Are social inequalities in acute myeloid leukemia survival explained by differences in treatment utilization? Results from a French longitudinal observational study among older patients

Table 2 Distribution of the study sample characteristics by patients’ socioeconomic position (n = 592)

		Patients’ SEP (EDI quintile)
		0 (least deprived)		1		2		3		4 (most deprived)
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sex	Men	74	59.68	71	68.27	70	55.12	86	62.77	63	63.00
Sex	Women	50	40.32	33	31.73	57	44.88	51	37.23	37	37.00
Age (median (interquartile range))		74	15.5	75	13.00	74	11.00	73	12.00	75	12.50
Charlson comorbidity index	0	59	47.58	51	49.04	54	42.52	61	44.53	36	36.00
	1	27	21.77	20	19.23	21	16.54	26	18.98	28	28.00
	2+	19	15.32	18	17.31	22	17.32	30	21.90	15	15.00
	Undefinable	19	15.32	15	14.42	30	23.62	20	14.60	21	21.00
Performance status	0/1	70	56.45	59	56.73	67	52.76	72	52.55	41	41.00
	2	14	11.29	18	17.31	15	11.81	23	16.79	21	21.00
	3/4	8	6.45	10	9.62	15	11.81	16	11.68	11	11.00
	Undefinable	32	25.81	17	16.35	30	23.62	26	18.98	27	27.00
White blood cell (terticle	Low	35	28.23	35	33.65	37	29.13	55	40.15	33	33.00
	Medium	43	34.68	36	34.62	44	34.65	38	27.74	28	28.00
	High	44	35.48	33	31.73	41	32.28	41	29.93	34	34.00
	Undefinable	2	1.61	0	0.00	5	3.94	3	2.19	5	5.00
AML ontogeny	AML de novo	74	59.68	51	49.04	63	49.61	73	53.28	40	40.00
	Secondary AML (post treatment / MDS)	46	37.10	49	47.12	59	46.46	60	43.80	54	54.00
	Undefinable	4	3.23	4	3.85	5	3.94	4	2.92	6	6.00
Cytogenetic prognosis	Favorable/Intermediate	77	62.10	54	51.92	76	59.84	84	61.31	52	52.00
	Unfavorable	38	30.65	44	42.31	39	30.71	42	30.66	40	40.00
	Undefinable	9	7.26	6	5.77	12	9.45	11	8.03	8	8.00
Treatment	Intensive chemotherapy	50	40.32	28	26.92	42	33.07	44	32.12	23	23.00
	Low intensive therapy	40	32.26	43	41.35	45	35.43	57	41.61	41	41.00
	Best supportive care	34	27.42	33	31.73	40	31.50	36	26.28	36	36.00

ISSN: 1471-2407