Premium
Effect of rurality and socioeconomic deprivation on presentation stage and long‐term outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer
Author(s) -
Pasch James A.,
MacDermid Ewan,
Velovski Susan
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1111/ans.16734
Subject(s) - medicine , socioeconomic status , colorectal cancer , proportional hazards model , univariate analysis , demography , stage (stratigraphy) , surgery , cancer , multivariate analysis , population , environmental health , paleontology , sociology , biology
Background Geographical remoteness and socioeconomic status (SES) are important factors affecting presentation stage and survival for colorectal cancer. A series of patients from a single institution in northern New South Wales was studied to determine if rural isolation or SES affected presentation and survival in patients undergoing resection. Methods Consecutive colorectal cancer resections performed at Lismore Base Hospital from 2011 to 2019 were identified. Patient residential addresses were categorized by the Modified Monash Model (MMM), an Australian Government definition of rural isolation, and Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles, an Australian Bureau of Statistics index of socioeconomic deprivation. Univariate and Cox regression survival analysis was performed on data from histopathology and clinical notes matched with survival data. Results A total of 405 patients were included in MMM categories 3 ( n = 207, 51.1%), 4 ( n = 69, 17%) and 5 ( n = 129, 31.9) corresponding to large, medium and small rural towns. MMM 3 was associated with emergency cases (25.6% versus 18.7%, P < 0.001), nodal disease (44.4% versus 38.4%, P = 0.018) and T3/4 tumours (82.1% versus 73.7%, P < 0.001) compared with isolated patients without difference in 5‐year survival ( P = 0.370). Disadvantaged SEIFA quintiles 1/2 demonstrated increased poor differentiation (23.0% versus 15.4%, P < 0.001) and vascular invasion (15.8% versus 9.1%, P < 0.001) with reduced 5‐year survival (57.0% versus 70.4%, P = 0.039). Independent predictors of survival included age, emergency cases, group stage, lymphatic invasion and low lymph node yield. Conclusion A ‘rural reversal’ may be present for patients in northern New South Wales; however, SES and established clinicopathological factors are the strongest predictors of survival in our population.