Abstract

Disadvantaged neighborhood-level and individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) have each been associated with suboptimal cancer care and inferior outcomes. However, independent or synergistic associations between neighborhood and individual socioeconomic disadvantage have not been fully examined, and prior studies using simplistic neighborhood SES measures may not comprehensively assess multiple aspects of neighborhood SES. To investigate the associations of neighborhood SES (using a validated comprehensive composite measure) and individual SES with survival among patients with nonmetastatic common cancers. This prospective, population-based cohort study was derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011, with follow-up ending on December 31, 2017. Participants included older patients (≥65 years) with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer. Neighborhood SES was measured using the area deprivation index (ADI; quintiles), a validated comprehensive composite measure of neighborhood SES. Individual SES was assessed by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility (yes vs no), a reliable indicator for patient-level low income. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of ADI and dual eligibility with overall and cancer-specific mortality were estimated via Cox proportional hazards regression. Statistical analyses were conducted from January 23 to April 15, 2021. A total of 96 978 patients were analyzed, including 25 968 with breast, 35 150 with prostate, 16 684 with lung, and 19 176 with colorectal cancer. Median age at diagnosis was 76 years (IQR, 71-81 years) for breast cancer, 73 years (IQR, 70-77 years) for prostate cancer, 76 years (IQR, 71-81 years) for lung cancer, and 78 years (IQR, 72-84 years) for colorectal cancer. Among lung and colorectal cancer patients, 8412 (50.4%) and 10 486 (54.7%), respectively, were female. The proportion of non-Hispanic White individuals among breast cancer patients was 83.7% (n = 21 725); prostate cancer, 76.8% (n = 27 001); lung cancer, 83.5% (n = 13 926); and colorectal cancer, 81.1% (n = 15 557). Neighborhood-level and individual-level SES were independently associated with overall mortality, and no interactions were detected. Compared with the most affluent neighborhoods (ADI quintile 1), living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI quintile 5) was associated with higher risk of overall mortality (breast: HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.26-1.43; prostate: HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.42-1.62; lung: HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28; and colorectal: HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.32). Individual socioeconomic disadvantage (dual eligibility) was associated with higher risk of overall mortality (breast: HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.29; prostate: HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21-1.38; lung: HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20; and colorectal: HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.17-1.29). A similar pattern was observed for cancer-specific mortality. In this cohort study, neighborhood-level deprivation was associated with worse survival among patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer, even after accounting for individual SES. These findings suggest that, in order to improve cancer outcomes and reduce health disparities, policies for ongoing investments in low-resource neighborhoods and low-income households are needed.

Highlights

  • Compared with the most affluent neighborhoods (ADI quintile 1), living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI quintile 5) was associated with higher risk of overall mortality

  • A similar pattern was observed for cancerspecific mortality. In this cohort study, neighborhood-level deprivation was associated with worse survival among patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer, even after accounting for individual Socioeconomic status (SES)

  • These findings suggest that, in order to improve cancer outcomes and reduce health disparities, policies for ongoing investments in low-resource neighborhoods and low-income households are needed

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a complex concept describing the state of income, wealth, education, occupation, and living conditions for both individuals and their neighborhood or social network.[1,2] Individual SES has consistently been reported to be an important risk factor for worse survival across a range of cancer types.[3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] investigators often focus on the associations of neighborhood SES with cancer survival in large national cancer databases in which individual-level SES is not accessible[17,18]; individual-level SES is underexamined in these national databases. Despite the understanding that both individual and neighborhood SES influence cancer outcomes, important knowledge gaps exist It is unclear whether neighborhood SES is independently associated with cancer outcomes after accounting for individual-level SES, or whether there is a synergistic association between these 2 factors.[17,18] To our knowledge, the interaction of individual-level and neighborhood-level SES with cancer survival has not been previously compared. In contrast,[33] the area deprivation index (ADI) consists of 17 measures of education, employment, housing quality, and poverty originally extracted from long-form US Census data, and offers a theoretical advantage.[34] One study found a higher ADI (neighborhood disadvantage) to be associated with worse survival after cancer diagnosis, but these patients were diagnosed between 1988 and 1999, and investigators did not adjust for cancer stage or treatment in the analysis.[8] new studies are urgently needed to apply more recent cancer data with comprehensive adjustment for factors influencing prognosis

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call