Citations

Objective: To evaluate the associations between surgeon-patient sex concordance, long-term clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. Background Data: Emerging data suggest surgeon-patient sex concordance may improve short-term outcomes, especially for female patients, yet its long-term effects remain unknown. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing common surgeries in Ontario, Canada (2007-2019). Patients were followed for 90 and 365 days. Surgeon-patient sex concordance was categorized into four dyads. Multivariate generalized estimating equations clustered by procedure type evaluated composite and individual (complications, readmission, mortality) clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 1,165,711 patients were included. Female patients treated by male surgeons, compared with female surgeons, were more likely to experience an adverse composite event (90 d: aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08–1.17, P <0.001; 365 d: aOR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05–1.14, P <0.001), with no association among male patients (90 d: aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.05, P =0.89; 365 d: 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.07, P =0.87). Long-term total healthcare costs were greater for patients treated by male surgeons - an effect seen in both male patients (90 d: aRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.14, P =0.002 and 365 d: aRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14, P =0.007) and female patients (90 d: aRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P <0.001, 365 d: aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P <0.001). Conclusions: Surgeon-patient sex concordance was associated with improved long-term outcomes for female, but not male, patients, and female surgeons’ patients had lower healthcare costs. Given these benefits, further investigation into the mechanisms driving these outcomes is warranted.

Objectives: To determine associations between physician sex and use of postoperative healthcare resources among patients undergoing common surgeries in Ontario, Canada. Background: Prior studies have shown that patients of female physicians experience better outcomes and have lower healthcare costs compared with patients of male physicians. Understanding differences in resource utilization may offer insights into the care pathways and practice patterns contributing to these differences. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing 1 of 25 common surgeries, between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019, in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the utilization of one of the following: intensive care unit admission, other medical interventions (eg, tracheostomy, new dialysis starts, and home oxygen), and discharge care needs (eg inpatient rehab, long-term care, and home care use) within 30 days. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics and adjusted using multivariable generalized estimating equations. Results: This population-based study included 1,100,193 patients (61.8% female). Patients treated by male surgeons had higher use of postoperative resources versus those with female surgeons within 30 days (adjusted rate 33.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.0–39.2 versus 31.2; 95% CI: 25.8–37.7), 90 days, and 1 year. Consistent with these findings, following adjustment for patient, surgeon, procedural, and hospital characteristics, patients treated by male surgeons were significantly more likely to utilize postoperative resources within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03–1.27; P = 0.010) and at other time points. This difference was primarily driven by the higher use of home care among patients with a male versus female surgeon at all time points (30 days: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05–1.21; P = 0.002). Conclusions: Patients with male surgeons had higher postoperative resource utilization when compared with those treated by female surgeons, which was almost entirely driven by the higher use of home care. Further mixed-methods investigation is needed to better understand other potentially relevant factors including surgical outcomes, individual patient preferences, and surgical team decision-making.

Objective: The objective of this study was to measure potential associations between surgeon sex and number of days alive and at home (DAH). Background: Patients treated by female surgeons appear to have lower rates of mortality, complications, readmissions, and healthcare costs when compared with male surgeons. DAH is a validated measure, shown to better capture the patient experience of postoperative recovery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing common surgeries between January 01, 2007 and December 31, 2019 in Ontario, Canada. The outcome measures were the number of DAH within 30-, 90-, and 365-days. The data was summarized using descriptive statistics and adjusted using multivariable generalized estimating equations. Results: During the study period, 1,165,711 individuals were included, of which 61.9% (N = 721,575) were female. Those managed by a female surgeon experienced a higher mean number of DAH when compared with male surgeons at 365 days (351.7 vs. 342.1 days; P < 0.001) and at each earlier time point. This remained consistent following adjustment for covariates, with patients of female surgeons experiencing a higher number of DAH at all time points, including at 365 days (343.2 [339.5–347.1] vs. 339.4 [335.9–343.0] days). Multivariable regression modeling revealed that patients of male surgeons had a significantly lower number of DAH versus female surgeons. Conclusions: Patients of female surgeons experienced a higher number of DAH when compared with those treated by male surgeons at all time points. More time spent at home after surgery may in turn lower costs of care, resource utilization, and potentially improve quality of life. Further studies are needed to examine these findings across other care contexts.

