Background A Medicare effect has been described to account for increased health care utilization occurring at the age of 65 years. The existence of such an effect in cancer care, where it would be most likely to reduce mortality, has been unclear. Methods Patients aged 61 to 69 years who were diagnosed with lung, breast, colon, or prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016 were identified with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and were dichotomized on the basis of eligibility for Medicare (61‐64 vs 65‐69 years). With age‐over‐age (AoA) percent change calculations, trends in cancer diagnoses and staging were characterized. After matching, uninsured patients who were 61 to 64 years old (pre‐Medicare group) were compared with insured patients who were 65 to 69 years old (post‐Medicare group) with respect to cancer‐specific mortality. Results In all, 134,991 patients were identified with lung cancer, 175,558 were identified with breast cancer, 62,721 were identified with colon cancer, and 238,823 were identified with prostate cancer. The AoA growth in the number of cancer diagnoses was highest at the age of 65 years in comparison with all other ages within the decade for all 4 cancers (P < .01, P < .001, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively). In a comparison of diagnoses at the age of 65 years with those in the 61‐ to 64‐year‐old cohort, the greatest difference for all 4 cancers was seen in stage I. In matched analyses, the 5‐year cancer‐specific mortality was worse for lung (86.3% vs 78.5%; P < .001), breast (32.7% vs 11.0%; P < .001), colon (57.1% vs 35.6%; P < .001), and prostate cancer (16.9% vs 4.8%; P < .001) in the uninsured pre‐Medicare group than the insured post‐Medicare group. Conclusions The age threshold of 65 years for Medicare eligibility is associated with more cancer diagnoses (particularly stage I), and this results in lower long‐term cancer‐specific mortality for all cancers studied. Lay Summary Contributing to the current debate regarding Medicare for all, this study shows that the expansion of Medicare would improve cancer outcomes for the near elderly.
Objectives:To determine whether the available operative techniques for thymectomy in myasthenia gravis (MG) confer variable chances for achieving complete stable remission (CSR), we performed a meta-analysis of comparative studies of surgical approaches to thymectomy.Methods:Meta-analysis of all studies providing comparative data on thymectomy approaches, with CSR reported and minimum 3 years mean follow-up.Results:12 cohort studies and one randomized clinical trial, containing 1598 patients, met entry criteria. At 3 years, CSR from MG was similar following VATS extended vs. both basic (RR 1.00, p=1.00, 95% CI 0.39-2.58) and extended (RR 0.96, p=0.74, CI: 0.72-1.27) transsternal approaches. CSR at 3 years was also similar following extended transsternal vs. combined transcervical-subxiphoid (RR 1.08, p=0.62, CI: 0.8-1.44) approaches. VATS extended approaches remained statistically equivalent to extended transsternal approaches through 9 years of follow-up (RR 1.51, p=0.05, CI: 0.99-2.30). The only significant difference in CSR rate between a traditional open and a minimally invasive approach was seen at 10 years when comparing the now-abandoned basic (non-sternum-lifting) transcervical approach and the extended transsternal approach (RR 0.4, p=0.01, CI: 0.2-0.8).Conclusions:A significant difference in the rate of CSR among various surgical approaches for thymectomy in MG was identified only at long-term follow-up, and only between what might be considered the most aggressive approach (extended transsternal thymectomy) and the least aggressive approach (basic transcervical thymectomy). Extended minimally invasive approaches appear to have equivalent CSR rates to extended transsternal approaches and are therefore appropriate in the hands of experienced surgeons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.