Use of inpatient palliative care in metastatic urethral cancer.

In-hospital mortality Metastatic stage NIS Palliative care Urothelial carcinoma

Journal

Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 02 02 2024
accepted: 28 03 2024
medline: 17 4 2024
pubmed: 17 4 2024
entrez: 16 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In metastatic urethral cancer, temporal trends, and patterns of inpatient palliative care (IPC) use are unknown. Relying on the National Inpatient Sample (2006-2019), metastatic urethral cancer patients were stratified according to IPC use. Estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) analyses and multivariable logistic regression models (LRM) for the prediction of IPC use were fitted. Of 1,106 metastatic urethral cancer patients, 199 (18%) received IPC. IPC use increased from 5.8 to 28.0% over time in the overall cohort (EAPC +9.8%; P < 0.001), from <12.5 to 35.1% (EAPC +11.2%; P < 0.001), and from <12.5 to 24.7% (EAPC +9.4%; P = 0.01) in respectively females and males. Lowest IPC rates were recorded in the Midwest (13.5%) vs. highest in the South (22.5%). IPC patients were more frequently female (44 vs. 37%), and more frequently exhibited bone metastases (45 vs. 34%). In multivariable LRM, female sex (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.02; P = 0.02), and bone metastases (OR 1.46, 95%CI 1.02-2.10; P = 0.04) independently predicted higher IPC rates. Conversely, hospitalization in the Midwest (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.91; P = 0.02), and in the Northeast (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.28-0.82; P = 0.01) were both associated with lower IPC use than hospitalization in the West. IPC use in metastatic urethral cancer increased from a marginal rate of 5.8% to as high as 28%. Ideally, differences according to sex, metastatic site, and region should be addressed to improve IPC use rates.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In metastatic urethral cancer, temporal trends, and patterns of inpatient palliative care (IPC) use are unknown.
METHODS METHODS
Relying on the National Inpatient Sample (2006-2019), metastatic urethral cancer patients were stratified according to IPC use. Estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) analyses and multivariable logistic regression models (LRM) for the prediction of IPC use were fitted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 1,106 metastatic urethral cancer patients, 199 (18%) received IPC. IPC use increased from 5.8 to 28.0% over time in the overall cohort (EAPC +9.8%; P < 0.001), from <12.5 to 35.1% (EAPC +11.2%; P < 0.001), and from <12.5 to 24.7% (EAPC +9.4%; P = 0.01) in respectively females and males. Lowest IPC rates were recorded in the Midwest (13.5%) vs. highest in the South (22.5%). IPC patients were more frequently female (44 vs. 37%), and more frequently exhibited bone metastases (45 vs. 34%). In multivariable LRM, female sex (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.02; P = 0.02), and bone metastases (OR 1.46, 95%CI 1.02-2.10; P = 0.04) independently predicted higher IPC rates. Conversely, hospitalization in the Midwest (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.91; P = 0.02), and in the Northeast (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.28-0.82; P = 0.01) were both associated with lower IPC use than hospitalization in the West.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
IPC use in metastatic urethral cancer increased from a marginal rate of 5.8% to as high as 28%. Ideally, differences according to sex, metastatic site, and region should be addressed to improve IPC use rates.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38627106
pii: S1078-1439(24)00402-2
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.03.019
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Carolin Siech (C)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Urology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: siech@med.uni-frankfurt.de.

Andrea Baudo (A)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.

Mario de Angelis (M)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello (LMI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Di Bello (F)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Jordan A Goyal (JA)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Zhe Tian (Z)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Fred Saad (F)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan.

Nicola Longo (N)

Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Luca Carmignani (L)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.

Ottavio de Cobelli (O)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Séverine Banek (S)

Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Urology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Philipp Mandel (P)

Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Urology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Luis A Kluth (LA)

Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Urology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Felix K H Chun (FKH)

Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Urology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Pierre I Karakiewicz (PI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Classifications MeSH