
==== Front
Bone Marrow Transplant
Bone Marrow Transplant
Bone Marrow Transplantation
0268-3369
1476-5365
Nature Publishing Group UK London

38871963
2327
10.1038/s41409-024-02327-x
Article
Disparities in access to hematopoietic cell transplant persist at a transplant center
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1538-1884
Shoag Jamie shoagj2@ccf.org

1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2896-1113
Rotz Seth J. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-309X
Hanna Rabi 1
Buhtoiarov Ilia 1
Dewey Elizabeth N. 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6542-4048
Bruckman David 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-6539
Hamilton Betty K. 3
1 https://ror.org/03xjacd83 grid.239578.2 0000 0001 0675 4725 Division of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Blood & Marrow Transplantation, Pediatric Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA
2 https://ror.org/03xjacd83 grid.239578.2 0000 0001 0675 4725 Center for Populations Health Research, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA
3 https://ror.org/03xjacd83 grid.239578.2 0000 0001 0675 4725 Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH USA
13 6 2024
13 6 2024
2024
59 9 12581264
8 1 2024
30 5 2024
3 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Disparities in access to hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) are well established. Prior studies have identified barriers, such as referral and travel to an HCT center, that occur before consultation. Whether differences in access persist after evaluation at an HCT center remains unknown. The psychosocial assessment for transplant eligibility may impede access to transplant after evaluation. We performed a single-center retrospective review of 1102 patients who underwent HCT consultation. We examined the association between race/ethnicity (defined as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Other) and socioeconomic status (defined by zip code median household income quartiles and insurance type) with receipt of HCT and Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation (PACT) scores. Race/ethnicity was associated with receipt of HCT (p = 0.02) with non-Hispanic Whites comprising a higher percentage of HCT recipients than non-recipients. Those living in higher income quartiles and non-publicly insured were more likely to receive HCT (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). PACT scores were strongly associated with income quartiles (p < 0.001) but not race/ethnicity or insurance type. Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status impact receipt of HCT among patients evaluated at an HCT center. Further investigation as to whether the psychosocial eligibility evaluation limits access to HCT in vulnerable populations is warranted.

Subject terms

Health services
Public health
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is a curative therapy for many malignant and non-malignant diseases [1]. With advancements in conditioning regimens and donor sources, the number of patients eligible to receive HCT in the United States is increasing [2]. However, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities continue to limit access to patients who would otherwise benefit [1–4].

Prior studies have established marked disparities in access to HCT [5–8]. However, there is limited knowledge as to where in the journey from diagnosis to transplant inequities occur (Fig. 1). Thus far, identified barriers, such as referral [9] and travel [10] to a bone marrow transplant center, occur prior to HCT evaluation [2]. Nevertheless, even amongst those referred for consultation, bias may interfere with the receipt of a transplant via the eligibility determination.Fig. 1 Progression map to hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT).

a Patient journey through HCT. b Focus of prior research studies. c Focus of this study.

The HCT eligibility determination is a multi-disciplinary decision that weighs the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with HCT compared with those of alternative treatment options [11]. Eligibility assessments consider several disease-, patient-, and donor-related factors that influence the anticipated success of transplant [12]. The National Marrow Donor Program also recommends a comprehensive psychosocial assessment that considers any issues that would adversely influence transplant outcomes [12]. The goal of the psychosocial assessment is to ensure patients have the necessary support to succeed both during and after the HCT process [13]. Due to a lack of prospective data or comprehensive consensus guidelines, psychosocial eligibility assessments vary across transplant centers and determination is made on a case-by-case basis [11, 12, 14].

The Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation (PACT) score is validated and routinely used psychosocial evaluation in solid organ transplantations (SOT) given a limited supply of organs [15]. PACT is an 8-item rating scale addressing social support, psychological health, lifestyle factors, understanding of the transplant process, and support [16]. The final score (ranging from 0 to 4) also includes the assessor’s impression of patient compliance, substance abuse, and coping strategies [16]. Higher PACT scores (lower-risk patients) are associated with improved survival in SOT recipients [17]. However, data on the influence of PACT scores on HCT outcomes are conflicting. Some studies report an association between specific psychosocial factors with overall survival or secondary medical outcomes [18–21]. However, others found no association when controlling for transplant-related factors [18–22].

