(S003) Disparities in Stage at Diagnosis and Survival in Adult Cancer Patients According to Insurance Status

Publication
Article
OncologyOncology Vol 28 No 4_Suppl_1
Volume 28
Issue 4_Suppl_1

Among patients with the top 10 causes of cancer death, those with Medicaid or without insurance were more likely to present with advanced-stage disease. This group also experienced worse survival when controlling for demographic information, stage at diagnosis, and receipt of definitive treatment.

Gary V. Walker, MD, MPH, Stephen R. Grant, BS, Ashleigh Guadagnolo, MD, MPH, Matthew Koshy, MD, Usama Mahmood, MD; UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

Background: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seeks to increase the rate of participation in insurance plans for the 48 million individuals without coverage. The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of insurance status on the stage of presentation and survival among non–Medicare-age adult patients with the 10 most common causes of cancer death using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) public use database. 

Methods: A total of 473,722 patients aged 18–64 years who were diagnosed with 1 of the top 10 causes of cancer death (breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, head and neck, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver, pancreatic, ovarian, esophageal) in the SEER database from 2007–2010 were analyzed. Demographic information was obtained, including age, gender, race, year of diagnosis, and marital status. Insurance status was defined as insured, Medicaid, or uninsured. Extent of disease was categorized as local (no nodal or metastatic disease), regional (nodal disease), or metastatic (any distant disease). Definitive treatment was defined as surgery (for breast, colorectal, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers) or surgery and/or radiation therapy (for esophageal, head and neck, lung, and prostate cancers). A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analyses to assess the effect of patient and tumor characteristics on cause-specific death, stratified by insurance status.

Results: The median follow-up was 17 months (range: 0–47 mo). A total of 371,628 (78.4%) had insurance, 55,135 (11.6%) had Medicaid, and 22,442 (4.7%) did not have insurance. On univariate analysis, the following demographic characteristics were associated with the lack of insurance: younger age, male gender, nonwhite race, being unmarried, rural residence, and residing in a county with a higher poverty level. Overall, patients with insurance were less likely to present with metastatic disease (16.9%) than those with Medicaid (29.1%) or without insurance coverage (34.7%) and more likely to present with local disease (60.8%) compared with those with Medicaid (42.2%) or without insurance coverage (40.3%) (P < .001). The unadjusted 3-year cause-specific survival among those with insurance was 83.4%, compared with 64.1% among those with Medicaid and 61.8% among those without insurance coverage (P < .0001). In a Cox regression that adjusted for age, race, gender, marital status, residence (urban vs rural), percentage of county below federal poverty level, stage (local, regional, distant), and receipt of definitive treatment, patients were more likely to die of their disease if they had Medicaid (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49–1.56) or did not have insurance coverage (HR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48–1.57) compared with those with insurance (P < .001).

Conclusions: Among patients with the top 10 causes of cancer death, those with Medicaid or without insurance were more likely to present with advanced-stage disease. This group also experienced worse survival when controlling for demographic information, stage at diagnosis, and receipt of definitive treatment. The expansion of insurance coverage would be expected to substantially impact the presentation and outcome of cancer in the US.

Proceedings of the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Radium Society - americanradiumsociety.org

Articles in this issue

(S002) Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Soft Tissue Sarcoma Metastases
(S001) Limb-Sparing Surgery and Intraoperative Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Primary, Nonmetastatic Extremity and Limb-Girdle Soft Tissue Sarcoma
(S003) Disparities in Stage at Diagnosis and Survival in Adult Cancer Patients According to Insurance Status
(S004) Radiation Publications Underrepresented in High-Impact General Medical and Oncology Journals 
(S005) Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Stage II Endometrial Carcinoma: Is Brachytherapy Alone Sufficient for Local Control?
(S006) Extended-Field IMRT With Concomitant Boost for Node-Positive Cervical Cancer: Analysis of Regional Control Rate and Recurrence Pattern
(S007) Stereotactic Radiosurgery to the Brain With Concurrent BRAF Inhibitors for Melanoma Metastases
(S008) Use of Mobile Devices for Creation of Survivorship Care Plans
(S009) Two-Year Outcomes Following Triapine Radiochemotherapy for Cervical Cancer 
(S010) Prospective and Real-Time Data Analysis of Image-Guided Radiotherapy Across a Multinational Pediatrics Consortium: Methodology and Considerations 
(S011) Comparison of Toxicities and Outcomes for Conventional and Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Early Glottic Carcinoma
(S013) Adjuvant Radiation Therapy and Temozolomide for Anaplastic Gliomas: The Twelve-Year Washington University Experience
(S014) Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Treatment of Brainstem Metastases
(S015) Temporal Lobe Radionecrosis After Skull Base Radiotherapy: Dose-Volume Predictors 
(S012) Prognostic Value of Radiographic Extracapsular Extension in Locally Advanced Non-Oropharyngeal Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancers
Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content