Disparities in Access to Liver Transplant Referral and Evaluation among Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Georgia.

Liver transplantation offers the best survival for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Prior studies have demonstrated disparities in transplant access; none have examined the early steps of the transplant process. We identified determinants of access to transplant referral and evaluation among patients with HCC with a single tumor either within Milan or meeting downstaging criteria in Georgia.Population-based cancer registry data from 2010 to 2019 were linked to liver transplant centers in Georgia. Primary cohort: adult patients with HCC with a single tumor ≤8 cm in diameter, no extrahepatic involvement, and no vascular involvement. Secondary cohort: primary cohort plus patients with multiple tumors confined to one lobe. We estimated time to transplant referral, evaluation initiation, and evaluation completion, accounting for the competing risk of death. In sensitivity analyses, we also accounted for non-transplant cancer treatment.Among 1,379 patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, 26% were referred to liver transplant. Private insurance and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of referral, while requiring downstaging was associated with lower likelihood of referral. Patients living in census tracts with ≥20% of residents in poverty were less likely to initiate evaluation among those referred [cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR): 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.94]. Medicaid patients were less likely to complete the evaluation once initiated (csHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89).Different sociodemographic factors were associated with each stage of the transplant process among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, emphasizing unique barriers to access and the need for targeted interventions at each step. SIGNIFICANCE: Among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, age and insurance type were associated with referral to liver transplant, race, and poverty with evaluation initiation, and insurance type with evaluation completion. Opportunities to improve transplant access include informing referring providers about insurance requirements, addressing barriers to evaluation initiation, and streamlining the evaluation process.

Geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health in transplantation.

Among the causes of inequity in organ transplantation, geography is oft-cited but rarely defined with precision. Traditionally, geographic inequity has been characterized by variation in distance to transplant centers, availability of deceased organ donors, or the consequences of allocation systems that are inherently geographically based. Recent research has begun to explore the use of measures at various geographic levels to better understand how characteristics of a patient's geographic surroundings contribute to a broad range of transplant inequities. Within, we first explore the relationship between geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health. Next, we review methodologic considerations essential to geographic health research, and critically appraise how these techniques have been applied. Finally, we propose how to use geography to improve access to and outcomes of transplantation.

Racial and ethnic disparities in psychosocial evaluation and liver transplant waitlisting.

Health disparities have been well-described in all stages of the liver transplantation (LT) process. Using data from psychosocial evaluations and the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment, our objective was to investigate potential racial and ethnic inequities in overall LT waitlisting and not waitlisting for medical or psychosocial reasons. In a cohort of 2271 candidates evaluated for LT from 2014 to 2021 and with 1-8 years of follow-up, no significant associations were noted between race/ethnicity and overall waitlisting and not waitlisting for medical reasons. However, compared with White race, Black race (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.56) and Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.16-3.78) were associated with not waitlisting for psychosocial reasons. After adjusting for sociodemographic variables, the relationship persisted in both populations: Black (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38) and Hispanic/Latinx (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.08-4.86) (reference group, White). High-risk Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment scores were more prevalent in Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients, likely reflecting upstream factors and structural racism. Health systems and LT centers should design programs to combat these disparities and improve equity in access to LT.

Understanding gastrointestinal cancer mortality disparities in a racially and geographically diverse population.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers represent a diverse group of diseases. We assessed differences in geographic and racial disparities in cancer-specific mortality across subtypes, overall and by patient characteristics, in a geographically and racially diverse US population. METHODS: Clinical, sociodemographic, and treatment characteristics for patients diagnosed during 2009-2014 with colorectal cancer (CRC), pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or gastric cancer in Georgia were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database. Patients were classified by geography (rural or urban county) and race and followed for cancer-specific death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate stratified hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between geography or race and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 77% of the study population resided in urban counties and 33% were non-Hispanic Black (NHB). For all subtypes, NHB patients were more likely to reside in urban counties than non-Hispanic White patients. Residing in a rural county was associated with an overall increased hazard of cancer-specific mortality for HCC (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.31), pancreatic (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03-1.19), and gastric cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.03-1.32) but near-null for CRC. Overall racial disparities were observed for CRC (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.11-1.25) and HCC (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.01-1.24). Geographic disparities were most pronounced among HCC patients receiving surgery. Racial disparities were pronounced among CRC patients receiving any treatment. CONCLUSION: Geographic disparities were observed for the rarer GI cancer subtypes, and racial disparities were pronounced for CRC. Treatment factors appear to largely drive both disparities.