Here, we investigated the association of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomics with the likelihood of proceeding to HCT among candidates evaluated for transplant and differences in PACT scores among transplant recipients. This study was performed using the Cleveland Clinic Cancer Center Unified Transplant Database (UTD). The UTD is an institutional clinical research database of all patients evaluated for HCT, including those who do not proceed to transplant. Large national registries typically do not include detailed disease or patient-related information necessary to determine whether HCT consultation was indicated, while HCT registries collect comprehensive information on patients who receive HCT but do not have information on patients who do not [2]. Therefore, the UTD provides a unique opportunity to address a critical knowledge gap of potential disparities in receipt of HCT after consultation. Our hypothesis is that disparities in access to transplants exist even after HCT evaluation and that PACT scores differ among those transplanted.

Methods

Data source and cohort

A retrospective review of UTD records was performed under the guidance of the Cleveland Clinic’s Institutional Review Board. Informed consent for the collection of patient data was obtained in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Pediatric and adult subjects who underwent consultation for HCT between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Some patients had multiple consultations. For these subjects, a single record was selected consisting of the consultation date closest to the transplant date. For patients with multiple consultations who did not proceed to transplant, the most recent consultation record was selected.

Characteristics collected included age at consultation, sex (male or female), race, ethnicity, insurance status, median income quartile by zip code at the time of assessment, and vital status. Among patients who received HCT, PACT score, HCT-CI (hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index) score, Karnofsky performance score, and diagnosis were collected. All scores were assigned prior to transplant during the eligibility determination.

Definitions

Race and ethnicity were self-reported by patients and obtained from registration data in the electronic medical record. Race and ethnicity data were used to create a 4-level “race/ethnicity” variable which included Hispanic (of any race), Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, and Other. This was done to allow explicit analysis of racial and ethnic identity as social constructs that serve as proxies for individual and collective disparities due to structural racism [23, 24]. Small sample sizes precluded modeling of other individual racial categories.

Socioeconomic status (SES) was proxied by insurance status and median income by zip code. Insurance status was dichotomized into public (including Medicare and Medicaid) and private/other insurance. Median income by zip code was obtained from the 2018 Census Table (5-year estimates from the American Community Survey) and linked to the patient zip codes. Postal codes from Canada and other areas were excluded. Median incomes were separated into quartile ranges found in the 2018 National Inpatient Survey data element definitions from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project [25]. Quartiles 1–4 reflect the poorest to wealthiest populations, respectively. Median income per zip code was chosen as the best measure since addresses were not available for geocoding and determination of the Area Deprivation Index [26].

PACT scores were analyzed ordinally from 0 through 4 as described above. HCT-CI scores were dichotomized into <3 (low/intermediate risk for non-relapse mortality) and ≥3 (high risk for non-relapse mortality). Karnofsky scores were dichotomized as ≤80 or >80. Common diagnoses were grouped into 4 categories including leukemia; myeloma/amyloidosis; myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/ myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)/ myelofibrosis; and lymphoma.

Statistical analysis

Data was reported as frequencies and percentages. Central measures were presented as means ± standard errors or 95% confidence limits or as medians with 25th and 75th percentiles. For comparisons of means, medians, and categorical tests of association, we applied the Satterthwaite t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA), Wilcoxon Rank Sum or Kruskal–Wallis test, Pearson’s or Fisher’s Exact chi-square test as appropriate. PACT values were compared across two-level factors using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenzel (CMH) test or the nonzero correlation test (NCT) with 1 degree of freedom. The CMH test for trend was applied to test an ordinal trend across PACT scores across other categorical factors; the CMH nonzero correlation test (NCT) requires both variables to be ordinal. Significance was set at p < 0.05 unless noted when adjusted for multiple comparisons.

Results

Cohort demographics

We identified a total of 1102 unique records of patients who underwent HCT consultation. The median age at consultation was 60.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 50.5, 67.0 years). The cohort was 40.9% female. By race/ethnicity, the cohort was 2.3% Hispanic, 8.9% non-Hispanic Black, 85.5% non-Hispanic White, and 3.3% Other. Most patients (63.2%) had private/other insurance. By quartiles of median income for patients’ zip code, 22.1% were from quartile (Q) 1 ($1–45,999), 31.3% from Q2 ($46,000–58,999), 31.8% from Q3 ($59,000–78,999), and 14.9% from Q4 ($79,000+). At the time of data collection, 43.2% were deceased.

