scholarly journals Application of Cox and Parametric Survival Models to Assess Social Determinants of Health Affecting Three-Year Survival of Breast Cancer Patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (sup3) ◽  
pp. 311-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Mohseny ◽  
Farzaneh Amanpour ◽  
Alireza Mosavi-Jarrahi ◽  
Hossein Jafari ◽  
Mohammad Moradi-Joo ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (E) ◽  
pp. 624-628
Author(s):  
Azriful Azriful ◽  
Fatmawaty Mallapiang ◽  
Yessy Kurniati

BACKGROUND: Social determinants have an important role in the survival of breast cancer patients. AIM: This article aims to reviews the social determinants that affect the survival of breast cancer patient. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for identifying studies related to this review using free-text terms and Medical Subject Headings terms. Both experimental and observational studies on social determinants of breast cancer patient survival which were published in the English language have been included in this review except expert opinions, commentaries, editorials, and review articles. Ten studies were eligible to be included in review. RESULTS: Social health determinants that play a role in the survival of breast cancer patients are education level, place of residence, socioeconomic status, social environment, racial discrimination, and access to health services. CONCLUSION: Social determinants have an influence on the survival of breast cancer patients, so it is important to pay attention to these factors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 233-233
Author(s):  
Sailaja Kamaraju ◽  
Dave Atkinson ◽  
Thomas Wetzel ◽  
Tamiah Wright ◽  
John A. Charlson ◽  
...  

233 Background: Prior reports from our institution demonstrated high rates of racial segregation, unfavorable social determinants of health (SDoH) in Milwaukee, WI, and statewide reports of inferior outcomes for cancer patients from minority communities. At the Medical College of Wisconsin's Cancer Center (Milwaukee, WI), during the first through last quarters of 2018-2019, cancer patients from the low socioeconomic status (SES) communities who were hospitalized to inpatient oncology units had an average length of stay (LOS) of 7.2 days compared to 5.6 days for high SES group. Under the auspices of the American Society of Clinical Oncology's Quality Training Program (QTP) initiative, we aimed to reduce the hospital LOS by 10% or less by May 2021 for inpatient oncology teams. Methods: A multidisciplinary team collaboration between the inpatient and outpatient providers was developed during this QI initiative. We examined LOS index data, payer types, and other diagnostic criteria for the oncology inpatient solid tumor service and two comparator services (bone marrow transplant, BMT; internal medicine). We generated workflow, a cause-and-effect diagram, and a Pareto diagram to determine the relevant factors associated with longer hospital LOS. Institution-wide implementation of the SDH screen project was launched to evaluate and address specific barriers to SDoH to expedite a safe discharge process during the pandemic. Results: Through one test of change (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles 1, 2 &3), we identified the problem of extended LOS and patient-related barriers to discharge during this QI initiative. Compared to the baseline LOS, after the launch of the SDoH screen project, there was a 6.5% decrease in the inpatient average LOS for oncology patients (7.89 to 7.40days, p = 0.004),10.7% for BMT (15.96 days to14.26, p = 0.166), and 2.4% for Internal Medicine (4.61 to 4.50 to days, p = 0.131). There was a 10.0% decrease in LOS (8.07 to 7.26 days, p = < 0.001) for the three specialties combined. With collaboration from inpatient and outpatient providers, appropriate referrals were generated to address patient-specific SDH before discharge (i.e., transportation coordination, nutritional and physical therapy referrals, social worker assistance with food, and housing insecurities). Conclusions: In this pilot project, implementing SDoH screening-based-care delivery at the time of inpatient admission demonstrated a slight improvement in LOS for solid tumor oncology patients and provided timely referrals, opportunities to engage and explore the discharge facilities early on during the COVID 19 pandemic. With this preliminary data, we plan to continue to expand our efforts through a systemwide implementation of this SDoH survey both in the inpatient and outpatient settings to address cancer inequities.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra M. Rivera-Irizarry ◽  
Denise Danos ◽  
Xinnan Wang ◽  
Qiufan Fu ◽  
Xiao-Cheng Wu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6527-6527
Author(s):  
Samilia Obeng-Gyasi ◽  
Anne M. O'Neill ◽  
Kathy Miller ◽  
Bryan P. Schneider ◽  
Ann H. Partridge ◽  
...  

6527 Background: Social determinants of health (SDH) and genetic ancestry have been independently implicated in breast cancer presentation, treatment and mortality. However, little is known about the relationship between SDH and genetic ancestry on clinical trial outcomes. The objective of this study is to assess the association between SDH, genetic ancestry and clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in an adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial. Methods: ECOG-ACRIN (EA) 5103 randomized patients to receive AC + taxane + bevacizumab or placebo. SDH were operationalized as insurance status at trial registration (individual SES) and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES). Insurance categories included: (1) Private, 2) Medicare including private/Medicare, military, 3) Medicaid including Medicaid/Medicare, uninsured, 4) self-pay). The nSES index was calculated using zip codes linked to county level data on occupation, income, poverty, wealth, education and crowding. Genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays were used to define African ancestry (AA), European ancestry (EA) and other (OA). Multivariable regression and Cox-Proportional Hazard models (odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were used to assess associations with chemotherapy completion and overall mortality. Estimates were adjusted for the following clinical covariates: age, tumor size, nodal status, hormone receptor status, and primary surgery at randomization. Results: The study cohort included 2453 EA (79.2%), 381 AA (12.2%) and 265 OA (8.6%). Medicaid patients (OR 0.76(0.59-0.99); ref private) and those with AA (OR 0.62(0.49-0.78); ref EA) were less likely to complete chemotherapy. Regarding overall mortality, Medicaid insurance (HR 1.42(1.05-1.92) was associated with a higher mortality than private insurance. Conversely, there was no significant difference in mortality by ancestry (AA HR 1.27 (0.97-1.66); OA HR 0.90 (0.63-1.29): ref EA). Neighborhood socioeconomic status did not appear to be associated with chemotherapy completion or mortality. Conclusions: SDH reflective of individual SES, such as insurance, appear to be stronger drivers of trial completion and mortality compared to nSES among patients enrolled in E5103. Moreover, study results suggest an interplay between ancestry and individual proxies for SDH in trial completion. Nevertheless, the relationship between ancestry and lower rates of chemotherapy completion do not appear to translate into higher mortality rates among patients of AA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document