Back

The impact of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation on metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment and survival: An incidence-based, causally-structured observational study

Raghu, A.; Shah, S.; Pattnaik, A.; Permuth, J. B.; Park, M. A.; Dhahri, H.; Huang, H. C.; Fleming, J. B.; Anaya, D. A.; Powers, B. D.

2026-08-10 oncology
10.64898/2026.08.06.26359821 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) portends a poor prognosis. Prior studies have assessed the association of socioeconomic deprivation (SED) in PDAC often with large geographic areas. This study employed a causal framework to characterize neighborhood SED on treatment receipt and survival in metastatic PDAC. Methods: Using the incidence-based Florida Cancer Data System, metastatic PDAC patients diagnosed from 2007-2015 were identified. The Area Deprivation Index, a composite measure of SED that ranks neighborhoods from 1-100 (higher scores = higher deprivation), was used to assess receipt of systemic therapy and overall survival (OS). Exposures and covariates were assessed using descriptive statistics and a causal inference framework. Results: Overall, 9,574 patients met inclusion criteria. 46.6% of patients received systemic therapy, ranging 39.4% to 54% in the highest and lowest SED quartiles, respectively. After adjustment, the lowest quartile had increased odds of systemic therapy relative to the highest (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.70-2.18). Median OS was 3.8 months for the lowest quartile and 2.4 months for the highest (p = 0.01). Patients in the highest quartile had an estimated 32% higher hazard of death than the lowest (HR 1.32, 95% bootstrap CI 1.20-1.40). Conclusion: In an incidence-based statewide cohort, most patients did not receive treatment for metastatic PDAC and median OS was poor-2.9 months. Using a causal inference framework, higher SED led to lower rates of systemic therapy receipt and worse overall survival in metastatic PDAC. Future research should focus on the mechanisms that shape these findings.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.