Background:

Childhood cancer–related mortality differs by socioeconomic factors, but the impact of residential location, including rurality and neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, is not well-characterized.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study linked Washington State cancer registry data (1992–2013) to state birth (1974–2013) and death records (1992–2013) to identify residents <20 years diagnosed with cancer (n = 4,306). Census-based rural–urban commuting area codes and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) defined rural residence and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage at time of cancer diagnosis, respectively. Neighborhoods in the highest state ADI quintile were classified as the most disadvantaged. Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox hazards models, adjusted for key characteristics, were used to compare mortality by rural and ADI classification.

Results:

Five-year overall survival for children from non-rural low ADI neighborhoods (referent) was 80.9%±0.8%, versus 66.4%±2.9% from non-rural high ADI neighborhoods, 69.4%±3.8% from rural low ADI neighborhoods, and 66.9%±3.8% from rural high ADI neighborhoods (P < 0.01 for each comparison versus referent). Compared with the referent group, children from comparator neighborhoods had a greater mortality risk: Rural low ADI [hazard ratio (HR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–2.02], rural high ADI (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16–2.01), and non-rural high ADI (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.04). Associations of ADI and rurality with mortality varied in sub-analyses by cancer type.

Conclusions:

Children with cancer living in rural and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods at diagnosis experienced greater mortality relative to those without either factor.

Impact:

Future investigation is needed to examine how rurality and poverty potentially impact healthcare utilization and health-related outcomes in pediatric oncology.

Despite advances in care that have resulted in an approximate 85% 5-year survival, cancer remains the leading non-injury cause of childhood and adolescent mortality in the United States (1, 2). Disparities in cancer-related outcomes persist (3), and mortality differences related to race and ethnicity (4–6), health insurance coverage (7, 8), and poverty/socioeconomic status (5, 9–13) are well-established. Geographic factors such as travel time to treatment center and rural/urban status have been studied to a lesser extent, but emerging evidence provides rationale for concern. Rural or geographically remote residence at cancer diagnosis is associated with unique challenges during treatment, lower school attendance, and increased caregiver stress (14, 15).

Limited investigation of pediatric cancer survival related to geographic factors has yielded mixed results to date, for both children with hematologic and solid organ malignancies (16–21). A national U.S. study using cancer registry data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program found no difference in childhood cancer–related survival based on county-level rural–urban continuum code designation with adjustment for county-level median income and other factors (22). However, county-level measurement does not account for the considerable geographic variation present in many U.S. counties, and may potentially mask differences through misclassification (23, 24). For this reason, more precise geographic designations, when available, are favored over county-level measures, particularly when comparing individuals based on rurality (25).

We used population-based databases from Washington State (WA) to evaluate whether rural residence—in combination with socioeconomic factors—affects pediatric cancer–related mortality. Given the heterogeneity of disease and treatment characteristics by cancer type, we also examined whether any associations between these factors and mortality differed by cancer type.

Database linkage and study population

This retrospective cohort study used a database linkage between WA cancer registries (1992–2013) and state birth (1974–2013) and death (1992–2013) records as a part of an existing study to identify individuals born in WA who were diagnosed with cancer at <20 years of age from 1992 to 2013 (26). We obtained cancer data from two population-based cancer registries in WA that together capture all cases of pediatric cancer in the state: (i) the SEER program-funded Cancer Surveillance System (CSS) and (ii) the Washington State Cancer Registry (WSCR), funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Central Cancer Registries. Both cancer registries provided diagnosis date, International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC) third edition cancer type, International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) code, demographic information at diagnosis (age, sex, race, and ethnicity), basic initial treatment information (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery), and census block group-level residence at diagnosis. Sex assigned at birth was identified from birth certificate records.

Diagnoses representing non-malignant disease—typically non-malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumors, non-melanomatous skin cancers, or cervical carcinoma in situ—were excluded from analysis (n = 641). Cases missing data for race and ethnicity (n = 57) or census designation (n = 15), and those living in locations missing key indicators for calculation of area-level predictor variables (n = 39), were also excluded, 111 (2.5%) total cases. We determined vital status via CSS/WSCR's quarterly follow-up and the state death registry, the latter of which maintains agreements with the National Center for Health Statistics and the WA Department of Health to identify deaths to residents occurring out of state. We evaluated all-cause mortality, as 94% of deaths listed cancer as the cause of death.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the WA Department of Health. The requirement for written informed consent was not required for this study.

Predictor definitions

Census tracts are relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county that each contain approximately 4,000 residents (1,500 housing units) and are designed to be relatively homogeneous with regard to demographic characteristics and living conditions (27). Census block groups are more refined geographic subdivisions of census tracts, containing approximately 1,500 people each and closely resembling neighborhoods (27). All study cases were geocoded to 2010 U.S. Census block groups.

Rurality

Using 2010 Census Rural–Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes corresponding to census tract at diagnosis, residences were classified as rural (primary RUCA code 4–10) or non-rural (primary RUCA code 1–3), consistent with recommendations (25, 28).

Neighborhood socioeconomic status

Area deprivation index (ADI) is a composite measure consisting of 17 items concerning income, employment, education, and housing, developed from U.S. Census data and the American Community Survey to proxy neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage (29). ADI has been used to assess the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on healthcare access and outcomes, including pediatric cancer (11, 12). Scores by the census block group are reported as national percentiles, with 1 indicating the lowest level of socioeconomic disadvantage and 100 corresponding to the greatest socioeconomic disadvantage. State-level norms have been established, including for WA. A priori, we categorized all WA census block groups as either having high ADI or low ADI, using a cutoff value of the highest WA quintile to define high ADI neighborhoods. The 80th percentile ADI cutoff value that we used for WA corresponded to approximately the 66th percentile of social deprivation on the national scale.