Receipt of HCT

Table 1 shows the distribution of patients by receipt of HCT. Over half (59.5%) of patients had a transplant in the study period. Race/ethnicity was associated with receipt of transplant (p = 0.02) such that non-Hispanic White patients comprised a higher percentage of transplant recipients (87%) than non-recipients (83.3%). Neighborhood household income was associated with receipt of HCT (p = 0.02). Patients in the lowest income quartile accounted for 26.3% of those who did not receive HCT but only 19.2% of those receiving HCT. In contrast, patients in the highest income quartile accounted for 13% of those who did not receive HCT but 16.2% of those who received HCT. Insurance type was also associated with receipt of HCT (p < 0.001). Patients who were publicly insured accounted for 47.2% of those not transplanted but only 30.4% of those who were transplanted. Age was also associated with receipt of HCT (p < 0.001) with a higher median age among those who did not receive HCT (62.7, IQR 53.1–68.8) compared to those who received HCT (59.3, IQR 49.4–66.1). Notably, age and insurance were not observed to be confounded (interaction term p = 0.17) when an age and insurance type interaction term was included in a model testing receipt of HCT. More than half (52.6%) of patients who were assessed but did not receive HCT had died by the time data was collected. More than one-third (36.8%) of those assessed and receiving an initial transplant died between receipt of the transplant and data collection.Table 1 Cohort demographics by receipt of HCT.

Factor	Total (N = 1102)	Did not receive HCT (N = 446)	Received HCT (N = 656)	p-value	
Age at most recent assessment	60.6 [50.5, 67.0]	62.7 [53.1, 68.8]	59.3 [49.4, 66.1]	<0.001a	
Sex				0.26b	
     Female	449 (40.9)	172 (38.8)	277 (42.2)		
     Male	650 (59.1)	271 (61.2)	379 (57.8)		
Race/Ethnicity*				0.02b	
     Hispanic, any race	25 (2.3)	7 (1.6)	18 (2.7)		
     Non-Hispanic Black	97 (8.9)	44 (10.1)	53 (8.1)		
     Non-Hispanic White	934 (85.5)	363 (83.3)	571 (87.0)		
     Other	36 (3.3)	22 (5.0)	14 (2.1)		
Insurance Type				<0.001b	
     Public (Medicare/caid)	364 (36.8)	177 (47.2)	187 (30.4)		
     Private/Other	625 (63.2)	198 (52.8)	427 (69.5)		
Zip code median income quartile (Q)				0.02a	
     Q1 ($1–45,999)	233 (22.1)	113 (26.3)	120 (19.2)		
     Q2 ($46,000–58,999)	330 (31.3)	128 (29.8)	202 (32.3)		
     Q3 ($59,000–78,999)	335 (31.8)	133 (30.9)	202 (32.3)		
     Q4 ($79,000+)	157 (14.9)	56 (13.0)	101 (16.2)		
Patient Deceased				<0.001b	
     No	623 (56.8)	209 (47.4)	414 (63.2)		
     Yes	473 (43.2)	232 (52.6)	241 (36.8)		
Statistics presented as Median [P25, P75], N (column %).

Statistically significant p-values are in bold.

*Data not available for all subjects. Missing values: Race/Ethnicity = 10.

p-values:

aWilcoxon Rank Sum test.

bPearson’s chi-square test.

PACT scores

Ordinal PACT scores by patient demographics are shown in Table 2. Higher PACT scores were associated with older median age at assessment (p = 0.09). PACT scores did not differ in distribution by race/ethnicity (CMH test for trend p = 0.45) or insurance type (CMH test for trend p = 0.10). However, a strong bias was observed between median income quartiles and ordinal PACT scores (NCT for trend p < 0.001, p = 0.009 overall association). Higher PACT scores were strongly associated with higher median income for the patient zip code and lower PACT scores were strongly associated with lower median income for the patient zip code.Table 2 Ordinal trends of PACT scores among HCT recipients by demographics.

