was used.A total of 10,618 patients ?66 years old who underwent colon cancer resection were included.Nonurgent/nonemergent resections for colon cancer patients ?66 years old were classified as laparoscopic or open procedures.Patients resided in 579 counties and used 950 hospitals; 47% of patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollment, age ?85 years, and higher tumor stage and grade were negatively associated with laparoscopic surgery receipt; proximal tumors and increasing hospital size and surgeon caseload were positively associated. Significant unexplained variability at the hospital (adjusted median OR = 3.31; p < 0.001) and county levels (adjusted median OR = 1.28; p < 0.05) remained after adjustment.This was an observational study lacking generalizability to younger patients without Medicare or those with Health Maintenance Organization coverage and data set did not reflect national hospital studies or hospital volume. In addition, we were unable to account for specific types of comorbidities, such as obesity, and had broad categories for surgeon caseload.Determining sources of hospital-level variation among poor insured patients may help increase laparoscopic resection to maximize health outcomes and reduce cost. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A363.