Statistical analysis

We estimated 5- and 15-year overall survival (OS) by rural residence and ADI classification with Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Differences in OS were compared between neighborhood groups using pairwise log rank tests. We then used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate mortality hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) according to rural and ADI status as our main predictors of interest. Cox models were adjusted for race and ethnicity, sex assigned at birth, age at diagnosis (categorically: <1, 1–4.9, 5–9.9, 10–14.9, and ≥15 years), birth year (ordinally: by decade), and ICCC category. Multivariate models notably did not include insurance information, due to incomplete data in the cancer registry (n = 2,629 missing). Receipt of chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiotherapy was not included in multivariate models, as these were likely mediators, rather than confounders, of the exposures and outcomes of interest. We did, however, perform descriptive statistics to compare rates of these treatments by neighborhood classification. Proportionality assumptions for each model were verified by plotting and testing Schoenfeld residuals (30). To address potential challenges to proportionality assumptions, we performed stratified Cox regression for some variables, allowing for separate baseline hazards by age at diagnosis, birth year, and ICCC. To test for effect modification between rurality and ADI classification, we also included an interaction term between rural status and high ADI. Because this term was significant, we performed Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models with rurality and ADI status categorized into four mutually exclusive groupings: non-rural with low ADI (referent), non-rural with high ADI, rural with low ADI, and rural with high ADI. Results with cell sizes <5 were suppressed in all tables.

We performed two sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of our main Cox regression models and ADI definitions. First, we created an identical hazards model to the main analysis, but instead defined high ADI using the highest WA quartile rather than the highest quintile. This cutoff value corresponded to the 44th percentile on the national scale. We tested a statistical interaction term between rural residence and high ADI, followed by analysis by neighborhood grouping. Next, we tested an interaction term between rural residence and linear national ADI percentile, rather than a binary variable, in an otherwise identical multivariate model.

We also performed separate Cox regression sub-analyses by cancer type: Acute lymphoblastic and myelogenous leukemias (ALL and AML), lymphoma, CNS malignancies, and other solid tumors (neuroblastoma, renal tumors, hepatoblastoma, bone tumors, soft tissue sarcomas, and malignant germ cell tumors). Categories were determined using ICCC group types and ICD-O-3 morphology codes. Specifically, ALL was defined using the ICCC classification of leukemia, in addition to one of the following ICD-O-3 codes: 9811/3–9818/3 or 9835/3–9837/3. AML was defined by having the ICCC leukemia classification plus one of the following ICD-O-3 codes: 9840/3, 9860/3, 9861/3, 9865/3–9874/3, 9876/3–9912/3, or 9930/3. Multivariate HRs of these hazards models adjusted for the same variables as the main model, except rural residence and high ADI were adjusted for individually, as opposed to a multi-level combined variable, because there was no significant statistical interaction between these predictors in cancer type-specific sub-analyses. All analyses were conducted with R 4.1.3 (R Foundation) and used the “survival” package (31).

Data availability

The data generated in this study are not publicly available to protect patient privacy and confidentiality, and are available only with separate approval from the WA Institutional Review Board.

Demographics

The study sample included 4,306 cases after exclusions (51.7% male; 77.7% non-Hispanic White), with 20% of the study population residing in a neighborhood classified as high ADI and 13% residing in a rural neighborhood at the time of diagnosis (Table 1). Proportions of cases identified as having Hispanic ethnicity were greater in rural and/or high ADI neighborhoods compared with the total cohort. Distribution of sex and diagnosis type did not seem to differ in rural and/or high ADI cases. Cancer survivors were followed-up for a median of 5.0 years (inter-quartile range, 1.0–11.5). Over the study period, 18.9% of the cohort died, with 94% of deaths reported as cancer-related.

Table 1.

Characteristics of children <20-years-old with cancer in Washington State, diagnosed 1992–2013.

