RESUMO
Compared to the urban population, patients in rural areas face healthcare disparities and experience inferior healthcare-related outcomes. To compare the healthcare quality metrics and outcomes between patients with advanced genitourinary cancers from rural versus urban areas treated at a tertiary cancer hospital, in this retrospective study, eligible patients with advanced genitourinary cancers were treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Utah. Rural-urban commuting area codes were used to classify the patients' residences as being in urban (1-3) or rural (4-10) areas. The straight line distances of the patients' residences from the cancer center were also calculated and included in the analysis. The median household income data were obtained and calculated from "The Michigan Population Studies Center", based on individual zip codes. In this study, 2312 patients were screened, and 1025 eligible patients were included for further analysis (metastatic prostate cancer (n = 679), metastatic bladder cancer (n = 184), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 162). Most patients (83.9%) came from urban areas, while the remainder were from rural areas. Both groups had comparable demographic profiles and tumor characteristics at baseline. The annual median household income of urban patients was $8604 higher than that of rural patients (p < 0.001). There were fewer urban patients with Medicare (44.9% vs. 50.9%) and more urban patients with private insurance (40.4% vs. 35.1%). There was no difference between the urban and rural patients regarding receiving systemic therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or tumor genomic profiling. The overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two populations in metastatic prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively. As available in a tertiary cancer hospital, access to care can mitigate the difference in the quality of healthcare and clinical outcomes in urban versus rural patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤ .01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P = .01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff. CONCLUSION: Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC.