Social Vulnerability and Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Care among Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcome disparities have been reported in highly vulnerable communities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of social vulnerability with receipt of guideline-concordant care (GCC) and mortality risk for patients with colorectal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective observational study identified patients with stage I to III colon or stage II to III rectal cancer between 2018 and 2020 from the National Program of Cancer Registries Database. Data were merged with the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) at the county level. GCC was defined as stage-appropriate lymphadenectomy, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression investigated associations of SVI, as a continuous and categorical variable stratified into quartiles, with GCC and 3-year cancer-specific mortality risk, respectively. RESULTS: Among 124,950 patients (colon, 102,399; rectal, 22,551), median SVI was 60.9 (interquartile range 35.0 to 79.5). Patients in the highest SVI quartile had 21% decreased odds of receiving GCC (95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Treatment at Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited hospitals was associated with increased GCC (odds ratio 1.79; 95% CI 1.72 to 1.85). Although there was an inverse, decreasing association between SVI and probability of GCC, probability at non-CoC-accredited hospitals declined faster than at CoC-accredited hospitals (p < 0.05). After adjusting for receipt of GCC, highly vulnerable patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals had decreased mortality risk (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: For highly vulnerable patients, treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was associated with increased receipt of GCC and decreased mortality risk, which may reflect CoC accreditation requirements for treatment guideline adherence, community engagement, and addressing barriers to care.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.