Total cohortChildren in rural neighborhoodsChildren in neighborhoods with high socioeconomic disadvantageb
n = 4,306n = 554n = 865
CharacteristicN(%)N(%)N(%)
Sex 
 Female 2,078 48.3 284 51.3 419 48.4 
 Male 2,228 51.7 270 48.7 446 51.6 
Race and ethnicity 
 Alaska Native or Native American 98 2.3 >5 22.4 >5 24.6 
 Asian 200 4.6 <5 71.5 >5 63.8 
 Black (non-Hispanic) 168 3.9 >5  >5  
 Hispanic 457 10.6 124  213  
 Pacific Islander or other race 36 0.9 <5  <5  
 White (non-Hispanic) 3,347 77.7 396  552  
Age at diagnosis (y) 
 0–0.99 382 8.9 47 8.5 78 9.0 
 1–4.99 1,231 28.6 162 29.2 305 35.3 
 5–9.99 745 17.3 89 16.1 135 15.6 
 10–14.99 744 17.3 97 17.5 137 15.8 
 15+ 1,204 28.0 159 28.7 210 24.3 
Cancer type 
 Central nervous system 986 22.9 116 20.9 177 20.5 
 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 854 19.8 120 21.7 193 22.3 
 Acute myelogenous and other leukemia 287 6.7 28 5.1 59 6.8 
 Lymphoma 583 13.5 71 12.8 111 12.8 
 Solid tumor 1,216 28.2 160 28.9 261 30.2 
 Other malignancyc 380 8.8 59 10.6 64 7.4 
Treatment era 
 1993–1999 1,358 31.5 199 35.9 288 33.3 
 2000–2013 2,948 68.5 355 64.1 577 66.7 
Received chemotherapyd 
 Yes 2,508 69.0 274 71.9 417 75.0 
 No 1,128 31.0 107 28.1 139 25.0 
Received radiotherapyd 
 Yes 1,132 26.6 147 26.8 211 24.6 
 No 3,123 73.4 401 73.2 648 75.4 
Received surgeryd 
 Yes 2,138 49.6% 278 50.2% 432 50.0% 
 No or not applicable 1,994 46.3% 255 46.0% 411 47.5% 
 Unknown 174 4.0% 21 3.7% 22 2.5% 
Vital status 
 Alive 3,492 81.1 437 78.9 686 79.3 
 Deceased 814 18.9 117 21.1 179 20.7 
Total cohortChildren in rural neighborhoodsChildren in neighborhoods with high socioeconomic disadvantageb
n = 4,306n = 554n = 865
CharacteristicN(%)N(%)N(%)
Sex 
 Female 2,078 48.3 284 51.3 419 48.4 
 Male 2,228 51.7 270 48.7 446 51.6 
Race and ethnicity 
 Alaska Native or Native American 98 2.3 >5 22.4 >5 24.6 
 Asian 200 4.6 <5 71.5 >5 63.8 
 Black (non-Hispanic) 168 3.9 >5  >5  
 Hispanic 457 10.6 124  213  
 Pacific Islander or other race 36 0.9 <5  <5  
 White (non-Hispanic) 3,347 77.7 396  552  
Age at diagnosis (y) 
 0–0.99 382 8.9 47 8.5 78 9.0 
 1–4.99 1,231 28.6 162 29.2 305 35.3 
 5–9.99 745 17.3 89 16.1 135 15.6 
 10–14.99 744 17.3 97 17.5 137 15.8 
 15+ 1,204 28.0 159 28.7 210 24.3 
Cancer type 
 Central nervous system 986 22.9 116 20.9 177 20.5 
 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 854 19.8 120 21.7 193 22.3 
 Acute myelogenous and other leukemia 287 6.7 28 5.1 59 6.8 
 Lymphoma 583 13.5 71 12.8 111 12.8 
 Solid tumor 1,216 28.2 160 28.9 261 30.2 
 Other malignancyc 380 8.8 59 10.6 64 7.4 
Treatment era 
 1993–1999 1,358 31.5 199 35.9 288 33.3 
 2000–2013 2,948 68.5 355 64.1 577 66.7 
Received chemotherapyd 
 Yes 2,508 69.0 274 71.9 417 75.0 
 No 1,128 31.0 107 28.1 139 25.0 
Received radiotherapyd 
 Yes 1,132 26.6 147 26.8 211 24.6 
 No 3,123 73.4 401 73.2 648 75.4 
Received surgeryd 
 Yes 2,138 49.6% 278 50.2% 432 50.0% 
 No or not applicable 1,994 46.3% 255 46.0% 411 47.5% 
 Unknown 174 4.0% 21 3.7% 22 2.5% 
Vital status 
 Alive 3,492 81.1 437 78.9 686 79.3 
 Deceased 814 18.9 117 21.1 179 20.7 

aSome percentages may not add up to 100% due incomplete rounding. The rural and high ADI categories are not mutually exclusive and there is overlap (n = 316).

bDefined by area deprivation index belonging to the highest Washington State quintile.

cIncludes International Classification of Childhood Cancer (third edition) groups XI and XII.

dRefers to treatment during initial therapy only.

Association of neighborhood categories with mortality

Estimated 5-year OS for the referent group (children from non-rural neighborhoods with low ADI) was 80.9% (Fig. 1). For children from neighborhoods that were non-rural with high ADI, rural with low ADI, and rural with high ADI, 5-year OS was 66.4%, 69.4%, and 66.9%, respectively. Estimated 15-year OS in the referent group was 75.8%. For comparison neighborhoods, 15-year OS was 57.0%, 66.9%, and 56.2%. Compared with the referent category, OS was significantly lower for all comparison groups by pairwise log-rank testing at 15 years (Fig. 1). Survival did not differ significantly between the three comparison categories themselves. OS at 5 years differed similarly via log-rank testing.

Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for all Washington State children diagnosed with cancer, 1993–2013, according to neighborhood characteristics. 5-year overall survival (OS) for children living in non-rural low area deprivation index (ADI) neighborhoods was 80.9% ± 0.8%, versus 66.4% ± 2.9% for non-rural with high ADI, 69.4% ± 3.8% for rural with low ADI, and 66.9% ± 3.8% for rural with high ADI. Estimated 15-year OS in the referent group was 75.8% ± 1.0%, compared with 57.0% ± 3.8% for non-rural with high ADI, 66.9% ± 4.1% for rural with low ADI, and 56.2% ± 5.3% for rural with high ADI. Pairwise log-rank testing represents OS differences at 15 years.

Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for all Washington State children diagnosed with cancer, 1993–2013, according to neighborhood characteristics. 5-year overall survival (OS) for children living in non-rural low area deprivation index (ADI) neighborhoods was 80.9% ± 0.8%, versus 66.4% ± 2.9% for non-rural with high ADI, 69.4% ± 3.8% for rural with low ADI, and 66.9% ± 3.8% for rural with high ADI. Estimated 15-year OS in the referent group was 75.8% ± 1.0%, compared with 57.0% ± 3.8% for non-rural with high ADI, 66.9% ± 4.1% for rural with low ADI, and 56.2% ± 5.3% for rural with high ADI. Pairwise log-rank testing represents OS differences at 15 years.