Factor	PACT score	p-value	
1	2	3	4	
Age at most recent assessment	49.7 [36.8, 50.1]	57.2 [48.4, 64.0]	59.9 [49.9, 65.9]	60.3 [49.9, 67.1]	0.09d	
Sex					0.45b	
     Female	0 (0)	24 (9.9)	149 (61.6)	69 (28.5)		
     Male	1 (0.3)	37 (11.5)	192 (59.6)	92 (28.6)		
Race/Ethnicity					0.45b	
     Hispanic, Any Race	0 (0)	0 (0)	8 (66.7)	4 (33.3)		
     Non-Hispanic Black	0 (0)	8 (18.6)	27 (62.8)	8 (18.6)		
     Non-Hispanic White	1 (0.2)	52 (10.4)	302 (60.4)	145 (29.0)		
     Other	0 (0)	1 (11.1)	4 (44.4)	4 (44.4)		
Insurance type	
     Public (Medicare/caid)	0 (0)	26 (14.9)	103 (59.2)	45 (25.9)	0.10b	
     Private/Other	1 (0.2)	36 (9.1)	242 (61.0)	118 (29.7)	
Zip code median income quartile (Q)	
     Q1 ($1–45,999)	0 (0)	26 (23.1)	62 (54.9)	25 (22.1)	<0.01a < 0.001c	
     Q2 ($46,000–58,999)	2 (1.1)	25 (13.3)	111 (59.0)	50 (26.6)	
     Q3 ($59,000–78,999)	1 (0.5)	16 (8.2)	122 (62.6)	56 (28.7)	
     Q4 ($79,000+)	0 (0)	8 (8.3)	54 (56.2)	34 (35.4)	
Patient deceased	
     No	2 (0.5)	48 (12.4)	223 (57.8)	113 (29.3)	0.59b	
     Yes	1 (0.4)	23 (10.3)	146 (65.2)	54 (24.1)		
Data presented on HCT recipients. PACT data not available for all subjects. Statistics presented as median [interquartile range, IQR] or N (row %).

Statistically significant p-values are in bold.

Categorical tests rechecked for significance excluding PACT score = 1.

p-values:

aPearson’s chi-square test.

bCochran–Mantel–Haenszel chi-square ordinal test for trend.

cCMH nonzero correlation test (NCT) for ordinal trend.

dKruskal–Wallis test.

HCT-CI scores, Karnofsky performance sores, and diagnoses

To assess whether physical health differed by demographics, we investigated differences in baseline HCT-CI and Karnofsky performance scores (Tables 3 and 4, respectively). There was no difference in HCT-CI score ≥3 by age (p = 0.28), sex (p = 0.54), race/ethnicity (p = 0.28), insurance type (p = 0.07), or median income quartile (p = 0.24). There was no difference in Karnofsky performance score >80 by sex (p = 0.28), race/ethnicity (p = 0.29), or median income quartile (p = 0.23). Karnosky score differed by age (p = 0.09) and insurance status (p < 0.001) such that a younger median age at assessment and private/other insurance was associated with Karnofsky performance score >80.Table 3 HCT-CI scores among HCT recipients by demographics.

Factor	Total (N = 636)	HCT-CI < 3 (N = 307)	HCT-CI ≥ 3 (N = 329)	p-value	
Age at most recent assessment*	59.5 [49.7, 66.3]	59.2 [49.0, 65.8]	59.9 [49.9, 66.4]	0.28a	
Sex				0.54b	
    Female	268 (42.1)	133 (43.3)	135 (40.9)		
    Male	369 (57.9)	174 (56.7)	195 (59.1)		
Race/Ethnicity*				0.28b	
    Hispanic, any race	17 (2.7)	6 (2.0)	11 (3.3)		
    Non-Hispanic Black	50 (7.9)	20 (6.5)	30 (9.1)		
    Non-Hispanic White	555 (87.3)	276 (89.9)	279 (84.8)		
    Other	14 (2.2)	5 (1.6)	9 (2.7)		
Insurance Type*				0.07b	
    Public (Medicare/caid)	183 (30.7)	80 (27.2)	103 (34.1)		
    Private/Other	413 (69.3)	214 (72.8)	199 (65.9)		
Zip code median income quartile (Q)				0.24b	
    Q1 ($1–45,999)	114 (18.8)	47 (16.2)	67 (21.3)		
    Q2 ($46,000–58,999)	194 (32.0)	90 (30.9)	104 (33.0)		
    Q3 ($59,000–78,999)	199 (32.8)	105 (36.1)	94 (29.8)		
    Q4 ($79,000+)	99 (16.3)	49 (16.8)	50 (15.9)		
Data presented on HCT recipients. HCT-CI score data not available for all subjects.

*Data not available for all subjects. Missing values: Race/Ethnicity = 10; Insurance Type = 40; PACT score = 32.

Statistics presented as N (column %).

p-values:

aWilcoxon Rank Sum test.

bPearson’s chi-square test.

Table 4 Karnofsky performance scores among HCT recipients by demographics.

