Social determinants of health and outcome disparities in spine tumor surgery. Part 2: Neighborhood disadvantage and long-term outcomes.

Abstract

Objective: Neighborhood-level resource disadvantage has been previously shown to predict extent of resection, oncological follow-up, adjuvant treatment, and clinical trial participation for malignancies, including glioblastoma. The authors aimed to characterize the association between neighborhood disadvantage and long-term outcomes after spine tumor surgery.

Methods: The authors analyzed all patients who underwent surgery for primary or secondary (all metastatic pathologies) spine tumors at a single spinal oncology specialty center in the United States from 2015 to 2022. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a validated metric compositing 17 social determinants of health variables that ranges continuously from 0% (higher advantage) to 100% (higher disadvantage), was used to quantify neighborhood disadvantage. Patient addresses were matched to ADI on the basis of the census block of residence. Subsequently, the study population was dichotomized into advantaged (ADI 0%-33%) and disadvantaged (ADI 34%-100%) cohorts. The primary endpoint was functional status, as defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status Scale grade, with secondary endpoints including inpatient outcomes, mortality, readmissions, reoperations, and clinical research participation. Multivariable logistic, gamma log-link, and Cox regression adjusted for 14 confounders, including patient and oncological characteristics, general and tumor-related presenting severity, and treatment.

Results: In total, 237 patients underwent spine tumor surgery from 2015 to 2022, with an average age of 53.9 years, and 57.0% had primary tumors whereas 43.0% had secondary tumors; 55.3% (n = 131) were classified by ADI into the disadvantaged cohort. This cohort had higher rates of ambulation deficits on presentation (39.1% vs 23.5%, p = 0.015) and nonelective surgery (35.1% vs 23.6%, p = 0.030). Postoperatively, disadvantaged patients exhibited higher odds of residual tumor (OR 2.55, p = 0.026), especially for secondary tumors (OR 4.92, p = 0.045). Patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods additionally exhibited significantly higher odds of poor functional status at follow-up (OR 3.94, p = 0.002). Postoperative survival was 74.7% (mean follow-up 17.6 months), with the disadvantaged cohort experiencing significantly shorter survival (HR 1.92, p = 0.049). Moreover, this population had higher odds of readmission (OR 1.92, p = 0.046) and, for primary tumors, reoperation (OR 9.26, p = 0.005). Elective participation in prospective clinical research was lower among the disadvantaged cohort (OR 0.45, p = 0.016).

Conclusions: Neighborhood disadvantage predicts higher rates of residual tumor, readmission, and reoperation, as well as poorer functional status, shorter postoperative survival, and decreased elective research participation. The ADI may be used to risk stratify spine oncology patients and guide targeted interventions to ameliorate neurosurgical disparities and to reduce barriers to research participation.