Close modal

In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, residence in neighborhoods categorized as non-rural with high ADI, rural with low ADI, or rural with high ADI was associated with greater mortality relative to living in a non-rural neighborhood with low ADI, with HRs of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.32–2.04), 1.50 (95% CI, 1.12–2.02), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.16–2.01), respectively (Table 2). In adjusted analyses, Hispanic ethnicity was also associated with increased mortality compared with those identifying as non-Hispanic White.

Table 2.

Multivariate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for mortality among children with cancer by neighborhood classification.

Neighborhood classificationaNo. of events/Person-years at riskRate per 1,000 person-yearsAdjusted HR (95% CI)bP
Non-rural, low ADI 583/22,302 26.1 1.00 (ref)  
Non-rural, high ADI 114/1,839 62.0 1.64 (1.32–2.04) <0.001 
Rural, low ADI 52/1,120 46.4 1.50 (1.12–2.02) 0.007 
Rural, high ADI 65/1,140 57.0 1.53 (1.16–2.01) 0.002 
Sex 
Female 362/12,703 28.5 1.00 (ref)  
Male 452/13,698 33.0 1.07 (0.93–1.24) 0.35 
Race and ethnicity 
Non-Hispanic White 610/21,590 28.3 1.00 (ref)  
Hispanic 90/1,692 53.2 1.35 (1.07–1.72) 0.012 
Non-Hispanic Black 33/1,087 30.4 0.88 (0.61–1.27) 0.49 
Non-Hispanic Otherc 81/2,033 39.8 1.34 (1.05–1.70) 0.018 
Neighborhood classificationaNo. of events/Person-years at riskRate per 1,000 person-yearsAdjusted HR (95% CI)bP
Non-rural, low ADI 583/22,302 26.1 1.00 (ref)  
Non-rural, high ADI 114/1,839 62.0 1.64 (1.32–2.04) <0.001 
Rural, low ADI 52/1,120 46.4 1.50 (1.12–2.02) 0.007 
Rural, high ADI 65/1,140 57.0 1.53 (1.16–2.01) 0.002 
Sex 
Female 362/12,703 28.5 1.00 (ref)  
Male 452/13,698 33.0 1.07 (0.93–1.24) 0.35 
Race and ethnicity 
Non-Hispanic White 610/21,590 28.3 1.00 (ref)  
Hispanic 90/1,692 53.2 1.35 (1.07–1.72) 0.012 
Non-Hispanic Black 33/1,087 30.4 0.88 (0.61–1.27) 0.49 
Non-Hispanic Otherc 81/2,033 39.8 1.34 (1.05–1.70) 0.018 

aHigh area deprivation index (ADI) neighborhoods are defined as having an ADI value in the highest Washington State quintile, corresponding to greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage.

bAnalyses were adjusted for all variables shown, plus age at diagnosis, birth year, and cancer diagnosis type.

c“Other” race combines individuals identified as non-Hispanic Asian, Alaska Native, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and other identification not listed above in another race and ethnicity category.

Effect modification between rurality and ADI

In our proportional hazards model, the interaction term between rural status and high ADI was significant (P = 0.03), suggestive of effect modification. Therefore, we also plotted Kaplan–Meier survival curves stratified by rurality and ADI status (Fig. 2). Among children from non-rural neighborhoods, we found a survival difference based on ADI classification (log-rank test, P < 0.001). However, for children from rural neighborhoods, ADI did not have an appreciable survival effect (log-rank test, P = 0.58). Similarly, rural status had a strong effect on survival among children from low ADI neighborhoods (log-rank test, P < 0.001), but not among children from high ADI neighborhoods (log-rank test, P = 0.60). We observed similar results in our stratified Cox proportional hazards models. In the non-rural subset of children, the adjusted mortality Cox HR for high ADI versus low ADI was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.43–2.17; P < 0.0001). In the rural subset, no association with ADI was identified (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.72–1.58; P = 0.75). Similarly, when stratified by ADI category, the association between rurality and survival varied. Rural residence was associated with mortality in the low ADI subset (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.17–2.07; P = 0.002), but not in the high ADI subset (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68–1.29; P = 0.68). There was no statistical interaction identified between rurality and ADI category in cancer type-specific sub-analyses (Table 3); therefore, we did not calculate HRs for neighborhood groupings outside of the main analysis.

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for Washington State children diagnosed with cancer, 1992–2013, stratified by rural classification (A, non-rural patients; B, rural patients) and neighborhood area deprivation index (ADI) status (C, low ADI; D, high ADI).

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for Washington State children diagnosed with cancer, 1992–2013, stratified by rural classification (A, non-rural patients; B, rural patients) and neighborhood area deprivation index (ADI) status (C, low ADI; D, high ADI).

Close modal
Table 3.

Multivariate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for mortality by individual neighborhood variables, stratified by cancer diagnosis typea.

