PURPOSE: As cancer control strategies have become more successful, issues around survival have become increasingly important to researchers and policy makers.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
The aim of this study was to examine the role of a range of clinical and socio-demographic variables in explaining variations in survival after a prostate cancer diagnosis, paying particular attention to the role of healthcare provider(s) i.e. private versus public status.
METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Cancer Registry Ireland, for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1998-2009 (N = 26,183). A series of multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were used to examine the role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status (area-based deprivation) on survival, controlling for age, stage, Gleason grade, marital status and region of residence. Survival was based on all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Older individuals who were treated in a private care setting were more likely to have survived than those who had not, when other factors were controlled for. Differences were evident with respect to marital status, region of residence, clinical stage and Gleason grade. The effect of socio-economic status was modified by healthcare provider, such that risk of death was higher in those men of lower socio-economic status treated by public, but not private providers in the Cox models. The logistic models revealed a socio-economic gradient in risk of death overall; the gradient was larger for those treated by public providers compared to those treated by private providers when controlling for a range of other confounding factors.
CONCLUSION: The role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status in survival of men with prostate cancer may give rise to concerns that warrant further investigation.
Burns RM, Sharp L, Sullivan FJ, Deady SE, Drummond FJ, O Neill C. Are you the author?
Health Economic Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Surgical Intervention Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Surgical Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; National Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland; Prostate Cancer Institute, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland; J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Reference: PLoS One. 2014 Sep 9;9(9):e106456.