Factor, n (%)	Total (N = 648)	Karnofsky > 80 (N = 476)	Karnofsky ≤ 80 (N = 172)	p-value	
Age at most recent assessment	59.4 [49.4, 66.1]	58. [48.7, 66.1]	60.6 [53.3, 66.0]	0.09a	
Sex				0.28b	
     Female	275 (42.4)	196 (41.2)	79 (45.9)		
     Male	373 (57.6)	280 (58.8)	93 (54.1)		
Race/Ethnicity				0.29c	
     Hispanic, any race	18 (2.8)	11 (2.3)	7 (4.1)		
     Non-Hispanic Black	51 (7.9)	38 (8.0)	13 (7.6)		
     Non-Hispanic White	565 (87.2)	419 (88.0)	146 (84.9)		
     Other	14 (2.2)	8 (1.7)	6 (3.5)		
Insurance Type*				<0.001b	
     Public (Medicare/caid)	186 (30.7)	121 (27.4)	65 (39.4)		
     Private/Other	420 (69.3)	320 (72.6)	100 (60.6)		
Zip code median income quartile (Q)				0.23b	
     Q1 ($1–45,999)	119 (19.3)	78 (17.3)	41 (24.6)		
     Q2 ($46,000–58,999)	201 (32.5)	151 (33.5)	50 (29.9)		
     Q3 ($59,000–78,999)	198 (32.0)	149 (33.0)	49 (29.3)		
     Q4 ($79,000+)	100 (16.2)	73 (16.2)	27 (16.2)		
Data presented on HCT recipients. Karnofsky performance score data not available for all subjects.

Statistically significant p-values are in bold.

*Data not available for all subjects. Missing values: Age = 1; Race/Ethnicity = 10; Insurance type = 42; Race/Ethnicity = 10.

Statistics presented as Median [25th, 75th percentile], N (column %).

p-values:

aWilcoxon Rank Sum test.

bPearson’s chi-square test.

cFisher’s Exact test (two-tailed).

Finally, we assessed whether there were differences in diagnosis by demographics (Table 5). Younger median age was associated with leukemia and lymphoma diagnoses versus myeloma/amyloidosis, MDS/MPN, and myelofibrosis (pairwise comparison, p < 0.05). Sex was associated with diagnosis (p = 0.02) such that males comprised a higher percentage of lymphoma versus leukemia diagnoses (pairwise comparison, p < 0.05). Race/ethnicity was also associated with diagnosis (p = 0.01). There was no significant association between diagnoses and insurance type (p = 0.24) or quartiles of median household income (p = 0.45).Table 5 Association between most common diagnoses for HCT recipients by demographics.

		Diagnosis	
Factor	Total (N = 629)	Leukemia (N = 171)	Myeloma/amyloidosis (N = 221)	MDS/MPN/myelofibrosis (N = 63)	Lymphoma (N = 174)	p-value	
Age at most recent assessment*	59.9 [50.2, 66.3]	59.0 [45.2, 64.7]e,f	61.6 [54.5, 67.2]d,g	63.9 [57.6, 67.8]d,g	56.9 [47.4, 64.3]e,f	<0.001b	
Sex						0.02c	
    Female	265 (42.1)	82 (48.0)h	98 (44.3)	29 (46.0)	56 (32.2)e		
    Male	364 (57.9)	89 (52.0)	123 (55.7)	34 (54.0)	118 (67.8)		
Race/Ethnicity						0.01a	
    Hispanic, any race	15 (2.4)	5 (2.9)	5 (2.3)	0 (0)	5 (2.9)		
    Non-Hispanic Black	49 (7.8)	7 (4.1)	31 (14.0)	4 (6.4)	7 (4.0)		
    Non-Hispanic White	553 (87.9)	155 (90.6)	182 (82.4)	58 (92.1)	158 (90.8)		
    All other groups	12 (1.9)	1 (2.3)	3 (1.4)	1 (1.6)	4 (2.3)		
Insurance Type*						0.24c	
    Public (Medicare/caid)	181 (30.7)	43 (28.5)	75 (34.9)	21 (34.4)	42 (25.9)		
    Private/Other	408 (69.3)	108 (71.5)	140 (65.1)	40 (65.6)	120 (74.1)		
Zip code median household income quartile (Q)						0.45c	
    Q1 ($1–45,999)	116 (19.3)	28 (17.9)	51 (23.5)	8 (13.6)	29 (17.2)		
    Q2 ($46,000–58,999)	196 (32.6)	58 (37.2)	58 (26.7)	21 (35.6)	59 (34.9)		
    Q3 ($59,000–78,999)	191 (31.8)	47 (30.1)	73 (33.6)	21 (35.6)	50 (29.6)		
    Q4 ($79,000+)	98 (16.3)	23 (14.7)	35 (16.1)	9 (15.3)	31 (18.3)		
Data presented on HCT recipients. Diagnosis data not available for all subjects.