Cancer typePerson-years at risk/No. of eventsRate per 1,000 person-yearsAdjusted HR (95% CI) Rural residencePAdjusted HR (95% CI) High ADIP
ALL (n = 854) 109/5,524 19.7 1.82 (1.01–3.27) 0.045 1.16 (0.69–1.97) 0.57 
AML (n = 189) 78/802 97.3 1.22 (0.52–2.81) 0.64 1.56 (0.84–2.87) 0.16 
Lymphoma (n = 583) 52/3,970 13.1 1.15 (0.42–3.17) 0.77 1.32 (0.58–3.04) 0.51 
Solid tumors (n = 1,215) 264/7,338 36.0 1.06 (0.72–1.56) 0.76 1.62 (1.16–2.26) 0.004 
CNS tumors (n = 896) 246/5,270 46.7 1.08 (0.70–1.68) 0.73 1.47 (1.01–2.13) 0.044 
Cancer typePerson-years at risk/No. of eventsRate per 1,000 person-yearsAdjusted HR (95% CI) Rural residencePAdjusted HR (95% CI) High ADIP
ALL (n = 854) 109/5,524 19.7 1.82 (1.01–3.27) 0.045 1.16 (0.69–1.97) 0.57 
AML (n = 189) 78/802 97.3 1.22 (0.52–2.81) 0.64 1.56 (0.84–2.87) 0.16 
Lymphoma (n = 583) 52/3,970 13.1 1.15 (0.42–3.17) 0.77 1.32 (0.58–3.04) 0.51 
Solid tumors (n = 1,215) 264/7,338 36.0 1.06 (0.72–1.56) 0.76 1.62 (1.16–2.26) 0.004 
CNS tumors (n = 896) 246/5,270 46.7 1.08 (0.70–1.68) 0.73 1.47 (1.01–2.13) 0.044 

aAdjusted HRs are compared with children from non-rural neighborhoods without socioeconomic disadvantage (low area deprivation index) as a reference group. Analyses are adjusted for sex, race and ethnicity, age at diagnosis, birth year, and cancer diagnosis type.

Disease-specific sub-analyses

When individual associations of rural residence and high ADI for different cancer types were examined (Table 3), rural status (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.01–3.27), but not high ADI (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.69–1.97) was associated with greater mortality among children with ALL. For children with solid tumors, high ADI was associated with mortality (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16–2.26), but not rural status (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72–1.56). Similar results were observed among children with CNS tumors, for whom high ADI (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.01–2.13) but not rural status (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70–1.68) was associated with mortality. No associations for ADI or rurality were detected in children with AML or lymphoma, the two smallest cancer-type categories.

Sensitivity analyses

The Cox hazards model with ADI corresponding to the highest WA quartile, rather than quintile, was similar to the main analysis. The interaction between rural status and ADI remained significant (P = 0.036). HRs by neighborhood grouping were also similar. Residence in neighborhoods categorized as non-rural with high ADI, rural with low ADI, or rural with high ADI was associated with HRs of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.41–2.08), 1.49 (95% CI, 1.06–2.07), and 1.60 (95% CI, 1.23–2.07), respectively. In our sensitivity analysis using national ADI percentile, the statistical interaction between rural status and ADI in the multivariate model also remained significant (P = 0.005).

In this population-based study of more than 4,000 children with cancer in WA, we observed mortality differences associated with rural residence and neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage defined by geocoded address information. Compared with children living in non-rural neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic disadvantage at diagnosis and after adjusting for important patient- and disease-related factors, children in neighborhoods with rurality and/or high poverty experienced greater mortality. Socioeconomic status also modified the effect of rurality on mortality. Rural residence was associated with greater mortality among children living in neighborhoods with low socioeconomic disadvantage, but not for children in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic disadvantage. We also observed variability in the relative impact of rurality and neighborhood poverty by cancer type. Most notably, among children with ALL, rural residence was associated with mortality, whereas among children with CNS and solid tumors, neighborhood socioeconomic status had a stronger association.

Our finding of an association between mortality and rural residence in children with cancer in WA is novel. Although associations between rurality and cancer-related mortality have been demonstrated in adults (32–34), our findings contrast with prior pediatric studies in the U.S., which were conducted with SEER national cancer registry data over similar time periods to our study and did not detect an association between county-level rurality and mortality (22, 35). However, county-level designations of rurality are subject to greater misclassification compared with the more granular census block group and tract-level definitions we used (23–25). Another potential explanation for this discrepancy is that WA cancer cases may differ from other U.S. regions with respect to sociodemographic factors, geography, distribution of cancer centers, and/or legislative policy. In the 2020 Census, WA's rural distribution (16.0%) is similar to the U.S. aggregate (19.3%), ranking 35th of 50 states (36). WA's rates of poverty (18.2%) and health insurance coverage (93.6%) in children <18 years rank similarly (19th and 25th, respectively; ref. 36). Conversely, WA has comparatively greater educational attainment (31.1% of adults >25 years with a bachelor's degree or higher, ranked 11th; ref. 36). However, given prior work associating geographic distance or rurality with cancer survival outcomes in specific populations (18, 20), these findings may be applicable to other states, and possibly much of the U.S.

The demonstrated association of neighborhood-level poverty with mortality corroborates previously published survival disparities in multiple pediatric cancer types (8–12). This association may be reflective of the impact of household socioeconomic status on survival, although effects of the neighborhood environment itself—such as food deserts, healthcare resources, or community support—likely exert additional influence beyond individual household financial resources. However, our study design cannot evaluate the impact of household poverty itself. In addition, historical race–based discriminatory policies, such as redlining, have been known to shape neighborhood socioeconomic factors that are associated with poorer pediatric health outcomes (37). Although not the main focus of this study, survival disparities related to race and ethnicity were also identified in our multivariate analysis, consistent with existing literature (4–6). The impact of systemic racism on pediatric cancer mortality deserves continued attention.

The mechanisms by which rural/non-rural survival differences may occur are not fully understood. Travel time to cancer care could inherently contribute to poorer outcomes. Geographically distant families, in the U.S. and elsewhere, are known to spend significant time and resources on travel, which may increase stress and difficulty with treatment adherence (14, 38). The stronger associations with rurality observed among patients with ALL—for which treatment is largely outpatient, is longer in duration, and involves frequent travel—may support this, as other authors have also hypothesized (18). Barriers to accessing emergency care are also documented, and patients in communities with fewer pediatric healthcare resources could be at greater risk for complications such as severe infection (15), or therapy-related comorbidities that may contribute to later mortality differences. It is also possible that children in rural locations have less access to diagnostic resources, leading to delayed diagnosis and more advanced disease at presentation, as observed in adults (39). However, pediatric research to date has not necessarily supported this (21). Finally, rural-dwelling patients may experience greater difficulty accessing clinical trials or specialized treatment for relapsed or refractory cancer, access to which may mediate important survival disparities in some marginalized populations (40).

