Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar;104(3):e63-71.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301572. Epub 2014 Jan 16.

Geographic residency status and census tract socioeconomic status as determinants of colorectal cancer outcomes

Affiliations

Geographic residency status and census tract socioeconomic status as determinants of colorectal cancer outcomes

Robert Hines et al. Am J Public Health. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: We examined the impact of geographic residency status and census tract (CT)-level socioeconomic status (SES) on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CRC in Georgia for the years 2000 through 2007. Study outcomes were late-stage disease at diagnosis, receipt of treatment, and survival.

Results: For colon cancer, residents of lower-middle-SES and low-SES census tracts had decreased odds of receiving surgery. Rural, lower-middle-SES, and low-SES residents had decreased odds of receiving chemotherapy. For patients with rectal cancer, suburban residents had increased odds of receiving radiotherapy, but low SES resulted in decreased odds of surgery. For survival, rural residents experienced a partially adjusted 14% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07, 1.22) increased risk of death following diagnosis of CRC that was somewhat explained by treatment differences and completely explained by CT-level SES. Lower-middle- and low-SES participants had an adjusted increased risk of death following diagnosis for CRC (lower-middle: HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.10, 1.22; low: HR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.16, 1.32).

Conclusions: Future efforts should focus on developing interventions and policies that target rural residents and lower SES areas to eliminate disparities in CRC-related outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11–30. - PubMed
    1. US Census Bureau, Geography Division. 2010 Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html. Accessed November 5, 2012.
    1. Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(4):417–435. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Monroe AC, Ricketts TC, Savitz LA. Cancer in rural versus urban populations: a review. J Rural Health. 1992;8(3):212–220. - PubMed
    1. Singh GK, Williams SD, Siahpush M, Mulhollen A. Socioeconomic, rural–urban, and racial inequalities in US cancer mortality: part i–all cancers and lung cancer and part ii–colorectal, prostate, breast, and cervical cancers. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Epub ahead of print. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources