Under Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Rural Locations
Avinash Maganty 1, Lindsay M Sabik 2, ZhaoJun Sun 2, Kirsten Y Eom 2, Jie Li 2, Benjamin J Davies 1, Bruce L Jacobs 1
Abstract
Purpose: Compared to urban populations, rural populations rank poorly on numerous health indicators, including cancer outcomes. We examined the relationship of rural residence with stage and treatment among patients with prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men.
Materials and methods: Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry we identified all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. Patients were classified as residing in a rural area, a large town or an urban area using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification. Our primary outcomes included indicators of prostate cancer treatment and treatment types but we also examined disease stage and mortality. We used the chi-square tests to assess differences between groups and estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between rural residence and treatment.
Results: We identified 51,024 men diagnosed with localized or metastatic prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. The overall incidence of prostate cancer decreased during the study period from 416 to 304/100,000 men while the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 336 to 538/100,000. Rural residents were less likely to undergo treatment than urban residents even when stratified by low, intermediate and high risk disease (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89; and aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, respectively). Rural status did not affect the receipt of radiation therapy compared to other treatment types.
Conclusions: Prostate cancer treatment differs between urban and rural residents. Rural residents are less likely to receive treatment even when stratified by disease risk.