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

Berger, Eloïse; Delpierre, Cyrille; Despas, Fabien; Bertoli, Sarah; Bérard, Emilie; Bombarde, Oriane; Bories, Pierre; Sarry, Audrey; Laurent, Guy; Récher, Christian; Lamy, Sébastien

doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6093-3

Table 4 Step 2. Models of the association linking patients’ SEP to receiving IC

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

		Model 2.0 (M2.0)		Model 2.1		Model 2.2		Model 2.3		Model 2.4		Model 2.5
		Model 2.0 (M2.0)		M2.0 + perf. Status		M2.0 + AML ontogeny		M2.0 + WBC		M2.0 + cytogen. Progn.		Fully adjusted
		OR	[95% CI]	OR	[95% CI]	OR	[95% CI]	OR	[95% CI]	OR	[95% CI]	OR	[95% CI]
Age		0.79	[0.76; 0.82]	0.79	[0.76; 0.82]	0.76	[0.73; 0.80]	0.77	[0.74; 0.81]	0.76	[0.73; 0.80]	0.74	[0.70; 0.79]
Sex	Men	ref		ref		ref		ref				ref
Sex	Women	0.65	[0.40; 1.05]	0.65	[0.40; 1.04]	0.61	[0.36; 1.03]	0.73	[0.44; 1.22]	0.84	[0.50; 1.44]	0.71	[0.40; 1.24]
Patients’ SEP (quintile of deprivation score)	Q1 – least	ref		ref		Ref		ref				ref
	Q2	0.46	[0.22; 0.99]	0.46	[0.21;0.99]	0.52	[0.23; 1.17]	0.43	[0.20; 0.96]	0.47	[0.20; 1.09]	0.47	[0.20; 1.14]
	Q3	0.98	[0.49; 1.95]	0.97	[0.48; 1.95]	1.07	[0.51; 2.25]	0.97	[0.47; 2.01]	0.77	[0.36; 1.65]	1.08	[0.48; 2.41]
	Q4	0.55	[0.28; 1.08]	0.56	[0.28; 1.12]	0.58	[0.28; 1.20]	0.54	[0.27; 1.09]	0.45	[0.21; 0.96]	0.58	[0.26; 1.27]
	Q5 – most	0.41	[0.19; 0.90]	0.45	[0.20; 0.98]	0.59	[0.25; 1.40]	0.40	[0.17; 0.93]	0.45	[0.19; 1.07]	0.60	[0.23; 1.53]
Charlson comorbidity index	0	ref		ref		ref		ref				ref
	1	0.61	[0.33; 1.13]	0.63	[0.34; 1.17]	0.66	[0.34; 1.29]	0.58	[0.30; 1.10]	0.70	[0.36; 1.37]	0.69	[0.34; 1.40]
	2+	0.64	[0.35; 1.17]	0.66	[0.35; 1.22]	1.05	[0.54; 2.03]	0.55	[0.29; 1.05]	0.59	[0.30; 1.15]	1.06	[0.52; 2.18]
	Undefinable	0.14	[0.06; 0.35]	0.18	[0.07; 0.46]	0.19	[0.07; 0.50]	0.13	[0.05; 0.32]	0.31	[0.12; 0.82]	0.18	[0.06; 0.55]
Performance status	0/1			ref								Ref
	2			0.45	[0.23; 0.86]							0.38	[0.18; 0.81]
	3/4			0.77	[0.34; 1.74]							0.3	[0.11; 0.82]
	Undefinable			0.6	[0.27; 1.36]							0.74	[0.30; 1.83]
AML ontogeny	AML de novo					ref						ref
	Secondary (post MDS or post treatment)					0.13	[0.07; 0.23]					0.12	[0.06; 0.22]
	Undefinable					Not estimated						Not estimated
White blood cell (WBS) counts (tercile)	Tercile 1 – low							Ref				ref
	Tercile 2 – intermediate							1.5	[0.82; 2.75]			1.86	[0.95; 3.65]
	Tercile 3 – high							5.74	[3.06; 10.79]			7.83	[3.82; 16.08]
	Undefinable ^a							Not estimated				Not estimated
Cytogenetic prognosis	Favorable/Intermediate									ref		ref
	Unfavorable									0.14	[0.08; 0.25]	0.12	[0.06; 0.22]
	Undefinable ^a									Not estimated		Not estimated

Models are adjusted for each confounder, and fully adjusted. Generalized linear model with logit link function, adjusted odds ratios [95% Confidence Intervals] (N = 592)
^athe perfect predictor of outcome “undefinable” AML ontogeny, White blood cell counts, and cytogenetic prognosis were retained in the models to avoid reducing sample size, but OR and 95%CI were not estimated

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccancer@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Cancer

Contact us