{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Assessment of socioeconomic and racial differences in patients undergoing concurrent gynecologic oncology and urogynecology surgeries: a National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database study.
{Author}: Marcu I;McLaughlin EM;Nekkanti S;Khadraoui W;Chalif J;Fulton J;O'Malley D;Chambers LM;
{Journal}: Int J Gynecol Cancer
{Volume}: 34
{Issue}: 5
{Year}: 2024 May 6
{Factor}: 4.661
{DOI}: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005130
{Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: To assess social determinants of health impacting patients undergoing gynecologic oncology versus combined gynecologic oncology and urogynecology surgeries.
METHODS: We identified patients who underwent gynecologic oncology surgeries from 2016 to 2019 in the National Inpatient Sample using the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Demographics, including race and insurance status, were compared for patients who underwent gynecologic oncology procedures only (Oncologic) and those who underwent concurrent incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse procedures (Urogynecologic-Oncologic). A logistic regression model assessed variables of interest after adjustment for other relevant variables.
RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019 the National Inpatient Sample database contained 389 (1.14%) Urogynecologic-Oncologic cases and 33 796 (98.9%) Oncologic cases. Urogynecologic-Oncologic patients were less likely to be white (62.1% vs 68.8%, p=0.02) and were older (median 67 vs 62 years, p<0.001) than Oncologic patients. The Urogynecologic-Oncologic cohort was less likely to have private insurance as their primary insurance (31.9% vs 38.9%, p=0.01) and was more likely to have Medicare (52.2% vs 42.8%, p=0.01). After multivariable analysis, black (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.89, p=0.02) and Hispanic patients (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.10, p=0.02) remained more likely to undergo Urogynecologic-Oncologic surgeries but the primary expected payer no longer differed significantly between the two groups (p=0.95). Age at admission, patient residence, and teaching location remained significantly different between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large inpatient database we identified notable racial and geographical differences between the cohorts of patients who underwent Urogynecologic-Oncologic and Oncologic procedures.