Unlimited access to care: effect on racial disparity and prognostic factors in lung cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the prognostic factors influencing lung cancer survival under a universal health care system and determine if access to care eliminates clinical outcome disparity. DESIGN: Retrospective case series review. BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survival is worse in men and in African Americans, thought to be related to poor general health in men and limited access to heath care in African Americans. The Military Health Care System, with unlimited access to care, provides an excellent setting for evaluating gender and racial disparities in lung cancer survival. METHODS: Lung cancers diagnosed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, from 1990 to 2000, were evaluated by chart review for age, gender, race, smoking history, cancer history, histology, stage, and completeness of resection. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirteen Caucasians and 173 African Americans, 2:1 male predominance, had a 22% 5-year survival. Cox model analysis showed that male gender [hazard ratio (HR, 1.31) 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.68], advanced-stage disease (stage III: HR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.57-4.26/stage IV: HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 2.51-7.41), and incomplete resection (HR, 4.06; 95% CI, 2.75-5.99) were predictors of poor outcome; whereas bronchoalveolar carcinoma features (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.52) and smoking cessation >7 years (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99) were predictors of favorable outcome. No ethnic differences in survival were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No racial disparities in survival when access to medical care is universal. Male gender, incomplete resection, and advanced stage are significant predictors of poor outcome in lung cancer.

Lung cancer staging: a case for a new T definition.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determine a more refined T definition for lung cancer staging on the basis of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The Walter Reed Army Medical Center Tumor Registry and the Thoracic Surgery Tumor Clinic files were queried for lung cancers diagnosed from 1990 to 2000. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves for tumor size were used to analyze the impact of size on survival and relative risk, and then used to redefine T. Using the new T definition, the cohort was restaged, and the two staging system survivals were compared using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Tumor size was documented in 439 males and 226 females. Forty-two tumors were 1.0 cm or less, 133 were between 1.01 and 2.0 cm, 133 were between 2.01 and 3.0 cm, 91 were between 3.01 and 4.0, 96 were between 4.01 and 5.0, and 166 were greater than 5.0 cm. A survival advantage was noted for smaller lesions, with 5-year survivals of 48.6%, 45.9%, 26.6%, 27.0%, 14.4%, and 11.6%, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed increased risk at 2.0 cm (hazards ratio, 2.014; 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 3.26), 4.0 cm (hazards ratio, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.53 to 4.09), and 5.0 cm (hazards ratio, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.96 to 5.02). After redefining T, the new staging system showed a better 5-year survival in each stage. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer tumor size criteria should be changed to include T1 tumors 2.0 cm and less; T2 tumors between 2.0 and 4.0 cm or pleural invasion of T1 tumor; T3 tumors greater than 4.0 cm or pleural invasion of T2 tumors.