Statistically significant p-values are in bold.

*Data not available for all subjects. Missing values: Age at assessment = 1; Quartile, median income by zip = 31; Insurance type = 40.

Statistics presented as Median [P25, P75], N (column %).

p-values:

aANOVA.

bKruskal–Wallis test.

cPearson’s chi-square test.

dSignificantly different from Leukemia.

eSignificantly different from Myeloma/amyloidosis.

fSignificantly different from MDS/MPN/myelofibrosis.

gSignificantly different from Lymphoma.

Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were done using Bonferroni adjustment.

Discussion

Patients from historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups, those residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and who are publicly insured are less likely to receive HCT even after being evaluated at an HCT center. A strong income bias in PACT scores raises concern as to whether the psychosocial assessment is systematically impeding access to HCT in poorer populations. Encouragingly, race/ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with PACT scores. This contrasts with a previous study by Hong et. al. limited to adult allogeneic transplants which reported patients of the White race were nearly 3 times more likely to have higher PACT scores than those of the non-White race [18]. While differences across race/ethnicity and insurance type may be partially explained by differences in diagnosis and baseline physical health, respectively, we did not find any association between neighborhood income and HCT-CI score, Karnofsky performance score, or diagnosis.

Limitations of this study include the inability to definitively determine the reason patients were not transplanted, the recommended transplant type or diagnoses for those who did not proceed to HCT, and the specific psychosocial barriers contributing to differences in PACT scores. Additionally, the demographics of the assessors were unknown and therefore we were unable to assess concordance or discordance between the race and ethnicity of the assessor and patient. Our cohort was primarily non-Hispanic White, and small cell size among Hispanics and all other groups may have weakened our ability to discern differences using pairwise comparisons across diagnoses. We used a neighborhood-level proxy for individual socioeconomic status and did not have access to more granular measures of adverse social determinants of health that may underly the observed disparities. Of note, the cohort had a high mortality rate, particularly among those who did not receive transplants. Mortality is a biased indicator since patients who were assessed but not transplanted may have died before their transplant whereas the data selection of an initial transplant prevented this competing risk. Lastly, this was a single-center study. While we expect that similar disparities exist across centers, multi-institutional studies are needed to support our results.

This study had several strengths. Foremost, our dataset uniquely provided information on patients who did not proceed with HCT. We also had access to an institutionally uniform psychosocial scoring system for patients receiving HCT. The analysis was performed post-2012 when haploidentical HCT became widely available at this institution to limit racial and ethnic disparities in eligibility due to a lack of available donors. This period also avoids the COVID-19 pandemic wherein clinical practices were altered.

There are important donor, recipient, and caregiver considerations in taking a patient to HCT [11]. Survivors of HCT may be cured of their primary disease but suffer other serious complications, such as infertility, graft-versus-host disease, secondary malignancies, financial toxicity, and cognitive impairments [27]. Thus a rigorous eligibility assessment is warranted.

Other rating scales used to determine transplant eligibility such as the HCT-CI, have discrete criteria to determine the severity of comorbidities [28]. For example, a patient with a body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m2 receives an additional 1 point on the HCT-CI [28]. This helps ensure uniform evaluation of BMI and provides a target BMI to help patients achieve prior to transplant. Contrastingly, the parameters of psychosocial assessments are more subjective. A survey study of HCT professionals given patient vignettes with psychosocial information found a complete lack of unanimity in eligibility determinations [29]. Respondents’ determinations were found to be primarily based on their perceived severity of the psychosocial issue [29].

Inarguably, psychosocial factors have the potential to affect HCT outcomes. For example, patients with crowded living spaces during an extremely immunocompromised state are more likely to have infectious complications [30]. Patients without financial stability are less likely to have a full-time caregiver who can take leave from work [31]. However, instead of making these conditions prohibitive to care, efforts should be devoted to help remove modifiable barriers.

