5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Changes in Racial Disparities in Mortality After Cancer Surgery in the US, 2007-2016

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the disparities in mortality after cancer surgery between Black and White patients from 2007 to 2016?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 870 929 cancer operations over 10 years, overall mortality rates after cancer surgery decreased for both Black and White patients; however, no significant narrowing of the mortality gap between Black and White patients was observed. Mortality improvements were largely associated with within-hospital factors.

          Meaning

          Overall, mortality rates following cancer surgery appear to be improving for both Black and White patients, but the gap in cancer surgery mortality rates between Black and White patients remains and does not appear to be narrowing.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Racial disparities are well documented in cancer care. Overall, in the US, Black patients historically have higher rates of mortality after surgery than White patients. However, it is unknown whether racial disparities in mortality after cancer surgery have changed over time.

          Objective

          To examine whether and how disparities in mortality after cancer surgery have changed over 10 years for Black and White patients overall and for 9 specific cancers.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In this cross-sectional study, national Medicare data were used to examine the 10-year (January 1, 2007, to November 30, 2016) changes in postoperative mortality rates in Black and White patients. Data analysis was performed from August 6 to December 31, 2019. Participants included fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part A who had a major surgical resection for 9 common types of cancer surgery: colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer.

          Exposures

          Cancer surgery among Black and White patients.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Risk-adjusted 30-day, all-cause, postoperative mortality overall and for 9 specific types of cancer surgery.

          Results

          A total of 870 929 cancer operations were performed during the 10-year study period. In the baseline year, a total of 103 446 patients had cancer operations (96 210 White patients and 7236 Black patients). Black patients were slightly younger (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [6.4] vs 74.5 [6.8] years), and there were fewer Black vs White men (3986 [55.1%] vs 55 527 [57.7%]). Overall national mortality rates following cancer surgery were lower for both Black (−0.12%; 95% CI, −0.17% to −0.06% per year) and White (−0.14%; 95% CI, −0.16% to −0.13% per year) patients. These reductions were predominantly attributable to within-hospital mortality improvements (Black patients: 0.10% annually; 95% CI, −0.15% to −0.05%; P < .001; White patients: 0.13%; 95% CI, −0.14% to −0.11%; P < .001) vs between-hospital mortality improvements. Across the 9 different cancer surgery procedures, there was no significant difference in mortality changes between Black and White patients during the period under study (eg, prostate cancer: 0.35; 95% CI, 0.02-0.68; lung cancer: 0.61; 95% CI, −0.21 to 1.44).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These findings offer mixed news for policy makers regarding possible reductions in racial disparities following cancer surgery. Although postoperative cancer surgery mortality rates improved for both Black and White patients, there did not appear to be any narrowing of the mortality gap between Black and White patients overall or across individual cancer surgery procedures.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study examines changes in mortality rates over time in White and Black patients undergoing surgery for cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Critical Race Theory, race equity, and public health: toward antiracism praxis.

            Racial scholars argue that racism produces rates of morbidity, mortality, and overall well-being that vary depending on socially assigned race. Eliminating racism is therefore central to achieving health equity, but this requires new paradigms that are responsive to structural racism's contemporary influence on health, health inequities, and research. Critical Race Theory is an emerging transdisciplinary, race-equity methodology that originated in legal studies and is grounded in social justice. Critical Race Theory's tools for conducting research and practice are intended to elucidate contemporary racial phenomena, expand the vocabulary with which to discuss complex racial concepts, and challenge racial hierarchies. We introduce Critical Race Theory to the public health community, highlight key Critical Race Theory characteristics (race consciousness, emphases on contemporary societal dynamics and socially marginalized groups, and praxis between research and practice) and describe Critical Race Theory's contribution to a study on racism and HIV testing among African Americans.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement.

              Public reporting and pay for performance are intended to accelerate improvements in hospital care, yet little is known about the benefits of these methods of providing incentives for improving care. We measured changes in adherence to 10 individual and 4 composite measures of quality over a period of 2 years at 613 hospitals that voluntarily reported information about the quality of care through a national public-reporting initiative, including 207 facilities that simultaneously participated in a pay-for-performance demonstration project funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; we then compared the pay-for-performance hospitals with the 406 hospitals with public reporting only (control hospitals). We used multivariable modeling to estimate the improvement attributable to financial incentives after adjusting for baseline performance and other hospital characteristics. As compared with the control group, pay-for-performance hospitals showed greater improvement in all composite measures of quality, including measures of care for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia and a composite of 10 measures. Baseline performance was inversely associated with improvement; in pay-for-performance hospitals, the improvement in the composite of all 10 measures was 16.1% for hospitals in the lowest quintile of baseline performance and 1.9% for those in the highest quintile (P<0.001). After adjustments were made for differences in baseline performance and other hospital characteristics, pay for performance was associated with improvements ranging from 2.6 to 4.1% over the 2-year period. Hospitals engaged in both public reporting and pay for performance achieved modestly greater improvements in quality than did hospitals engaged only in public reporting. Additional research is required to determine whether different incentives would stimulate more improvement and whether the benefits of these programs outweigh their costs. 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                3 December 2020
                December 2020
                3 December 2020
                : 3
                : 12
                : e2027415
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 29, 2020.
                Published: December 3, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27415
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Lam MB et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Miranda B. Lam, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02446 ( miranda_lam@ 123456dfci.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Lam had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Lam, Raphael, Mehtsun, Jha, Figueroa.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lam, Raphael, Mehtsun, Phelan, Orav, Jha.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Lam, Raphael, Mehtsun.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Raphael, Mehtsun, Phelan, Orav, Jha, Figueroa.
                Statistical analysis: Lam, Mehtsun, Phelan, Orav.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Lam, Raphael, Jha, Figueroa.
                Supervision: Lam, Jha, Figueroa.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Figueroa reported receiving grants from Commonwealth Fund and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was partially funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities grant R21MD01170 (Phelan, Orav, Jha).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi200878
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27415
                7716190
                33270126
                1a4f9e18-ecbf-4e84-a6bd-76938b32ddc5
                Copyright 2020 Lam MB et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 20 May 2020
                : 29 September 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article