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

      The pervasive crisis of diminishing radiation therapy access for vulnerable populations in the United States—Part 4: Appalachian patients

      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.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Compared with the rest of the United States, the population of Appalachia has lower education levels, higher rates of poverty, and limited access to health care. The presence of disparities in radiation therapy (RT) access for Appalachian patients with cancer has rarely been examined.

          Methods and materials

          The National Cancer Institute initiatives toward addressing disparities in treatment access for rural populations were examined. An extensive literature search was undertaken for studies investigating RT access disparities in Appalachian patients, beginning with the most common cancers in these patients (lung, colorectal, and cervical).

          Results

          Although the literature investigating RT access disparities in Appalachia is relatively sparse, studies examining lung, colorectal, cervical, prostate, head and neck, breast, and esophageal cancer, as well as lymphoma, indicate an unfortunate commonality in barriers to optimal RT access for Appalachian patients with cancer. These barriers are predominantly socioeconomic in nature (low income and lack of private insurance) but are exacerbated by paucities in both the number and quality of radiation centers that are accessible to this patient population.

          Conclusions

          Regardless of organ system, there are significant barriers for Appalachian patients with cancer to receive RT. Such diminished access is alarming and warrants resources devoted to addressing these disparities, which often go overlooked because of the assumption that the overall wealth of the United States is tangibly applicable to all of its citizens. Without intelligently targeted investments of time and finances in this arena, there is great risk of exacerbating rather than alleviating the already heavy burden facing Appalachian patients with cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

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

          Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. Methods We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. Findings 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Interpretation Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Funding Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Are rural residents less likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services?

            This study examined rural-urban differences in utilization of preventive healthcare services and assessed the impact of rural residence, demographic factors, health insurance status, and health system characteristics on the likelihood of obtaining each service. National data from the 1997 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the 1999 Area Resource File were used to evaluate the adequacy of preventive services obtained by rural and urban women and men, using three sets of nationally accepted preventive services guidelines from the American Cancer Society, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and Healthy People 2010. Logistic regression models were developed to control for the effect of demographic factors, health insurance status, and health system characteristics. Rural residents are less likely than urban residents to obtain certain preventive health services and are further behind urban residents in meeting Healthy People 2010 objectives. Efforts to increase rural preventive services utilization need to build on federal, state, and community-based initiatives and to recognize the special challenges that rural areas present.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients.

              Despite its potential influence on quality of care, there has been little research on the way physicians perceptions of and beliefs about patients are affected by patient race or socio-economic status. The lack of research in this area creates a critical gap in our understanding of how patients' demographic characteristics influence encounter characteristics, diagnoses, treatment recommendations, and outcomes. This study uses survey data to examine the degree to which patient race and socio-economic status affected physicians' perceptions of patients during a post-angiogram encounter. A total of 842 patient encounters were sampled, out of which 193 physicians provided data on 618 (73%) of the encounters sampled. The results of analyses of the effect of patient race and SES on physician perceptions of and attitude towards patients, controlling for patient age, sex, race, frailty/sickness, depression, mastery, social assertiveness and physician characteristics, are presented. These results supported the hypothesis that physicians' perceptions of patients were influenced by patients' socio-demographic characteristics. Physicians tended to perceive African-Americans and members of low and middle SES groups more negatively on a number of dimensions than they did Whites and upper SES patients. Patient race was associated with physicians' assessment of patient intelligence, feelings of affiliation toward the patient, and beliefs about patient's likelihood of risk behavior and adherence with medical advice; patient SES was associated with physicians' perceptions of patients' personality, abilities, behavioral tendencies and role demands. Implications are discussed in terms of further studies and potential interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Advances in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2452-1094
                10 August 2018
                Oct-Dec 2018
                10 August 2018
                : 3
                : 4
                : 471-477
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
                [b ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
                [c ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
                [d ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
                [e ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., L337, Portland, OR 97239-3098. drwood@ 123456post.harvard.edu
                Article
                S2452-1094(18)30131-3
                10.1016/j.adro.2018.08.001
                6200890
                30370344
                ee06bbcc-1ccb-4099-b140-c95b3f74fad0
                © 2018 The Authors on behalf of the American Society for Radiation Oncology

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 14 June 2018
                : 31 July 2018
                : 2 August 2018
                Categories
                Disparities in Radiation Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article