The impact of rural residence on adult brain cancer survival in the United States.

PURPOSE: Rural/urban disparities in brain cancer survival have been reported. However, disparities by cancer type or in the United States as a whole remain poorly understood. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries database, we examined brain cancer survival by rural/urban residence defined by Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCs). METHODS: We obtained data from SEER 18 registries for individuals aged 20 years and older with a first primary malignant brain cancer from 2001 to 2011. Rural/urban residence at diagnosis was defined using both metropolitan/non-metropolitan county classifications and individual RUCC categories. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to compute adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between rural/urban residence and brain cancer survival. RESULTS: Among 37,581 cancer cases, 77.9% were non-Hispanic White, 56.5% were male, and 88.7% lived in a metropolitan county. Brain cancer patients living in the most rural counties had a significant increased risk of cancer death compared to those living in the most urban counties (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.31). Those living in non-metropolitan counties had a similar risk of cancer death compared to those living in metropolitan counties (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.06). Effect modification was observed overall by cancer type, with non-specified oligodendroglioma (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.01-1.81) showing the greatest effect. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for confounding factors, our results suggest that rural residence has a modest effect on brain cancer survival, and that this disparity may vary by cancer type. Future research should explore differences in treatment strategies between rural and urban brain cancer patients.

National Trends in the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of national administrative hospital data. OBJECTIVE: This study examines national trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with and without coexisting scoliosis between 2010 and 2014. The study also examines revision rates for LSS procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is wide variability in the surgical management of patients with LSS, with and without coexisting spinal deformity. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample Database. International Classification of Diseases 9th revision- Clinical Modification codes were used to identify all patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. These patients were divided into two groups: 1) LSS alone and 2) LSS with coexisting scoliosis. The two groups were examined for one of three surgical outcomes: 1) decompression alone (discectomy, laminectomy), 2) simple fusion, and 3) complex fusion (>three vertebrae or 360° fusion). The groups were then further examined for revision operations. National Inpatient Sample discharge weights were applied where relevant. RESULTS: In 2014 national estimates of discharged patients indicated 76,275 patients with a primary diagnosis of LSS (population rate, 23.9; in the elderly (65+) the age-adjusted population rate was 95.4). Of these patients, 88.5% were managed through primary surgery (34.6% decompression, 47.2% simple fusion, 5.7% complex fusion). Between 2010 and 2014, the percentage of decompression decreased from 47.5% to 34.6%, the percent of simple fusion increased from 35.3% to 47.2%, and the percent of complex fusion increased from 5.7% to 7.1% (P < 0.01). In patients with coexisting scoliosis, lumbar spinal stenosis was predominantly managed by simple fusion and complex fusion (15.5% decompression, 51.9% simple fusion, 27.3% complex fusion, in 2014). Revision rates were highest among patients without scoliosis managed with complex fusion (15.8% in 2014) compared with patients with scoliosis (8.8% in 2014). Patients with scoliosis who underwent decompression only had revision rates of 1.7% and 0.62% in 2010 and 2014, respectively. CONCLUSION: We observed a leveling-off of the rate of operation for patients with a primary diagnosis of LSS at around 88%. There was an increase in the rate of fusion and a decrease in the rate of decompression across all patient groups. We report no difference in revision rates between patients with and without scoliosis, except in those undergoing a complex fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.