ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026
Survivability in patients with rare sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma variants: exploring the influence of rural-urban continuum codes and social determinants of health in the USA.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examined survival outcomes in patients with rare sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma, excluding rectal cancer, with a focus on the combined effects of rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) and median household income (MHI).
methodsWe analyzed the SEER dataset, which includes 93,020 patients diagnosed with this condition. Survival differences were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox models. Interaction effects between RUCC and MHI were evaluated, and a nomogram was developed to predict five- and 10-year survival probabilities after adjusting for covariates, with sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness.
resultsA higher degree of rurality was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality. Patients in RUCC 4 (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05-1.22) and RUCC 5 (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.06-1.23) had elevated risks compared with RUCC 1. Income modified these associations. Patients in RUCC 2 with MHI above $100,000 had an 8% lower mortality risk (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.83-0.98) than those in RUCC 1 with MHI below $70,000. Similarly, RUCC 4 patients with MHI $90,000-$100,000 experienced a 15% reduction (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98). Nomogram predictions indicated the most favorable survival in RUCC 2 with MHI > $100,000 (5 years > 60%; 1 -years ~ 55%), slightly lower survival in RUCC 1 with the same income (5 years 58%; 10 years 52%), and poorest survival in RUCC 4 with MHI < $70,000 (5 years 54%; 10 years 47%), with sensitivity analyses confirming consistent findings.
conclusionSurvival outcomes were significantly influenced by both place of residence and socioeconomic status, with the highest survival observed among patients with higher MHI in RUCC 2 and the poorest outcomes among low-income patients in RUCC 4. These results highlight the compounded impact of rurality and socioeconomic disadvantage, underscoring the need for targeted interventions-including strengthened oncology infrastructure, and reduced structural barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.