ImportancePrior research has shown differences in postoperative outcomes for patients treated by female and male surgeons. It is important to understand, from a health system and payer perspective, whether surgical health care costs differ according to the surgeon’s sex.ObjectiveTo examine the association between surgeon sex and health care costs among patients undergoing surgery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing 1 of 25 common elective or emergent surgical procedures between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019, in Ontario, Canada. Analysis was performed from October 2022 to March 2023.ExposureSurgeon sex.Main Outcome and MeasureThe primary outcome was total health care costs assessed 1 year following surgery. Secondarily, total health care costs at 30 and 90 days, as well as specific cost categories, were assessed. Generalized estimating equations were used with procedure-level clustering to compare costs between patients undergoing equivalent surgeries performed by female and male surgeons, with further adjustment for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates.ResultsAmong 1 165 711 included patients, 151 054 were treated by a female surgeon and 1 014 657 were treated by a male surgeon. Analyzed at the procedure-specific level and accounting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-level covariates, 1-year total health care costs were higher for patients treated by male surgeons ($24 882; 95% CI, $20 780-$29 794) than female surgeons ($18 517; 95% CI, $16 080-$21 324) (adjusted absolute difference, $6365; 95% CI, $3491-9238; adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14). Similar patterns were observed at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115; 95% CI, $1682-$4548) and 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228; 95% CI, $2255-$6202).Conclusions and RelevanceThis analysis found lower 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year health care costs for patients treated by female surgeons compared with those treated by male surgeons. These data further underscore the importance of creating inclusive policies and environments supportive of women surgeons to improve recruitment and retention of a more diverse and representative workforce.

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.

Background Ensuring representative data accrual in clinical trials is important to safeguard the generalizability of results and to minimize disparities in care. This study's goal was to evaluate differences in gender representation in trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. Methods An observational study was conducted from January 2014 to April 2019 using PubMed and the National Institutes of Health trials registry for primary trial reports. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and US Census were consulted for national cancer incidence. The outcome was an enrollment incidence disparity (EID), which was calculated as the difference between male and female trial enrollment and national incidence, with positive values representing male overrepresentation. Results There were 149 clinical trials with 59,988 participants—60.3% and 39.7% were male and female, respectively—leading to 127 oncology drug approvals. The US incidence rates were 55.4% for men versus 44.6% for women. Gender representation varied by specific tumor type. Most notably, women were underrepresented in thyroid cancer (EID, +27.4%), whereas men were underrepresented in soft tissue cancer (EID, –26.1%). Overall, women were underrepresented when compared with expected incidence (EID, +4.9%; 42% of trials). Conclusions For many specific tumor types, women are underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals. It is critical to better align clinical trial cohort demographics and the populations to which these data will be extrapolated. Lay Summary This study assesses whether gender disparities exist in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. From January 2014 to April 2019, 149 clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals showed 60.3% and 39.7% of the enrollees were male and female, respectively. Gender representation varied by specific tumor when compared with the expected incidence rate of cancer in the United States, although women were more often underrepresented. Increased efforts are needed with regard to ensuring equitable representation in oncology clinical trials.

Objectives: Immunotherapy (IO) has become standard of care (SOC) for many advanced malignancies, although identifying patients likely to benefit remains difficult. We sought to assess whether demographic factors are associated with response to IO, compared with SOC systemic therapy, using stratified meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to October 2, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing IO to SOC in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were included if results were stratified by age, performance status (PS), or race, assessing overall survival (OS). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each group using random-effects models independently. Results: We identified 21 eligible randomized controlled trials, including 20 stratified by age, 17 by PS, and 4 by race. Patients with PS 0 (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86) and PS≥1 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83) had similar OS benefits from IO compared with SOC (P=0.80). There was no difference on the basis of patient race (white vs. nonwhite) (P=0.46). IO demonstrated an OS benefit for younger (below 65 y: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and older (65 y and above: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88) patients with no difference between age groups (P=0.27). Among prespecified subgroup analyses, there was significant effect modification in 2 subgroups: younger patients in the first-line setting (P=0.03) and those receiving anti-CTLA-4 drugs (P=0.05). Conclusions: When examining OS using stratified meta-analysis, we did not demonstrate significant differences in IO efficacy according to patient age, PS or race, though data on race were sparse.