Recently, the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and the National Marrow Donor Program formed the ACCESS initiative aimed to address recurring inequities in access and outcomes from HCT [32]. Among its initiatives, a poverty committee was tasked to identify psychosocial and financial resources available for HCT candidates [32]. This initiative represents an opportune way to use PACT scoring to collect psychosocial data at the time of HCT assessment and develop an individualized resource toolkit to address psychosocial concerns that may influence transplant outcomes. Future directions should prospectively review whether provisions of psychosocial support services implemented pre-HCT improve PACT scores among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and whether an improvement in PACT scores leads to more equitable access to transplants. In an era of expanding donor pools, indications for transplant, reduced intensity conditioning, and cellular therapy [33], it is the duty of our HCT centers to ensure these assessments are used to improve outcomes rather than limit access to transplants for vulnerable populations.

Author contributions

JS conceptualized the study, obtained the data, developed the methodology, and wrote and edited the manuscript; SJR, RH and IB helped conceptualize the study and edited the manuscript; END helped develop the methodology, curate the data, and perform formal analysis and validation of results; DB developed the methodology, led the data curation and management, performed the formal analysis and validation of results, and edited the manuscript; BKH helped conceptualize the study, edited the manuscript and provided mentor supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The individual-level data underlying this article cannot be shared due to the privacy of those who participated in the study. Summary-level data without individual-level data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The clinical database utilized in this study is approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (4927). All patients provided written informed consent for data reporting. This study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (22-873), where the study was conducted.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Majhail NS Omondi NA Denzen E Murphy EA Rizzo JD Access to hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2010 16 1070 5 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.12.529 20036337
Majhail NS, Omondi NA, Denzen E, Murphy EA, Rizzo JD. Access to hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:1070–5. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.12.529.20036337 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.12.529
2. Hong S Majhail NS Increasing access to allotransplants in the United States: the impact of race, geography, and socioeconomics Hematology 2021 2021 275 80 10.1182/hematology.2021000259 34889386
Hong S, Majhail NS. Increasing access to allotransplants in the United States: the impact of race, geography, and socioeconomics. Hematology. 2021;2021:275–80. 10.1182/hematology.2021000259.34889386 10.1182/hematology.2021000259
3. Hamilton BK Rybicki L Sekeres M Kalaycio M Hanna R Sobecks R Racial differences in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes among African Americans and whites Bone Marrow Transplant 2015 50 834 9 10.1038/bmt.2015.44 25798671
Hamilton BK, Rybicki L, Sekeres M, Kalaycio M, Hanna R, Sobecks R, et al. Racial differences in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes among African Americans and whites. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50:834–9. 10.1038/bmt.2015.44.25798671 10.1038/bmt.2015.44
4. Hong S Rybicki LA Corrigan D Schold JD Majhail NS Community risk score for evaluating health care disparities in hematopoietic cell transplantation Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2018 24 877 9 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.12.800 29292058
Hong S, Rybicki LA, Corrigan D, Schold JD, Majhail NS. Community risk score for evaluating health care disparities in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:877–9. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.12.800.29292058 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.12.800
5. Joshua TV Rizzo JD Zhang MJ Hari PN Kurian S Pasquini M Access to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: effect of race and sex Cancer 2010 116 3469 76 10.1002/cncr.25297 20564154
Joshua TV, Rizzo JD, Zhang MJ, Hari PN, Kurian S, Pasquini M, et al. Access to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: effect of race and sex. Cancer. 2010;116:3469–76. 10.1002/cncr.25297.20564154 10.1002/cncr.25297
6. Fiala MA Wildes TM Racial disparities in treatment use for multiple myeloma Cancer 2017 123 1590 6 10.1002/cncr.30526 28085188
Fiala MA, Wildes TM. Racial disparities in treatment use for multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2017;123:1590–6. 10.1002/cncr.30526.28085188 10.1002/cncr.30526
