skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


This content will become publicly available on May 15, 2026

Title: Assessments of social vulnerability on laryngeal cancer treatment & prognosis in the US
Abstract BackgroundPrevious social determinants of health (SDoH) studies on laryngeal cancer (LC) have assessed individual factors of socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity but seldom investigate a wider breadth of SDoH-factors for their effects in the real-world. This study aims to delineate how a wider array of SDoH-vulnerabilities interactively associates with LC-disparities. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study assessed 74,495 LC-patients between 1975 and 2017 from the Surveillance-Epidemiology-End Results (SEER) database using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from the CDC, total SDoH-vulnerability from 15 SDoH variables across specific vulnerabilities of socioeconomic status, minority-language status, household composition, and infrastructure/housing and transportation, which were measured across US counties. Univariate linear and logistic regressions were performed on length of care/follow-up and survival, staging, and treatment across SVI scores. ResultsSurvival time dropped significantly by 34.37% (from 72.83 to 47.80 months), and surveillance time decreased by 28.09% (from 80.99 to 58.24 months) with increasing overall social vulnerability, alongside advanced staging (OR 1.15; 95%CI 1.13–1.16), increased chemotherapy (OR 1.13; 95%CI 1.11–1.14), decreased surgical resection (OR 0.91; 95%CI 0.90–0.92), and decreased radiotherapy (OR 0.97; 95%CI 0.96–0.99). DiscussionIn this SDoH-study of LCs, detrimental care and prognostic trends were observed with increasing overall SDoH-vulnerability.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2152254
PAR ID:
10609524
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Nature
Date Published:
Journal Name:
British Journal of Cancer
ISSN:
0007-0920
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. OBJECTIVETo determine the benefit of starting continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adult-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) with regard to longer-term glucose control and serious clinical events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA retrospective observational cohort study within the Veterans Affairs Health Care System was used to compare glucose control and hypoglycemia- or hyperglycemia-related admission to an emergency room or hospital and all-cause hospitalization between propensity score overlap weighted initiators of CGM and nonusers over 12 months. RESULTSCGM users receiving insulin (n = 5,015 with T1D and n = 15,706 with T2D) and similar numbers of nonusers were identified from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. Declines in HbA1c were significantly greater in CGM users with T1D (−0.26%; 95% CI −0.33, −0.19%) and T2D (−0.35%; 95% CI −0.40, −0.31%) than in nonusers at 12 months. Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <8 and <9% after 12 months were greater in CGM users. In T1D, CGM initiation was associated with significantly reduced risk of hypoglycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63, 0.90). In patients with T2D, there was a reduction in risk of hyperglycemia in CGM users (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.99) and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83, 0.97). Several subgroups (based on baseline age, HbA1c, hypoglycemic risk, or follow-up CGM use) had even greater responses. CONCLUSIONSIn a large national cohort, initiation of CGM was associated with sustained improvement in HbA1c in patients with later-onset T1D and patients with T2D using insulin. This was accompanied by a clear pattern of reduced risk of admission to an emergency room or hospital for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and of all-cause hospitalization. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    Objective: To identify differences in short-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to various racial/ethnic groups.Design: Analysis of Cerner de-identified COVID-19 dataset.Setting: A total of 62 health care facilities.Participants: The cohort included 49,277 adult COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized from December 1, 2019 to November 13, 2020.Methods: We compared patients’ age, gender, individual components of Charl­son and Elixhauser comorbidities, medical complications, use of do-not-resuscitate, use of palliative care, and socioeconomic status between various racial and/or ethnic groups. We further compared the rates of in-hos­pital mortality and non-routine discharges between various racial and/or ethnic groups.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortali­ty. The secondary outcome was non-routine discharge (discharge to destinations other than home, such as short-term hospitals or other facilities including intermediate care and skilled nursing homes).Results: Compared with White patients, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among African American (OR 1.5; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), Hispanic (OR1.4; 95%CI:1.3-1.6, P<.001), and Asian or Pacific Islander (OR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.1-1.9, P=.002) patients after adjustment for age and gender, Elixhauser comorbidities, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, and socioeconomic status.Conclusions: Our study found that, among hospitalized patients with COVID-2019, African American, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander patients had increased mortality compared with White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and do-not-resuscitate/pallia­tive care status. Our findings add additional perspective to other recent studies. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(3):389-398; doi:10.18865/ed.31.3.389 
    more » « less
  3. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a medically supervised program designed to improve heart health after a cardiac event. Despite its demonstrated clinical benefits, CR participation among eligible patients remains poor due to low referral rates and individual barriers to care. To evaluate CR participation by patients who receive care from hospital-integrated physicians compared with independent physicians, and subsequently, to examine CR and recurrent cardiac hospitalizations. This retrospective cohort study evaluated Medicare Part A and Part B claims data from calendar years 2016 to 2019. All analyses were conducted between January 1 and April 30, 2024. Patients were included if they had a qualifying event for CR between 2017 and 2018, and qualifying events were identified using diagnosis codes on inpatient claims and procedure codes on outpatient and carrier claims. Eligible patients also had to continuously enroll in fee-for-service Medicare for 12 months or more before and after the index event. Physicians’ integration status and patients’ CR participation were determined during the 12-month follow-up period. The study covariates were ascertained during the 12 months before the index event. ExposureHospital-integration status of the treating physician during follow-up. Main Outcomes and MeasuresPostindex CR participation was determined by qualifying procedure codes on outpatient and carrier claims. ResultsThe study consisted of 28 596 Medicare patients eligible for CR. Their mean (SD) age was 74.0 (9.6) years; 16 839 (58.9%) were male. A total of 9037 patients (31.6%) were treated by a hospital-integrated physician, of which 2995 (33.1%) received CR during follow-up. Logistic regression via propensity score weighting showed that having a hospital-integrated physician was associated with an 11% increase in the odds of receiving CR (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18). Additionally, CR participation was associated with a 14% decrease in the odds of recurrent cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91). The findings of this cohort study suggest that hospital integration has the potential to facilitate greater CR participation and improve heart care. Several factors may help explain this positive association, including enhanced care coordination and value-based payment policies. Further research is needed to assess the association of integration with other appropriate high-quality care activities. 
