Disparities in Prostate Cancer Survival According to Neighborhood Archetypes, A Population-Based Study - 28/05/22
ABSTRACT |
Objectives |
To examine survival among men with prostate cancer according to neighborhood archetypes. As an advancement beyond measures of neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) or specific measures of the neighborhood environment, archetypes consider interactions among many social and built environment attributes.
Methods |
Neighborhood archetypes for California census tracts in the year 2000 were previously developed through latent class analysis of 39 measures of social and built environment attributes. We assessed associations between archetypes and overall and prostate cancer-specific survival in this population-based study using geocoded cancer registry data for prostate cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2005 in California, followed through 2017 (n = 185,613). We used Cox proportional hazard models stratified by race/ethnicity and adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, treatment, marital status and cluster effect by census tract. Additional analyses examined associations between race/ethnicity and survival, while accounting for neighborhood archetypes.
Results |
We observed disparities in overall and prostate cancer-specific risk of death by neighborhood archetypes. Classes with the highest risk of death were defined by lower nSES, but also other domains such as rural/urban status, racial/ethnic composition or age of residents, commuting and traffic patterns, residential mobility, and food environment. Associations between archetypes and survival varied by race/ethnicity.
Conclusion |
We observe interactions among several domains of neighborhood social and built environment attributes as demonstrated by the associations between neighborhood archetypes and prostate cancer survival. These results highlight opportunities for multilevel neighborhood interventions to reduce neighborhood disparities in prostate cancer survival.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interests to declare. |
|
Funding Support: Work was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (1R21CA174469 to S.S.M.). The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries, under cooperative agreement 5NU58DP006344; the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201800032I awarded to the University of California, San Francisco, contract HHSN261201800015I awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201800009I awarded to the Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors. |
Vol 163
P. 138-147 - mai 2022 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?