Socioeconomic Barriers to CRS HIPEC for Appendiceal Cancer within a Regional Academic Hospital System

• Published in: Annals of surgical oncology 2022-10, Vol.29 (11), p.6593-6602
• Main Authors: Rieser, Caroline, Phelos, Heather, Zureikat, Amer, Pingpank, James, Ongchin, Melanie, Lee, Andrew, Brown, Joshua, Choudry, M. Haroon, Hoehn, Richard S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Appendix; Cancer; Gastrointestinal cancer; Health care; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metastases; Multivariate analysis; Oncology; Patients; Peritoneal Surface Malignancy; Socioeconomic factors; Surgery; Surgical Oncology; Survival; Tumors
• ISSN: 1068-9265; 1534-4681
• DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11949-8

Background Appendiceal cancer with peritoneal metastases (ACPM) is a complex disease requiring multidisciplinary care. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (CRS HIPEC) can significantly improve survival but requires evaluation by a surgical oncologist and significant treatment endurance. The impacts of socioeconomic status (SES) and other social determinants of health on rates of surgical evaluation and treatment have not been examined. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining all patients with ACPM from 2010 to 2018 in a regional healthcare system. Patient characteristics, oncologic details, treatment strategies, and survival were examined. The primary outcomes of interest were referral to Surgical Oncology, receipt of CRS HIPEC, and survival. Results Of 194 patients identified, 94% had synchronous ACPM. The majority of patients (95%) were referred to surgical oncology. Advanced age was the only predictor of nonreferral ( p < 0.001). A total of 147 patients (76%) ultimately underwent CRS HIPEC. After adjusting for medical and tumor characteristics, CRS HIPEC was less likely for patients who were unmarried [odds ratio (OR) 0.253, p = 0.004] or of low SES (OR 0.372, p = 0.03). On subanalysis of patients undergoing CRS HIPEC, median overall survival was worse for patients of low SES [51 months versus not reached (NR), p = 0.05], and this disparity persisted on multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.278, p = 0.001]. Conclusions This analysis is the first to evaluate barriers to CRS HIPEC for ACPM. While most patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, nonmedical factors may play a role in the treatment received and ultimate outcomes. Addressing these disparities is crucial for ensuring equitable outcomes and improving patient care.