    more » « less
  4. ImportancePersistence of COVID-19 symptoms beyond 2 months, or long COVID, is increasingly recognized as a common sequela of acute infection. ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of and sociodemographic factors associated with long COVID and to identify whether the predominant variant at the time of infection and prior vaccination status are associated with differential risk. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study comprised 8 waves of a nonprobability internet survey conducted between February 5, 2021, and July 6, 2022, among individuals aged 18 years or older, inclusive of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Main Outcomes and MeasuresLong COVID, defined as reporting continued COVID-19 symptoms beyond 2 months after the initial month of symptoms, among individuals with self-reported positive results of a polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test. ResultsThe 16 091 survey respondents reporting test-confirmed COVID-19 illness at least 2 months prior had a mean age of 40.5 (15.2) years; 10 075 (62.6%) were women, and 6016 (37.4%) were men; 817 (5.1%) were Asian, 1826 (11.3%) were Black, 1546 (9.6%) were Hispanic, and 11 425 (71.0%) were White. From this cohort, 2359 individuals (14.7%) reported continued COVID-19 symptoms more than 2 months after acute illness. Reweighted to reflect national sociodemographic distributions, these individuals represented 13.9% of those who had tested positive for COVID-19, or 1.7% of US adults. In logistic regression models, older age per decade above 40 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.19) and female gender (adjusted OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.73-2.13) were associated with greater risk of persistence of long COVID; individuals with a graduate education vs high school or less (adjusted OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) and urban vs rural residence (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86) were less likely to report persistence of long COVID. Compared with ancestral COVID-19, infection during periods when the Epsilon variant (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) or the Omicron variant (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92) predominated in the US was associated with diminished likelihood of long COVID. Completion of the primary vaccine series prior to acute illness was associated with diminished risk for long COVID (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86). Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that long COVID is prevalent and associated with female gender and older age, while risk may be diminished by completion of primary vaccination series prior to infection. 
    more » « less
  5. ImportanceScreening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer in randomized clinical trials in which the rate of adherence to follow-up recommendations was over 90%; however, adherence to Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting &amp; Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations has been low in practice. Identifying patients who are at risk of being nonadherent to screening recommendations may enable personalized outreach to improve overall screening adherence. ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with patient nonadherence to Lung-RADS recommendations across multiple screening time points. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was conducted at a single US academic medical center across 10 geographically distributed sites where lung cancer screening is offered. The study enrolled individuals who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer between July 31, 2013, and November 30, 2021. ExposuresLow-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was nonadherence to follow-up recommendations for lung cancer screening, defined as failing to complete a recommended or more invasive follow-up examination (ie, diagnostic dose CT, positron emission tomography–CT, or tissue sampling vs low-dose CT) within 15 months (Lung-RADS score, 1 or 2), 9 months (Lung-RADS score, 3), 5 months (Lung-RADS score, 4A), or 3 months (Lung-RADS score, 4B/X). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with patient nonadherence to baseline Lung-RADS recommendations. A generalized estimating equations model was used to assess whether the pattern of longitudinal Lung-RADS scores was associated with patient nonadherence over time. ResultsAmong 1979 included patients, 1111 (56.1%) were aged 65 years or older at baseline screening (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [6.6] years), and 1176 (59.4%) were male. The odds of being nonadherent were lower among patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 vs 3 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50), 4A (AOR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.33), or 4B/X, (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05-0.19); with a postgraduate vs college degree (AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92); with a family history of lung cancer vs no family history (AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93); with a high age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥4) vs a low score (0 or 1) (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98); in the high vs low income category (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98); and referred by physicians from pulmonary or thoracic-related departments vs another department (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73). Among 830 eligible patients who had completed at least 2 screening examinations, the adjusted odds of being nonadherent to Lung-RADS recommendations at the following screening were increased in patients with consecutive Lung-RADS scores of 1 to 2 (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this retrospective cohort study, patients with consecutive negative lung cancer screening results were more likely to be nonadherent with follow-up recommendations. These individuals are potential candidates for tailored outreach to improve adherence to recommended annual lung cancer screening. 
    more » « less