Regional disparities in the use of intensive chemotherapy for AML in the Netherlands: does it influence survival?

Z. Kaplan, Nikki van Leeuwen, David van Klaveren, Otto Visser, E. Posthuma, D. van Lammeren-Venema, T. Snijders, C. Van Elssen, A. van Rhenen, Peter A von dem Borne, N. Blijlevens, Jan J Cornelissen, M. H. Raaijmakers, A. A. van de Loosdrecht, G. Huls, V. E. Lemmens, H. Lingsma, A. Dinmohamed
{"title":"Regional disparities in the use of intensive chemotherapy for AML in the Netherlands: does it influence survival?","authors":"Z. Kaplan, Nikki van Leeuwen, David van Klaveren, Otto Visser, E. Posthuma, D. van Lammeren-Venema, T. Snijders, C. Van Elssen, A. van Rhenen, Peter A von dem Borne, N. Blijlevens, Jan J Cornelissen, M. H. Raaijmakers, A. A. van de Loosdrecht, G. Huls, V. E. Lemmens, H. Lingsma, A. Dinmohamed","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) prognosis is enhanced with intensive remission induction chemotherapy (ICT) in eligible patients. However, ICT eligibility perceptions may differ among healthcare professionals. This nationwide, population-based study aimed to explore regional variation in ICT application and its relation with overall survival (OS).We compared nine Dutch regional networks using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Regional variance was assessed for the entire population and age subgroups (ie, ≤60 years and >60 years) using multivariable mixed effects logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses, expressed via median OR (MOR) and median HR (MHR).Including all adult AML patients from 2014 to 2018 (N=4060 patients; 58% males; median age, 70 years), 1761 (43%) received ICT. ICT application varied from 36% to 57% (MOR 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.58)) across regions, with minor variations for patients aged ≤60 years (MOR 1.16 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.40)) and more extensive differences for those aged >60 years (MOR 1.43 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.63)). Median OS spanned 4.9–8.4 months across regions (MHR 1.11 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.15)), with pronounced differences in older patients (MHR 1.12 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.20)) but negligible differences in the younger group (MHR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.14)). Survival differences for the total population and the older patients decreased to respectively, MHR 1.09 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.13) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.18), after additional adjustment for the probability of receiving ICT within a region, indicating approximately 10% unexplained differences.Regional disparities in ICT application and survival exist, especially in older AML patients. However, ICT application differences partially explain survival disparities, indicating the need for more standardised ICT eligibility criteria and a better understanding of underlying causes of outcome disparities.","PeriodicalId":72436,"journal":{"name":"BMJ oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) prognosis is enhanced with intensive remission induction chemotherapy (ICT) in eligible patients. However, ICT eligibility perceptions may differ among healthcare professionals. This nationwide, population-based study aimed to explore regional variation in ICT application and its relation with overall survival (OS).We compared nine Dutch regional networks using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Regional variance was assessed for the entire population and age subgroups (ie, ≤60 years and >60 years) using multivariable mixed effects logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses, expressed via median OR (MOR) and median HR (MHR).Including all adult AML patients from 2014 to 2018 (N=4060 patients; 58% males; median age, 70 years), 1761 (43%) received ICT. ICT application varied from 36% to 57% (MOR 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.58)) across regions, with minor variations for patients aged ≤60 years (MOR 1.16 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.40)) and more extensive differences for those aged >60 years (MOR 1.43 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.63)). Median OS spanned 4.9–8.4 months across regions (MHR 1.11 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.15)), with pronounced differences in older patients (MHR 1.12 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.20)) but negligible differences in the younger group (MHR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.14)). Survival differences for the total population and the older patients decreased to respectively, MHR 1.09 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.13) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.18), after additional adjustment for the probability of receiving ICT within a region, indicating approximately 10% unexplained differences.Regional disparities in ICT application and survival exist, especially in older AML patients. However, ICT application differences partially explain survival disparities, indicating the need for more standardised ICT eligibility criteria and a better understanding of underlying causes of outcome disparities.
荷兰急性髓细胞白血病强化化疗的地区差异:是否影响生存?
符合条件的急性髓性白血病(AML)患者接受强化缓解诱导化疗(ICT)后,预后会得到改善。然而,不同的医护人员对ICT应用资格的认识可能存在差异。这项基于人口的全国性研究旨在探讨ICT应用的地区差异及其与总生存率(OS)的关系。使用多变量混合效应逻辑分析和考克斯比例危险回归分析评估了整个人群和年龄亚组(即≤60岁和>60岁)的地区差异,以中位数OR(MOR)和中位数HR(MHR)表示。包括2014年至2018年的所有成年急性髓细胞白血病患者(N=4060名患者;58%为男性;中位数年龄为70岁)在内,有1761人(43%)接受了ICT治疗。不同地区的ICT应用率从36%到57%不等(MOR为1.36(95% CI为1.11至1.58)),年龄≤60岁的患者差异较小(MOR为1.16(95% CI为1.00至1.40)),年龄大于60岁的患者差异更大(MOR为1.43(95% CI为1.16至1.63))。各地区的中位生存期为4.9-8.4个月(MHR 1.11 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.15)),老年患者的差异明显(MHR 1.12 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.20)),但年轻患者的差异可以忽略不计(MHR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.14))。在对地区内接受ICT的概率进行额外调整后,总人口和老年患者的生存率差异分别降至MHR 1.09(95% CI 1.00至1.13)和1.10(95% CI 1.04至1.18),表明约有10%的差异无法解释。然而,ICT应用方面的差异可以部分解释生存率的差异,这表明需要制定更加标准化的ICT资格标准,并更好地了解导致结果差异的根本原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信