Variation in Racial Disparities in Liver Transplant Outcomes Across Transplant Centers in the United States.

Little is known about the role that transplant centers may play in perpetuating racial disparities after liver transplantation, which are unexplained by patient-level factors. We examined variation in between-center and within-center disparities among 34,114 Black and White liver transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to calculate transplant center-specific Black-White hazard ratios and hierarchical survival analysis to examine potential effect modification of the race-survival association by transplant center characteristics, including transplant volume, proportion of Black patients, SRTR quality rating, and region. Models were sequentially adjusted for clinical, socioeconomic, and center characteristics. After adjustment, Black patients experienced 1.11 excess deaths after liver transplant per 100 person-years compared with White patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.56), corresponding to a 21% increased mortality risk (95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Although there was substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers, there was no evidence of effect modification by transplant center volume, proportion of minority patients seen, quality rating, or region. We found significant racial disparities in survival after transplant, with substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers that was not explained by selected center characteristics. This is the first study to directly evaluate the role transplant centers play in racial disparities in transplant outcomes. Further assessment of the qualitative factors that may drive disparities, such as selection processes and follow-up care, is needed to create effective center-level interventions to address health inequity.

County Differences in Liver Mortality in the United States: Impact of Sociodemographics, Disease Risk Factors, and Access to Care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data have demonstrated state-wide variability in mortality rates from liver disease (cirrhosis + hepatocellular carcinoma), but data are lacking at the local level (eg, county) to identify factors associated with variability in liver disease-related mortality and hotspots of liver disease mortality. METHODS: We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research data from 2009 to 2018 to calculate county-level, age-adjusted liver disease-related death rates. We fit multivariable linear regression models to adjust for county-level covariates related to demographics (ie, race and ethnicity), medical comorbidities (eg, obesity), access to care (eg, uninsured rate), and geographic (eg, distance to closest liver transplant center) variables. We used optimized hotspot analysis to identify clusters of liver disease mortality hotspots based on the final multivariable models. RESULTS: In multivariable models, 61% of the variability in among-county mortality was explained by county-level race/ethnicity, poverty, uninsured rates, distance to the closest transplant center, and local rates of obesity, diabetes, and alcohol use. Despite adjustment, significant within-state variability in county-level mortality rates was found. Of counties in the top fifth percentile (ie, highest mortality) of fully adjusted mortality, 60% were located in 3 states: Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Adjusted mortality rates were highly spatially correlated, representing 5 clusters: South Florida; Appalachia and the eastern part of the Midwest; Texas and Oklahoma; New Mexico, Arizona, California, and southern Oregon; and parts of Washington and Montana. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate significant intrastate differences in liver disease-related mortality, with more than 60% of the variability explained by patient demographics, clinical risk factors for liver disease, and access to specialty liver care.

Using Geographic Catchment Areas to Measure Population-based Access to Kidney Transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring efforts to improve access to transplantation requires a definition of the population attributable to a transplant center. Previously, assessment of variation in transplant care has focused on differences between administrative units-such as states-rather than units derived from observed care patterns. We defined catchment areas (transplant referral regions [TRRs]) from transplant center care patterns for population-based assessment of transplant access. METHODS: We used US adult transplant listings (2006-2016) and Dartmouth Atlas catchment areas to assess the optimal method of defining TRRs. We used US Renal Data System and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data to compare waitlist- and population-based kidney transplant rates. RESULTS: We identified 110 kidney, 67 liver, 85 pancreas, 68 heart, and 43 lung TRRs. Most patients were listed in their assigned TRR (kidney: 76%; liver: 75%; pancreas: 75%; heart: 74%; lung: 72%), although the proportion varied by organ (interquartile range for kidney, 65.7%-82.5%; liver, 58.2%-78.8%; pancreas, 58.4%-81.1%; heart, 63.1%-80.9%; lung, 61.6%-76.3%). Patterns of population- and waitlist-based kidney transplant rates differed, most notably in the Northeast and Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of TRR-based kidney transplant rates differ from waitlist-based rates, indicating that current metrics may not reflect transplant access in the broader population. TRRs define populations served by transplant centers and could enable future studies of how transplant centers can improve access for patients in their communities.