Christina S Boutros, Lauren M Drapalik, Christine E Alvarado, Aria Bassiri, Jillian Sinopoli, Leonidas Tapias Vargas, Philip A Linden, Christopher W Towe
{"title":"Is There Bias in the Assessment of Contraindications for Resection? Disparities in the Surgical Management of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer.","authors":"Christina S Boutros, Lauren M Drapalik, Christine E Alvarado, Aria Bassiri, Jillian Sinopoli, Leonidas Tapias Vargas, Philip A Linden, Christopher W Towe","doi":"10.3390/diseases13020037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resection is considered the standard of care for patients with localized esophageal cancer who are \"physiologically fit\". Patients who do not meet this standard are considered contraindicated to receive surgery. We hypothesized that among patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer, the consideration of contraindication status would vary based on clinical and demographic factors and would vary between institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients with non-metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2018. Patients were categorized into three groups based on surgical treatment: surgical resection (including endoscopic mucosal resection), resection contraindicated, and refusal of resection based on the coding of the \"reason for no surgery\" data element. Demographic, clinical, and institutional characteristics were compared between the groups using bivariate and multivariate techniques to identify factors associated with contraindicated status. A subgroup analysis of cT1N0M0 patients was also used to assess every institution in the NCDB's observed-expected ratio for contraindication status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 144,591 patients with non-metastatic disease met inclusion criteria: 124,972 (86%) underwent resection, 13,793 (10%) were contraindicated for resection, and 5826 (4%) refused resection. Contraindication was associated with age, non-Hispanic Black race, socioeconomic status, Charlson-Deyo score, insurance type, institution characteristics, clinical T-stage, and clinical N-stage. There were 9459 patients who were cT1N0M0 and had no co-morbidities. In this cohort, there were more than 1000-fold differences between individual programs regarding observed-expected ratio of contraindication status when adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation in the assessment of contraindication status varies dramatically between institutions. Underserved minorities, including age, race, and insurance type, are risk factors for being considered contraindicated. These findings highlight the disparities that exist regarding surgical care of non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":72832,"journal":{"name":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13020037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:切除术被认为是 "生理条件适合 "的局部食管癌患者的标准治疗方法。不符合这一标准的患者被视为手术禁忌症。我们假设,在非转移性食管癌患者中,对禁忌症状态的考虑会因临床和人口学因素而异,并且在不同机构中也会有所不同:我们在全国癌症数据库(NCDB)中确定了 2004 年至 2018 年的非转移性胃癌和食管癌患者。根据手术治疗将患者分为三组:手术切除(包括内镜下粘膜切除)、切除禁忌和根据 "不手术原因 "数据元素编码拒绝切除。采用双变量和多变量技术比较了各组之间的人口统计学、临床和机构特征,以确定与禁忌状态相关的因素。此外,还对 cT1N0M0 患者进行了亚组分析,以评估 NCDB 中各机构禁忌状态的观察-预期比值:共有 144,591 名非转移性疾病患者符合纳入标准:124972人(86%)接受了切除手术,13793人(10%)有切除手术禁忌症,5826人(4%)拒绝切除手术。禁忌症与年龄、非西班牙裔黑人种族、社会经济地位、Charlson-Deyo 评分、保险类型、机构特征、临床 T 期和临床 N 期有关。有9459名患者为cT1N0M0且无并发症。在这一队列中,当调整临床和人口统计学特征时,各个项目之间在禁忌症状态的观察-预期比率方面的差异超过1000倍:结论:不同机构对禁忌状态的评估差异巨大。未得到充分服务的少数群体,包括年龄、种族和保险类型,都是被视为禁忌症的风险因素。这些发现凸显了美国在非转移性食管癌手术治疗方面存在的差异。
Is There Bias in the Assessment of Contraindications for Resection? Disparities in the Surgical Management of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer.
Background: Resection is considered the standard of care for patients with localized esophageal cancer who are "physiologically fit". Patients who do not meet this standard are considered contraindicated to receive surgery. We hypothesized that among patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer, the consideration of contraindication status would vary based on clinical and demographic factors and would vary between institutions.
Methods: We identified patients with non-metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2018. Patients were categorized into three groups based on surgical treatment: surgical resection (including endoscopic mucosal resection), resection contraindicated, and refusal of resection based on the coding of the "reason for no surgery" data element. Demographic, clinical, and institutional characteristics were compared between the groups using bivariate and multivariate techniques to identify factors associated with contraindicated status. A subgroup analysis of cT1N0M0 patients was also used to assess every institution in the NCDB's observed-expected ratio for contraindication status.
Results: In total, 144,591 patients with non-metastatic disease met inclusion criteria: 124,972 (86%) underwent resection, 13,793 (10%) were contraindicated for resection, and 5826 (4%) refused resection. Contraindication was associated with age, non-Hispanic Black race, socioeconomic status, Charlson-Deyo score, insurance type, institution characteristics, clinical T-stage, and clinical N-stage. There were 9459 patients who were cT1N0M0 and had no co-morbidities. In this cohort, there were more than 1000-fold differences between individual programs regarding observed-expected ratio of contraindication status when adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics.
Conclusions: Variation in the assessment of contraindication status varies dramatically between institutions. Underserved minorities, including age, race, and insurance type, are risk factors for being considered contraindicated. These findings highlight the disparities that exist regarding surgical care of non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the United States.