Search

Purpose: Gastric cancer is a leading cause of death, particularly in the developing world. The literature reports individual socioeconomic status (SES) or neighborhood SES as related to survival, but the effect of both has not been studied. This study investigated the effect of individual and neighborhood SES simultaneously on mortality in gastric cancer patients in Taiwan. Materials and Methods: A study was conducted of 3,396 patients diagnosed with gastric cancer between 2002 and 2006. Each patient was followed for five years or until death. Individual SES was defined by income-related insurance premium (low, moderate, and high). Neighborhood SES was based on household income dichotomized into advantaged and disadvantaged areas. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to compare survival rates by SES group after adjusting for possible confounding factors. Results: In patients younger than 65 years, 5-year overall survival rates were lowest for those with low individual SES. After adjusting for patient characteristics (age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index Score), gastric cancer patients with high individual SES had 68% risk reduction of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of mortality, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–0.61). Patients aged 65 and above had no statistically significant difference in mortality rates by individual SES group. Different neighborhood SES did not statistically differ in the survival rates. Conclusion: Gastric cancer patients aged less than 65 years old with low individual SES have higher risk of mortality, even under an universal healthcare system. Public health strategies, education and welfare policies should seek to correct the inequality in gastric cancer survival, especially in those with lower individual SES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The influence of different hospital and surgeon volumes on short-term survival after hepatic resection is not clearly clarified. By taking the known prognostic factors into account, the purpose of this study is to assess the combined effects of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term survival after hepatic resection. Methods: 13,159 patients who underwent hepatic resection between 2002 and 2006 were identified in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Data were extracted from it and short-term survivals were confirmed through 2006. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between survival and different hospital, surgeon volume and caseload combinations. Results: High-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals had the highest short-term survivals, following by high-volume surgeons in low-volume hospitals, low-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals and low-volume surgeons in low-volume hospitals. Based on Cox proportional hazard models, although high-volume hospitals and surgeons both showed significant lower risks of short-term mortality at hospital and surgeon level analysis, after combining hospital and surgeon volume into account, high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals had significantly better outcomes; the hazard ratio of other three caseload combinations ranging from 1.66 to 2.08 (p<0.001) in 3-month mortality, and 1.28 to 1.58 (p<0.01) in 1-year mortality. Conclusions: The combined effects of hospital and surgeon volume influenced the short-term survival after hepatic resection largely. After adjusting for the prognostic factors in the case mix, high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals had better short-term survivals. Centralization of hepatic resection to few surgeons and hospitals might improve patients’ prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many studies have reported excess cancer mortality in patients with mental illness. However, scant studies evaluated the differences in cancer treatment and its impact on survival rates among mentally ill patients. Oral cancer is one of the ten most common cancers in the world. We investigated differences in treatment type and survival rates between oral cancer patients with mental illness and without mental illness. Methods: Using the National Health Insurance (NHI) database, we compared the type of treatment and survival rates in 16687 oral cancer patients from 2002 to 2006. The utilization rate of surgery for oral cancer was compared between patients with mental illness and without mental illness using logistic regression. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analysis. Results: Oral cancer patients with mental disorder conferred a grave prognosis, compared with patients without mental illness (hazard ratios [HR] = 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30–1.93; P<0.001). After adjusting for patients’ characteristics and hospital characteristics, patients with mental illness were less likely to receive surgery with or without adjuvant therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.34–0.65; P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, oral cancer patients with mental illness carried a 1.58-times risk of death (95% CI = 1.30–1.93; P<0.001). Conclusions: Oral cancer patients with mental illness were less likely to undergo surgery with or without adjuvant therapy than those without mental illness. Patients with mental illness have a poor prognosis compared to those without mental illness. To reduce disparities in physical health, public health strategies and welfare policies must continue to focus on this vulnerable group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]