In adults with cancer, whereas clear disparities exist for rural patients, receiving treatment at an academic cancer center versus a community clinic is associated with improved survival and mitigates much of this risk (41). Such results are likely confounded by socioeconomic status or other factors, as rural adults traveling to central locations may be more affluent or have different functional status compared with those receiving local care. Given the centralized nature of pediatric cancer care (42), it is also likely that proportionately fewer rural children receive cancer treatment at non-tertiary centers compared with adults. However, our study did not explicitly confirm this, as the cancer registry data did not precisely define patients’ treating institutions. Further investigation will help elucidate mechanisms by which geographic survival disparities may develop.

Mechanisms underlying the observed effect modification between ADI and rurality are also unclear. Our observation of ADI-related survival disparities being greater in non-rural versus rural areas could indicate non-rural locations to be more sensitive to neighborhood poverty, whether due to the built environment, systemic discrimination or racism, public policy, or other factors. Conversely, survival disparities related to rurality—apparent in low ADI neighborhoods only—may suggest that rurality affects certain protective factors more commonly present in wealthier versus less-resourced areas. Finally, rural residence, itself associated with higher ADI (43), may be associated with other unmeasured socioeconomic disadvantage incompletely accounted for by ADI in our analyses. Ultimately, understanding these mechanisms will be critical to tailor interventions and policymaking to address these factors independently.

Interventions to address potential gaps are lacking in pediatrics, but initiatives to address other disparities may provide insight. For rural adults, telehealth and other strategies to decentralize specialty oncology care have been successful (44–46). In pediatric oncology, a program providing remote hospice support to rural populations was feasible (47). Similarly, increased participation from community centers for supportive care and oncologic emergencies could ameliorate difficulties that geographically remote families report during treatment (15). Rigorous financial support for housing and transportation is another promising strategy, the feasibility and effectiveness of which are currently being studied in pediatric populations with low household income (48). If effective, similar approaches could be considered for families traveling long distances for care.

This study has several limitations. First, socioeconomic status was measured at the census block group level but not at the household level, potentially understating the effect of household socioeconomic factors. Nevertheless, census block group data represent a more focused measurement of area-level socioeconomic status than used in many prior studies, reducing misclassification of neighborhood deprivation. Although our analysis adjusted for several important patient and disease factors—including treatment era, proxied by age at diagnosis and birth year—the extent of missing insurance data precluded its inclusion as a covariate. The relatively small samples sizes of some disease types should also prompt caution in the interpretation of our sub-analyses. In addition, our study time period consists largely of years preceding the Affordable Care Act, which may have benefitted healthcare access disproportionately for patients identified as rural and/or impoverished (49, 50), potentially limiting generalizability to the current era. Finally, measurements of census tract/block group data were also taken at a single point in time and may introduce misclassification. However, RUCA classifications in WA appear to be relatively stable over the study period (25).

In summary, we observed novel pediatric cancer survival disparities associated with rural residence in combination with the well-known impact of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage over a 20-year period in WA. We also observed effect modification between rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage with regard to mortality. Future investigation is necessary to confirm these results in other U.S. populations, and to examine how rurality and socioeconomic factors impact other health-related outcomes such as hospital utilization, treatment complications/morbidity, health-related quality of life, financial toxicity, and clinical trial enrollment. Additional analyses incorporating geographic distance to care as a possible mechanism underlying these disparities are also warranted. Such strategies may elucidate mechanisms and mediators of survival disparities. Investigation into the variability of effects by cancer type is also merited. Ultimately, interventions to address these disparities will be necessary.

E.J. Chow reports grants from Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

T.J.D. Ohlsen: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. D.R. Doody: Data curation, software, formal analysis, validation, methodology, project administration, writing–review and editing. B.A. Mueller: Data curation, funding acquisition, methodology, writing–review and editing. A.D. Desai: Conceptualization, supervision, methodology, writing–review and editing. E.J. Chow: Conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition, methodology, writing–review and editing.

This work was conducted with grant support from the Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer awarded (to B.A. Mueller and E.J. Chow), as well as cancer registry support from #HHSN261201300012I, N01-CN-005230, N01-CN-67009, N01-PC-35142, and HHSN261201000029C from the NCI SEER program, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, and CDC #DP12–1205 DP003899–02.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of publication fees. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.

