Background: Approximately 15% of the US population does not have health insurance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of insurance status on tumor characteristics and treatment selection in patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We identified 20,393 patients younger than 65 years with prostate cancer in the 2010–2011 SEER database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis tested the relationship between insurance status and 2 end points: (1) presenting with low-risk prostate cancer at diagnosis and (2) receiving local treatment of the prostate. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing methods were used to graphically explore the interaction among insurance status, use of local treatment, and baseline risk of cancer recurrence. The latter was defined using the Stephenson nomogram and CAPRA score. Results: Overall, 18,993 patients (93%) were insured, 849 (4.2%) had Medicaid coverage, and 551 (2.7%) were uninsured. At multivariable analysis, Medicaid coverage (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.80; P<.0001) and uninsured status (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46, 0.71; P<.0001) were independent predictors of a lower probability of presenting with low-risk disease. Likewise, Medicaid coverage (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60, 0.86; P=.0003) and uninsured status (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37, 0.55; P<.0001) were independent predictors of a lower probability of receiving local treatment. In uninsured patients, treatment disparities became more pronounced as the baseline cancer recurrence risk increased (10% in low-risk patients vs 20% in high-risk patients). Conclusions: Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured patients are diagnosed with higher-risk disease and are undertreated. The latter is more accentuated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This may seriously compromise the survival of these individuals.
Nicola Fossati, Daniel P. Nguyen, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Jesse Sammon, Akshay Sood, Alessandro Larcher, Giorgio Guazzoni, Francesco Montorsi, Alberto Briganti, Mani Menon and Firas Abdollah
Brady L. Stein, Jason Gotlib, Murat Arcasoy, Marie Huong Nguyen, Neil Shah, Alison Moliterno, Catriona Jamieson, Daniel A. Pollyea, Bart Scott, Martha Wadleigh, Ross Levine, Rami Komrokji, Rebecca Klisovic, Krishna Gundabolu, Patricia Kropf, Meir Wetzler, Stephen T. Oh, Raul Ribeiro, Rita Paschal, Sanjay Mohan, Nikolai Podoltsev, Josef Prchal, Moshe Talpaz, David Snyder, Srdan Verstovsek and Ruben A. Mesa
The classical Philadelphia chromosome–negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), which include essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and myelofibrosis (MF), are in a new era of molecular diagnosis, ushered in by the identification of the JAK2 V617F and cMPL mutations in 2005 and 2006, respectively, and the CALR mutations in 2013. Coupled with increased knowledge of disease pathogenesis and refined diagnostic criteria and prognostic scoring systems, a more nuanced appreciation has emerged of the burden of MPN in the United States, including the prevalence, symptom burden, and impact on quality of life. Biological advances in MPN have translated into the rapid development of novel therapeutics, culminating in the approval of the first treatment for MF, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. However, certain practical aspects of care, such as those regarding diagnosis, prevention of vascular events, choice of cytoreductive agent, and planning for therapies, present challenges for hematologists/oncologists, and are discussed in this article.