• Theodore Wang, Anthony Pham, Stella Yoo, Frank J Attenello, Richard Jennelle, Naveed Wagle, Eric L Chang, and Gabriel Zada.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2020 May 1; 137: e213-e220.

BackgroundPatients of lower socioeconomic status (SES) may experience barriers to their oncologic care, but current data conflict over whether SES affects the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma (GB).ObjectiveWe sought to determine whether SES disparities impaired delivery of neuro-oncologic care and affected the prognosis of GB patients.MethodsThe records of GB patients treated from 2010 to 2014 at a safety-net hospital (SNH) or private hospital (PH), both served by 1 academic medical institution, were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 55 SNH and 39 PH GB patients were analyzed with median 11-month follow-up. SNH patients were predominantly Hispanic, low income, enrolled in Medicaid, were less likely to receive radiation (89% vs. 100%), took longer to start radiation (41 vs. 29 days), and were less likely to complete radiation treatment (80% vs. 95%). Concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide use were also lower (85% vs. 94% and 60% vs. 71%, respectively). OS and PFS were not significantly different (15 vs. 16 months and 8 vs. 11 months, respectively). On multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy and RT completion predicted for better OS, whereas hospital type, income, and insurance did not.ConclusionAlthough GB patients at our SNH received less adjuvant treatment compared with PH, outcomes were similar. Access to multidisciplinary care staffed by academic physicians may play an important role in overcoming socioeconomic barriers to treatment availability and quality at SNHs.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

61 keywords...

hide…