Evaluating the Association of Area Deprivation Index (ADI) on Postoperative Outcomes in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Abdullah Khalid,Shamsher A. Pasha,Lyudmyla Demyan,Oliver Standring,Daniel A. King,Elliot Newman,Danielle DePeralta,Sepideh Gholami,Matthew J. Weiss,Marcovalerio Melis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27996
2024-11-13
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Abstract:Introduction Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a challenging disease, with outcomes influenced by several factors including socioeconomic status. The area deprivation index (ADI) has been used to understand how neighborhood disadvantages affect healthcare outcomes. Prior research has indicated that a higher ADI, reflective of a greater neighborhood disadvantage, is associated with an increased risk of major complications and unplanned readmission following PDAC resection. This study aimed to extend this investigation to the Northwell Health System in New York and explore the association between neighborhood ADI and surgical outcomes in patients with PDAC. Methods A retrospective analysis of the Northwell Health multicenter pancreatic cancer database from 2014 to 2023 included patients who underwent PDAC resection. The ADI scores were divided into low (1–3), moderate (4–6), and high (7–10), as previously described. Multinomial regression models and Kaplan–Meier log‐rank tests were used to compare differences in surgical outcomes between the patients in each ADI group. Results Out of 314 PDAC patients who underwent resection and had available ADI data, 116 (36.9%) were in the low, 163 (51.9%) in the moderate, and 35 (11.2%) in the high ADI category. The median ADI score was 4 (IQR: 3–5). Adjusted multinomial regression analysis revealed the following disparities: compared to the low ADI group, patients in the moderate ADI group demonstrated a significantly higher risk of diabetes (RR: 1.76, 95% CI 1.06–2.90, p = 0.028); high ADI was associated with a poorer response to neoadjuvant therapy (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.11–8.82, p = 0.031), higher incidence of microscopic positive margins (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.11–5.17, p = 0.028), increased severe complications (Clavien–Dindo class III−IV) (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04–1.80, p = 0.027), and a higher failure‐to‐rescue (FTR) rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12–1.85, p = 0.048). Although readmission and mortality rates at 30 and 90 days did not show significant differences (p > 0.05), the Kaplan–Meier log‐rank test indicated a marked disparity in survival probabilities among ADI ranks (p = 0.0025). Conclusion This study underscores a pronounced survival disparity across ADI categories among PDAC patients, suggesting an association between socioeconomic status and postoperative survival. Consideration of patient ADI may guide tailored healthcare strategies, such as the distribution of navigation and resources, to bridge the gap in survival outcomes and ensure equitable care for all socioeconomic strata.
oncology,surgery