Published in

Wiley, Journal of Surgical Oncology, 8(128), p. 1278-1284, 2023

DOI: 10.1002/jso.27437

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Socioeconomic disparities in patients with small bowel neuroendocrine tumors

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesDemographic and socioeconomic disparities affect cancer specific outcomes in numerous malignancies, but the impact of these for patients with small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (SBNETs) is not well understood. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on overall survival (OS) for patients with SBNETs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Cancer Database to assess patients diagnosed with SBNET between 2004 and 2015. Patients were stratified by demographics, socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and place of living.ResultsThe 5‐year OS for the entire cohort was 78.5%. The 5‐year survival was worse in patients with lower income (p < 0.0001), lower education (p < 0.0001), not in proximity to a metro area (p = 0.0004), and treatment at a community cancer center (p < 0.0001). Adjusting for age and sex, factors associated with worse OS were lower income (<$38 000) (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04−1.28), lower education (>20% no HSD) (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02−1.26), no insurance (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.33−2.06), and not living in proximity to a metro area (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.10−1.47).ConclusionsPatient demographics and socioeconomic factors play an important role in survival of patients with SBNETs, specifically proximity to a metro area, median income, education level, and type of treatment center. Strategies to improve access to care must be considered in this at‐risk population.