机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术中的种族和民族差异:测试医生层面的隔离和差别待遇假说》(Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Testing the Physician-level Segregated and Differential Treatment Hypotheses)。

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jialin Mao, Jeanine M Genkinger, Andrew G Rundle, Jason D Wright, Tabassum Z Insaf, Maria J Schymura, Jim C Hu, Parisa Tehranifar
{"title":"机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术中的种族和民族差异:测试医生层面的隔离和差别待遇假说》(Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Testing the Physician-level Segregated and Differential Treatment Hypotheses)。","authors":"Jialin Mao, Jeanine M Genkinger, Andrew G Rundle, Jason D Wright, Tabassum Z Insaf, Maria J Schymura, Jim C Hu, Parisa Tehranifar","doi":"10.1093/jncics/pkae061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are unclear. We sought to test 2 physician-level hypotheses: 1) Segregated Treatment and 2) Differential Treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study used the New York State Cancer Registry linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018. For hypothesis 1, we examined the association between patient race and ethnicity and treating surgeon RARP use (high-use surgeons, low-use surgeons, and surgeons at non-RARP facilities). For hypothesis 2, we determined the association between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of RARP when matching on treating surgeon, age, year of procedure, and Gleason group. We explored the role of insurance in both analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 18 926 patients (8.0% Hispanic, 16.9% non-Hispanic Black, 75.1% non-Hispanic White), with a mean age of 60.4 ± 7.1 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had higher odds of being treated by low-RARP-use surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 3.88; OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.94, respectively) and by surgeons at non-RARP facilities (OR = 4.19, 95% CI = 2.18 to 8.07; OR = 4.60, 95% CI = 2.58 to 8.23, respectively). In the matched cohorts, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive RARP than non-Hispanic White patients (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.98; OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.00, respectively). These associations were partially attenuated after accounting for insurance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Racial and ethnic disparities in RARP use are related to patients being treated by different surgeons and treated differently by the same surgeons. Identifying and addressing multilevel barriers to equitable surgical treatment is needed to reduce disparities among prostate cancer patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14681,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11340640/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: testing the physician-level segregated and differential treatment hypotheses.\",\"authors\":\"Jialin Mao, Jeanine M Genkinger, Andrew G Rundle, Jason D Wright, Tabassum Z Insaf, Maria J Schymura, Jim C Hu, Parisa Tehranifar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jncics/pkae061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are unclear. We sought to test 2 physician-level hypotheses: 1) Segregated Treatment and 2) Differential Treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study used the New York State Cancer Registry linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018. For hypothesis 1, we examined the association between patient race and ethnicity and treating surgeon RARP use (high-use surgeons, low-use surgeons, and surgeons at non-RARP facilities). For hypothesis 2, we determined the association between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of RARP when matching on treating surgeon, age, year of procedure, and Gleason group. We explored the role of insurance in both analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 18 926 patients (8.0% Hispanic, 16.9% non-Hispanic Black, 75.1% non-Hispanic White), with a mean age of 60.4 ± 7.1 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had higher odds of being treated by low-RARP-use surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 3.88; OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.94, respectively) and by surgeons at non-RARP facilities (OR = 4.19, 95% CI = 2.18 to 8.07; OR = 4.60, 95% CI = 2.58 to 8.23, respectively). In the matched cohorts, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive RARP than non-Hispanic White patients (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.98; OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.00, respectively). These associations were partially attenuated after accounting for insurance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Racial and ethnic disparities in RARP use are related to patients being treated by different surgeons and treated differently by the same surgeons. Identifying and addressing multilevel barriers to equitable surgical treatment is needed to reduce disparities among prostate cancer patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNCI Cancer Spectrum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11340640/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNCI Cancer Spectrum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkae061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkae061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)与开放根治性前列腺切除术(ORP)的种族和民族差异机制尚不清楚。我们试图检验两个医生层面的假设:(1)隔离治疗和(2)差别治疗:这项观察性研究使用了与出院记录相关联的纽约州癌症登记处,纳入了 2008 年 10 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间因局部前列腺癌接受根治性前列腺切除术的患者。针对假设(1),我们研究了患者种族和民族与治疗外科医生 RARP 使用情况(高使用率外科医生、低使用率外科医生和非 RARP 设施的外科医生)之间的关联。对于假设(2),我们根据主治医生、年龄、手术年份和 Gleason 组别进行匹配后,确定了患者的种族和民族与接受 RARP 之间的关联。在这两项分析中,我们还探讨了保险的作用:本研究共纳入 18926 名患者(8.0% 西班牙裔、16.9% 非西班牙裔黑人、75.1% 非西班牙裔白人),平均年龄为 60.4 ± 7.1 岁。与非西班牙裔白人患者相比,西班牙裔和非西班牙裔黑人患者接受低RARP使用率外科医生治疗的几率更高(OR[95% CI]:分别为2.16[1.20-3.88]和1.76[1.06-2.94]),接受非RARP设施外科医生治疗的几率更高(OR[95% CI]:分别为4.19[2.18-8.07]和4.60[2.58-8.23])。在匹配队列中,西班牙裔和非西班牙裔黑人患者接受 RARP 的可能性低于非西班牙裔白人患者(OR[95% CI]:分别为 0.78[0.62-0.98] 和 0.75[0.57-1.00])。在考虑保险因素后,这些关联部分减弱:结论:RARP使用中的种族和民族差异与患者接受不同外科医生的治疗和接受同一外科医生的不同治疗有关。要减少前列腺癌患者之间的差异,需要识别并解决公平手术治疗的多层次障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: testing the physician-level segregated and differential treatment hypotheses.

Background: Mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are unclear. We sought to test 2 physician-level hypotheses: 1) Segregated Treatment and 2) Differential Treatment.

Methods: This observational study used the New York State Cancer Registry linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018. For hypothesis 1, we examined the association between patient race and ethnicity and treating surgeon RARP use (high-use surgeons, low-use surgeons, and surgeons at non-RARP facilities). For hypothesis 2, we determined the association between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of RARP when matching on treating surgeon, age, year of procedure, and Gleason group. We explored the role of insurance in both analyses.

Results: This study included 18 926 patients (8.0% Hispanic, 16.9% non-Hispanic Black, 75.1% non-Hispanic White), with a mean age of 60.4 ± 7.1 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had higher odds of being treated by low-RARP-use surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 3.88; OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.94, respectively) and by surgeons at non-RARP facilities (OR = 4.19, 95% CI = 2.18 to 8.07; OR = 4.60, 95% CI = 2.58 to 8.23, respectively). In the matched cohorts, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive RARP than non-Hispanic White patients (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.98; OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.00, respectively). These associations were partially attenuated after accounting for insurance.

Conclusions: Racial and ethnic disparities in RARP use are related to patients being treated by different surgeons and treated differently by the same surgeons. Identifying and addressing multilevel barriers to equitable surgical treatment is needed to reduce disparities among prostate cancer patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
JNCI Cancer Spectrum Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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