Same People, Different Results: Categorizing Cancer Registry Cases Across the Rural-Urban Continuum.

BACKGROUND: Many rural-urban indexes are utilized in cancer research. This variation introduces inconsistencies between studies. Recommendations on index use have prioritized geographical unit over feasibility of inclusion in analysis. We evaluated rural-urban indexes and recommend one for use to increase comparability across studies. METHODS: We assessed 9 US rural-urban indexes regarding their respective rural and urban code ranges; geographical unit, land area, and population distributions; percent agreement; suitability for analysis; and integration feasibility for national, state, and local cancer research. We referenced 1569 Wisconsin Pancreatic Cancer Registry patients to demonstrate how index choice affects patient categorization. RESULTS: Six indexes categorized rural and urban areas. Indexes agreed on binary rural-urban designation for 88.8% of the US population. As ternary variables, they agreed for 83.4%. For cancer registry patients, this decreased to 73.4% and 60.4% agreement, respectively. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) performed the best in differentiating metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties; availability for retrospective and prospective studies; and continuous coding for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Urban/rural patient categorization changed with index selection. We conclude that RUCC is an appropriate and feasible rural-urban index to include in cancer research, as it is standardly available in national cancer registries, can be matched to patient's county of residence for local research, and it had the least amount of fluctuation of the indices analyzed. Utilizing RUCC as a continuous variable across studies with a rural-urban component will increase reproducibility and comparability of results and eliminate rural-urban index choice as a potential source of discrepancy between studies.

Cervical Cancer and a History of Incarceration: Examining a Social Determinant of Health.

Females who are incarcerated are disproportionately burdened by cancer, particularly cervical cancer. We measured the odds of cervical cancer compared with nonscreenable cancers for females who were incarcerated before diagnosis. By comparing a cancer for which screening and vaccination are available with cancers for which neither are available, we aimed to assess the relationship of incarceration with diseases for which preventive care mitigates risk. We created a novel data set combining cancer data from a large cancer center with incarceration data from the state department of corrections. We then estimated the odds of cervical cancer relative to nonscreenable cancers for those with and without a history of incarceration. Females with a history of incarceration had greater odds of being diagnosed with cervical cancer compared with nonscreenable cancers (odds ratio = 7.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.4-11.0) relative to those who had not been incarcerated. Adjusting for race and age, the odds of cervical cancer remained significantly greater for those with a history of incarceration (adjusted odds ratio = 3.86; 95% CI: 2.3-6.3). Our findings support the need for expanded cervical cancer screening and vaccination opportunities for incarcerated females and increased access to preventive health care after release.

Treatment Inequity: Examining the Influence of Non-Hispanic Black Race and Ethnicity on Pancreatic Cancer Care and Survival in Wisconsin.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated race and ethnicity-based disparities in first course treatment and overall survival among Wisconsin pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: We identified adults diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the Wisconsin Cancer Reporting System from 2004 through 2017. We assessed race and ethnicity-based disparities in first course of treatment via adjusted logistic regression and overall survival via 4 incremental Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: The study included 8,490 patients: 91.3% (n = 7,755) non-Hispanic White; 5.1% (n = 437) non-Hispanic Black, 1.8% (n = 151) Hispanic, 0.6% Native American (n = 53), and 0.6% Asian (n = 51) race and ethnicities. Non-Hispanic Black patients had lower odds of treatment than non-Hispanic White patients for full patient (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41-0.65) and Medicare cohorts (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.55). Non-Hispanic Black patients had lower odds of receiving surgery than non-Hispanic White patients (full cohort OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48-0.92]; Medicare cohort OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.34-0.93]). Non-Hispanic Black patients experienced worse survival than non-Hispanic White patients in the first 2 incremental Cox proportional hazard regression models (model II HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31). After adding insurance and treatment course, non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients experienced similar survival (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09). CONCLUSION: Non-Hispanic Black patients were almost 50% less likely to receive any treatment and 33% less likely to receive surgery than non-Hispanic White patients. After including treatment course, non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patient survival was similar. Increasing non-Hispanic Black patient treatment rates by addressing structural factors affecting treatment availability and employing culturally humble approaches to treatment discussions may mitigate these disparities.