1.
Cunningham
RM
,
Walton
MA
,
Carter
PM
.
The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States
.
N Engl J Med
2018
;
379
:
2468
75
.
2.
Siegel
RL
,
Miller
KD
,
Fuchs
HE
,
Jemal
A
.
Cancer statistics, 2021
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2021
;
71
:
7
33
.
3.
Aristizabal
P
,
Winestone
LE
,
Umaretiya
P
,
Bona
K
.
Disparities in pediatric oncology: the 21st century opportunity to improve outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer
.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book
2021
;
e315
26
.
4.
Johnson
KA
,
Aplenc
R
,
Bagatell
R
.
Survival by race among children with extracranial solid tumors in the United States between 1985 and 2005: survival by race in children with solid tumors
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2011
;
56
:
425
31
.
5.
Acharya
S
,
Hsieh
S
,
Shinohara
ET
,
DeWees
T
,
Frangoul
H
,
Perkins
SM
, et al
.
Effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia
.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2016
;
38
:
350
4
.
6.
Kahn
JM
,
Keegan
THM
,
Tao
L
,
Abrahão
R
,
Bleyer
A
,
Viny
AD
, et al
.
Racial disparities in the survival of American children, adolescents, and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and hodgkin lymphoma: survival outcomes in leukemia and lymphoma
.
Cancer
2016
;
122
:
2723
30
.
7.
Colton
MD
,
Goulding
D
,
Beltrami
A
,
Cost
C
,
Franklin
A
,
Cockburn
MG
, et al
.
A U.S. population-based study of insurance disparities in cancer survival among adolescents and young adults
.
Cancer Med
2019
;
8
:
4867
74
.
8.
Penumarthy
NL
,
Goldsby
RE
,
Shiboski
SC
,
Wustrack
R
,
Murphy
P
,
Winestone
LE
, et al
.
Insurance impacts survival for children, adolescents, and young adults with bone and soft tissue sarcomas
.
Cancer Med
2020
;
9
:
951
8
.
9.
Zheng
DJ
,
Li
A
,
Ma
C
,
Ribeiro
KB
,
Diller
L
,
Bona
K
, et al
.
Socioeconomic disparities in survival after high-risk neuroblastoma treatment with modern therapy
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2021
;
68
:
e29127
.
10.
Bona
K
,
Li
Y
,
Winestone
LE
,
Getz
KD
,
Huang
Y-S
,
Fisher
BT
, et al
.
Poverty and targeted immunotherapy: survival in children's oncology group clinical trials for high-risk neuroblastoma
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2021
;
113
:
282
91
.
11.
Schraw
JM
,
Peckham-Gregory
EC
,
Rabin
KR
,
Scheurer
ME
,
Lupo
PJ
,
Oluyomi
A
, et al
.
Area deprivation is associated with poorer overall survival in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2020
;
67
:
e28525
.
12.
Adel Fahmideh
M
,
Schraw
JM
,
Chintagumpala
M
,
Lupo
PJ
,
Oluyomi
AO
,
Scheurer
ME
, et al
.
Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and mortality in children with central nervous system tumors
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2021
;
30
:
2278
85
.
13.
Bona
K
,
Blonquist
TM
,
Neuberg
DS
,
Silverman
LB
,
Wolfe
J
.
Impact of socioeconomic status on timing of relapse and overall survival for children treated on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL consortium protocols (2000–2010)
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2016
;
63
:
1012
8
.
14.
Fluchel
MN
,
Kirchhoff
AC
,
Bodson
J
,
Sweeney
C
,
Edwards
SL
,
Ding
Q
, et al
.
Geography and the burden of care in pediatric cancers: pediatric oncology burden of care
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2014
;
61
:
1918
24
.
15.
Walling
EB
,
Fiala
M
,
Connolly
A
,
Drevenak
A
,
Gehlert
S
.
Challenges associated with living remotely from a pediatric cancer center: a qualitative study
.
JOP
2019
;
15
:
e219
29
.
16.
Tarnasky
AM
,
Olivere
LA
,
Ledbetter
L
,
Tracy
ET
.
Examining the effect of travel distance to pediatric cancer centers and rurality on survival and treatment experiences: a systematic review
.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2021
;
43
:
159
71
.
17.
Youlden
DR
,
Baade
PD
,
Valery
PC
,
Ward
LJ
,
Green
AC
,
Aitken
JF
, et al
.
Differentials in survival for childhood cancer in Australia by remoteness of residence and area disadvantage
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
1649
56
.
18.
Rotz
SJ
,
Wei
W
,
Thomas
SM
,
Hanna
R
.
Distance to treatment center is associated with survival in children and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia
.
Cancer
2020
;
126
:
5319
27
.
19.
Lemieux-Sarrasin
D
,
Pelland-Marcotte
M-C
,
Simonyan
D
,
Martineau
É
,
Desbiens
B
,
Michon
B
, et al
.
Distance to the pediatric oncology center does not affect survival in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from CYP-C
.
Leuk Lymphoma
2021
;
62
:
960
6
.
20.
Hsieh
MH
,
Meng
MV
,
Walsh
TJ
,
Matthay
KK
,
Baskin
LS
.
Increasing incidence of neuroblastoma and potentially higher associated mortality of children from nonmetropolitan areas: analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database
.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2009
;
31
:
942
6
.
21.
Austin
MT
,
Nguyen
H
,
Eberth
JM
,
Chang
Y
,
Heczey
A
,
Hughes
DP
, et al
.
Health disparities are important determinants of outcome for children with solid tumor malignancies
.
J Pediatr Surg
2015
;
50
:
161
6
.
22.
Delavar
A
,
Feng
Q
,
Johnson
KJ
.
Rural/urban residence and childhood and adolescent cancer survival in the United States
.
Cancer
2019
;
125
:
261
8
.
23.
Hall
SA
,
Kaufman
JS
,
Ricketts
TC
.
Defining urban and rural areas in U.S. epidemiologic studies
.
J Urban Health
2006
;
83
:
162
75
.
24.
Cossman
RE
,
Cossman
JS
,
Cosby
AG
,
Reavis
RM
.
Reconsidering the rural–urban continuum in rural health research: a test of stable relationships using mortality as a health measure
