Care received by rural and urban patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: Results from a population-based prospective cohort.
Authors: Xinglei Shen, Ying Cao, Aaron J Katz, Deborah Usinger, Sarah Walden, Ronald C. Chen
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

203 Background: Rural residence is a source of disparity in cancer access and outcomes. It is not known to what extent rurality affects access to care in patients with prostate cancer. Methods: The North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness &amp; Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS) is a population-based cohort of newly-diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Patients were enrolled from 2011-2013 through collaboration with the state cancer registry at diagnosis and followed prospectively. Urban/rural residence was defined by the rural urban continuum code (RUCC): 1-3 (urban) and 4-9 (rural). Medical records were collected and abstracted for prostate cancer care received. Individual-level sociodemographic information was collected by patient report. Results: Among 1,456 NC ProCESS participants with a median age of 65 years, 1089 were categorized as urban and 367 (25%) rural. This is a sociodemographically diverse cohort with 30.2% non-White (including 26.9% Black), 34.1% with high school education or less, and 37.3% with household income &lt; = $40,000. The distance to travel for diagnostic scans was greater for rural patients (miles): CT (7.5 urban vs 17.1 rural, p = 0.07), MRI (8.1 vs 12.0, p = 0.04) and bone scan (6.8 vs 14.1, p = 0.009). However, there was no difference in the percent of patients who underwent CT (15.9% urban vs 12.8% rural, p = 0.15), MRI (7.8% vs 8.2%, p = 0.81) and bone scan (15.9% vs 19.4%, p = 0.13); or the percentage of patients with high risk or metastatic disease who had any staging scan (64.2% vs 66.6% p = 0.8). While all patients consulted with a urologist, rural patients were less likely to have had consultation with a radiation oncologist (42.4% vs 35.8%, p = 0.04). Rural patients were also more likely to report that treatment was more difficult due to travel, including robotic prostatectomy (6.8% vs 13.9% p = 0.001) and radiation therapy (8.01% vs 16.07%, p = 0.001). In patients with low risk cancer, rural patients were more likely to have reported treatment at 12 months (68.2% vs 58.7% p = 0.04) instead of surveillance or observation. For high risk patients, both rural and urban patients reported high rates of treatment by 3 months (96.3% vs 91.3%, p = 0.40). After adjustment for age, income, race, education and insurance, rural residence was associated with increased likelihood of receiving treatment at 1 year (OR 1.54, CI 0.99 – 2.39) in low risk patients, but not associated with receiving treatment at 3 months (OR 3.63, CI 0.24 -54.5) among high risk patients. Conclusions: In a population-based cohort, rural patients with prostate cancer have greater barriers such as travel distance, but similar proportions of rural and urban patients received staging scans and timely treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. Rural patients were less likely to receive multidisciplinary consultation prior to treatment, and were less likely to have surveillance for low risk disease.