Isolating the Drivers of Racial Inequities in Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Black individuals in the United States are less likely than White individuals to receive curative therapies despite a 2-fold higher risk of prostate cancer death. While research has described treatment inequities, few studies have investigated underlying causes. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 40,137 Medicare beneficiaries (66 and older) linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry who had clinically significant, non-metastatic (cT1-4N0M0, grade group 2-5) prostate cancer (diagnosed 2010-2015). Using the Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, we assessed the contributions of patient health and health care delivery on the racial difference in localized prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiation). Patient health consisted of comorbid diagnoses, tumor characteristics, SEER site, diagnosis year, and age. Health care delivery was captured as a prediction model with these health variables as predictors of treatment, reflecting current treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 72.1% and 78.6% of Black and White patients received definitive treatment, respectively, a difference of 6.5 percentage points. An estimated 15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6-24] of this treatment difference was explained by measured differences in patient health, leaving the remaining estimated 85% (95% CI: 74-94) attributable to a potentially broad range of health care delivery factors. Limitations included insufficient data to explore how specific health care delivery factors, including structural racism and social determinants, impact differential treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the inadequacy of patient health differences as an explanation of the treatment inequity. IMPACT: Investing in studies and interventions that support equitable health care delivery for Black individuals with prostate cancer will contribute to improved outcomes.

Inequities in Definitive Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer Among Those With Clinically Significant Mental Health Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with mental health disorders are at risk for receiving inequitable cancer treatment, likely resulting from various structural, social, and health-related factors. This study aims to assess the relationship between mental health disorders and the use of definitive treatment in a population-based cohort of those with localized, clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study analysis in SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare (2004-2015). History of a mental health disorder was defined as presence of specific ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-9 or ICD-10 diagnostic codes in the 2 years preceding cancer diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between mental health disorders and definitive treatment utilization (defined as surgery or radiation). RESULTS: Of 101,042 individuals with prostate cancer, 7,945 (7.8%) had a diagnosis of a mental health disorder. They were more likely to be unpartnered, have a lower socioeconomic status, and less likely to receive definitive treatment (61.8% vs 68.2%, P < .001). Definitive treatment rates were >66%, 62.8%, 60.3%, 58.2%, 54.3%, and 48.1% for post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and schizophrenia, respectively. After adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic status, history of a mental health disorder was associated with decreased odds of receiving definitive treatment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mental health disorders and prostate cancer represent a vulnerable population; careful attention to clinical and social needs is required to support appropriate use of beneficial treatments.

Lived experiences of people with or at risk for aortic dissection: A qualitative assessment.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-changing event that is often accompanied by a loss of normal quality of life. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease that requires lifestyle modification, medical management, and surgical repair of the aorta. Clinical care includes multiple disciplines, health care settings, and often different geographic locations. This qualitative assessment examined the experiences of people with and at risk for AD. The following four themes emerged: "unnecessary drama" at diagnosis, unmet needs for information and support, the burden of self-advocacy and care coordination, and living with unaddressed mental health impacts. Our findings inform recommendations to advance patient-centered care delivery for individuals with and at risk for AD, improving communication of timely and relevant information, and an approach to care that acknowledges the whole person in clinical decision making.

A Stakeholder-Driven Framework for Evaluating Surgical Site Infection Surveillance Technologies.

Background: Patients increasingly use mobile devices to send text messages and photographic data to surgeons. There is potential to harness this patient-generated health data (PGHD) for clinical and public health surveillance of surgical site infection (SSI). Leveraging PGHD collected via remote monitoring in the post-operative period has the potential to produce important benefits for patients, surgeons, care teams, and infection surveillance and prevention. Methods: We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA), drawing heavily on stakeholder engagement to better understand current and potential uses of PGHD in post-operative care. Stakeholder engagement activities included assembling an advisory board composed of stakeholder experts, interviewing key informants, and seeking out stakeholder guidance to synthesize evidence from interviews, literature review, and technical app review in order to develop recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance. Results: We conducted a review of the published literature, a technical/market scan of available apps for capturing post-operative PGHD, and two rounds of key informant interviews with stakeholders. In addition, we held a day-long workshop to solicit stakeholder feedback on initial findings of the project and to guide additional work. These activities culminated in an HTA report that provides guidance and recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance, including practice, research, and public health surveillance, and identifies open issues on post-operative use of PGHD for which additional evidence and experience are needed to optimize application of those data for clinical and public health purposes. Conclusion: Stakeholders, individuals with direct experience, or interest in a given topic are critical to the HTA process. They provide insight to guide the work conducted, ensure that the topics addressed are relevant and important, and that products of the work are accessible and meaningful to the individuals who will be most impacted.