Skip to main content

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

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

   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
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