Search

Introduction: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) Americans have a higher incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and worse survival than non-Hispanic white (NHW) Americans, but the relative contributions of biological versus access to care remain poorly characterized. This study used two nationwide cohorts in different healthcare contexts to study health system effects on this disparity., Methods: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry as well as the United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) to identify adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2020 who identified as non-Hispanic Black (NHB) or non-Hispanic white (NHW). Stratified survival analyses were performed using a primary endpoint of overall survival, and sensitivity analyses were performed using cancer-specific survival., Results: We identified 263,893 CRC patients in the SEER registry (36,662 (14%) NHB; 226,271 (86%) NHW) and 24,375 VA patients (4,860 (20%) NHB; 19,515 (80%) NHW). In the SEER registry, NHB patients had worse OS than NHW patients: median OS of 57 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 55-58) versus 72 months (95% CI 71-73) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.15, p  = 0.001). In contrast, VA NHB median OS was 65 months (95% CI 62-69) versus NHW 69 months (95% CI 97-71) (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, p  = 0.375). There was significant interaction in the SEER registry between race and Medicare age eligibility ( p  < 0.001); NHB race had more effect in patients <65 years old (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.39-1.49, p < 0.001) than in those ≥65 (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.15, p < 0.001). In the VA, age stratification was not significant ( p  = 0.21)., Discussion: Racial disparities in CRC survival in the general US population are significantly attenuated in Medicare-aged patients. This pattern is not present in the VA, suggesting that access to care may be an important component of racial disparities in this disease., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Riviere, Morgan, Deshler, Demb, Mehtsun, Martinez, Gupta, Banegas, Murphy and Rose.)

Purpose: Spending for patients with advanced cancer is substantial. Past efforts to characterize this spending usually have not included patients with recurrence (who may differ from those with de novo stage IV disease) or described which services drive spending., Methods: Using SEER-Medicare data from 2008 to 2013, we identified patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer with either de novo stage IV or recurrent advanced cancer. Mean spending/patient/month (2012 US dollars) was estimated from 12 months before to 11 months after diagnosis for all services and by the type of service. We describe the absolute difference in mean monthly spending for de novo versus recurrent patients, and we estimate differences after controlling for type of advanced cancer, year of diagnosis, age, sex, comorbidity, and other factors., Results: We identified 54,982 patients with advanced cancer. Before diagnosis, mean monthly spending was higher for recurrent patients (absolute difference: breast, $1,412; colorectal, $3,002; lung, $2,805; all P < .001), whereas after the diagnosis, it was higher for de novo patients (absolute difference: breast, $2,443; colorectal, $4,844; lung, $2,356; all P < .001). Spending differences were driven by inpatient, physician, and hospice services. Across the 2-year period around the advanced cancer diagnosis, adjusted mean monthly spending was higher for de novo versus recurrent patients (spending ratio: breast, 2.39 [95% CI, 2.05 to 2.77]; colorectal, 2.64 [95% CI, 2.31 to 3.01]; lung, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.65])., Conclusion: Spending for de novo cancer was greater than spending for recurrent advanced cancer. Understanding the patterns and drivers of spending is necessary to design alternative payment models and to improve value.