.
Popul Res Policy Rev
2008
;
27
:
459
76
.
25.
Hailu
A
,
Wasserman
C
.
Guidelines for Using Rural–Urban Classification Systems for Community Health Assessment [Internet]
.
Washington State Department of Health
;
2016
Oct. Available from
: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1500/RUCAGuide.pdf
26.
Mueller
BA
,
Doody
DR
,
Weiss
NS
,
Chow
EJ
.
Hospitalization and mortality among pediatric cancer survivors: a population-based study
.
Cancer Causes Control
2018
;
29
:
1047
57
.
27.
U.S. Census Bureau
.
Geographic Areas Reference Manual (GARM) [Internet]
.
U.S. Department of Commerce
;
1994
.
Available from
: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geographic-areas-reference-manual.html
28.
Moss
JL
,
Stinchcomb
DG
,
Yu
M
.
Providing higher resolution indicators of rurality in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database: implications for patient privacy and research
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2019
;
28
:
1409
16
.
29.
Kind
AJH
,
Buckingham
WR
.
Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible—the neighborhood atlas
.
N Engl J Med
2018
;
378
:
2456
8
.
30.
Hess
KR
.
Graphical methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption in Cox regression
.
Statist Med
1995
;
14
:
1707
23
.
31.
Therneau
TM
.
A Package for Survival Analysis in R [Internet]
.
2022
.
Available from
: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival
32.
Zahnd
WE
,
James
AS
,
Jenkins
WD
,
Izadi
SR
,
Fogleman
AJ
,
Steward
DE
, et al
.
Rural–urban differences in cancer incidence and trends in the United States
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2018
;
27
:
1265
74
.
33.
Blake
KD
,
Moss
JL
,
Gaysynsky
A
,
Srinivasan
S
,
Croyle
RT
.
Making the case for investment in rural cancer control: an analysis of rural cancer incidence, mortality, and funding trends
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2017
;
26
:
992
7
.
34.
Delavar
A
,
Al Jammal
OM
,
Maguire
KR
,
Wali
AR
,
Pham
MH
.
The impact of rural residence on adult brain cancer survival in the United States
.
J Neurooncol
2019
;
144
:
535
43
.
35.
Siegel
DA
,
Richardson
LC
,
Henley
SJ
,
Wilson
RJ
,
Dowling
NF
,
Weir
HK
, et al
.
Pediatric cancer mortality and survival in the United States, 2001–2016
.
Cancer
2020
;
126
:
4379
89
.
36.
U.S. Census Bureau
.
U.S. Census Data and Statistics
,
2010
[
Internet
].
U.S. Department of Commerce
;
Available from
: www.data.census.gov/
37.
Nardone
A
,
Casey
JA
,
Morello-Frosch
R
,
Mujahid
M
,
Balmes
JR
,
Thakur
N
.
Associations between historical residential redlining and current age-adjusted rates of emergency department visits due to asthma across eight cities in California: an ecological study
.
The Lancet Planetary Health
2020
;
4
:
e24
31
.
38.
Tsimicalis
A
,
Stevens
B
,
Ungar
WJ
,
McKeever
P
,
Greenberg
M
,
Agha
M
, et al
.
A mixed method approach to describe the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by families of children with cancer: out-of-pocket costs
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2013
;
60
:
438
45
.
39.
Nguyen-Pham
S
,
Leung
J
,
McLaughlin
D
.
Disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in urban and rural adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Ann Epidemiol
2014
;
24
:
228
35
.
40.
Aristizabal
P
.
Diverse populations and enrollment in pediatric cancer clinical trials: challenges and opportunities
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2020
;
67
:
e28296
.
41.
Unger
JM
,
Moseley
A
,
Symington
B
,
Chavez-MacGregor
M
,
Ramsey
SD
,
Hershman
DL
, et al
.
Geographic distribution and survival outcomes for rural patients with cancer treated in clinical trials
.
JAMA Netw Open
2018
;
1
:
e181235
.
42.
Delamater
PL
,
Uberti
JP
.
Geographic access to hematopoietic cell transplantation services in the United States
.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2016
;
51
:
241
8
.
43.
Muluk
S
,
Sabik
L
,
Chen
Q
,
Jacobs
B
,
Sun
Z
,
Drake
C
, et al
.
Disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists
.
Health Serv Res
2022
;
57
:
1035
44
.
44.
Morris
BB
,
Rossi
B
,
Fuemmeler
B
.
The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: a systematic review
.
J Rural Health
2021
;
38
:
493
511
.
45.
Sabesan
S
,
Kelly
J
,
Evans
R
,
Larkins
S
.
A tele-oncology model replacing face-to-face specialist cancer care: perspectives of patients in North Queensland
.
J Telemed Telecare
2014
;
20
:
207
11
.
46.
Jhaveri
D
,
Larkins
S
,
Kelly
J
,
Sabesan
S
.
Remote chemotherapy supervision model for rural cancer care: perspectives of health professionals
.
Eur J Cancer Care
2016
;
25
:
93
8
.
47.
Weaver
MS
,
Shostrom
VK
,
Neumann
ML
,
Robinson
JE
,
Hinds
PS
.
Homestead together: pediatric palliative care telehealth support for rural children with cancer during home-based end-of-life care
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2021
;
68
:
e28921
.
48.
Umaretiya
PJ
,
Revette
A
,
Seo
A
,
Flamand
Y
,
Ilcisin
L
,
Zheng
DJ
, et al
.
PediCARE: development of a poverty-targeted intervention for pediatric cancer
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2021
;
68
:
e29195
.
49.
Buettgens
M
,
Blavin
F
,
Pan
C
.
The Affordable Care Act reduced income inequality in the US: study examines the ACA and income inequality
.
Health Aff
2021
;
40
:
121
9
.
50.
Soni
A
,
Hendryx
M
,
Simon
K
.
Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and insurance coverage in rural and urban areas: Medicaid expansion and insurance coverage
.
J Rural Health
2017
;
33
:
217
26
.