O’Neil, Brock B.

Abstract Introduction Patients living in rural areas have worse cancer‐specific outcomes. This study examines the effect of family‐based social capital on genitourinary cancer survival. We hypothesized that rural patients with urban relatives have improved survival relative to rural patients without urban family. Methods We examined rural and urban based Utah individuals diagnosed with genitourinary cancers between 1968 and 2018. Familial networks were determined using the Utah Population Database. Patients and relatives were classified as rural or urban based on 2010 rural–urban commuting area codes. Overall survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results We identified 24,746 patients with genitourinary cancer with a median follow‐up of 8.72 years. Rural cancer patients without an urban relative had the worst outcomes with cancer‐specific survival hazard ratios (HRs) at 5 and 10 years of 1.33 (95% CI 1.10–1.62) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.24–1.73), respectively relative to urban patients. Rural patients with urban first‐degree relatives had improved survival with 5‐ and 10‐year survival HRs of 1.21 (95% CI 1.06–1.40) and 1.16 (95% CI 1.03–1.31), respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest rural patients who have been diagnosed with a genitourinary cancer have improved survival when having relatives in urban centers relative to rural patients without urban relatives. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms through which having an urban family member contributes to improved cancer outcomes for rural patients. Better characterization of this affect may help inform policies to reduce urban–rural cancer disparities.

Abstract Background Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. Methods Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. Results Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from “finances in general” was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). Conclusions In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.