7. Ailawadhi S Parikh K Abouzaid S Zhou Z Tang W Clancy Z Racial disparities in treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma: a SEER-Medicare analysis Blood Adv 2019 3 2986 94 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000308 31648322
Ailawadhi S, Parikh K, Abouzaid S, Zhou Z, Tang W, Clancy Z, et al. Racial disparities in treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Blood Adv. 2019;3:2986–94. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000308.31648322 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000308
8. Winestone LE Li Q Muffly LS Getz KD Alvarez E Wun T Disparities in the use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant among children, adolescents, and young adults with acute leukemia in California Blood 2020 136 4 5 10.1182/blood-2020-142240 32614961
Winestone LE, Li Q, Muffly LS, Getz KD, Alvarez E, Wun T, et al. Disparities in the use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant among children, adolescents, and young adults with acute leukemia in California. Blood. 2020;136:4–5. 10.1182/blood-2020-142240.32614961 10.1182/blood-2020-142240
9. Pidala J Craig BM Lee SJ Majhail N Quinn G Anasetti C Practice variation in physician referral for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 2013 48 63 7 10.1038/bmt.2012.95 22705801
Pidala J, Craig BM, Lee SJ, Majhail N, Quinn G, Anasetti C. Practice variation in physician referral for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:63–7. 10.1038/bmt.2012.95.22705801 10.1038/bmt.2012.95
10. Mitchell JM Conklin EA Factors affecting receipt of expensive cancer treatments and mortality: evidence from stem cell transplantation for leukemia and lymphoma Health Serv Res 2015 50 197 216 10.1111/1475-6773.12208 25047947
Mitchell JM, Conklin EA. Factors affecting receipt of expensive cancer treatments and mortality: evidence from stem cell transplantation for leukemia and lymphoma. Health Serv Res. 2015;50:197–216. 10.1111/1475-6773.12208.25047947 10.1111/1475-6773.12208
11. Kanate AS Perales MA Hamadani M Eligibility criteria for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2020 18 635 43 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7559
Kanate AS, Perales MA, Hamadani M. Eligibility criteria for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2020;18:635–43. 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7559.10.6004/jnccn.2020.7559
12. Carreras E, Rambaldi A. Evaluation and counseling of candidates. In: Carreras E, Dufour C, Mohty M, Kröger N, editors. The EBMT handbook: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cellular therapies. 7th ed. Cham: Springer; 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553925/.
13. McQuellon RP, Duckworth KE. Psychosocial issues in hematopoietic cell transplantation. In: Forman SJ, Negrin RS, Antin, JH, Appelbaum FR editors. Thomas’ hematopoietic cell transplantation. Wiley; 2015. pp. 384–93. 10.1002/9781118416426.ch32.
14. Snyder DS. Ethical issues in hematopoietic cell transplantation. In: Forman SJ, Negrin RS, Antin, JH, Appelbaum FR editors. Thomas’ hematopoietic cell transplantation. Wiley; 2015. pp. 374–85. 10.1002/9781118416426.ch31.
15. Kuntz K Weinland SR Butt Z Psychosocial challenges in solid organ transplantation J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2015 22 122 35 10.1007/s10880-015-9435-6 26370201
Kuntz K, Weinland SR, Butt Z. Psychosocial challenges in solid organ transplantation. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2015;22:122–35. 10.1007/s10880-015-9435-6.26370201 10.1007/s10880-015-9435-6
16. Olbrisch ME Levenson JL Hamer RM The PACT: a rating scale for the study of clinical decision-making in psychosocial screening of organ transplant candidates Clin Transplant 1989 3 164 9
Olbrisch ME, Levenson JL, Hamer RM. The PACT: a rating scale for the study of clinical decision-making in psychosocial screening of organ transplant candidates. Clin Transplant. 1989;3:164–9.
17. Hitschfeld MJ Schneekloth TD Kennedy CC Rummans TA Niazi SK Vasquez AR The psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation: a cohort study of its association with survival among lung transplant recipients Psychosomatics 2016 57 489 97 10.1016/j.psym.2016.05.003 27494985
Hitschfeld MJ, Schneekloth TD, Kennedy CC, Rummans TA, Niazi SK, Vasquez AR, et al. The psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation: a cohort study of its association with survival among lung transplant recipients. Psychosomatics. 2016;57:489–97. 10.1016/j.psym.2016.05.003.27494985 10.1016/j.psym.2016.05.003
18. Hong S Rybicki L Corrigan D Dabney J Hamilton BK Kalaycio M Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplant (PACT) as a tool for psychological and social evaluation of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients Bone Marrow Transplant 2019 54 1443 52 10.1038/s41409-019-0455-y 30696998
Hong S, Rybicki L, Corrigan D, Dabney J, Hamilton BK, Kalaycio M, et al. Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplant (PACT) as a tool for psychological and social evaluation of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54:1443–52. 10.1038/s41409-019-0455-y.30696998 10.1038/s41409-019-0455-y
19. Harashima S Yoneda R Horie T Fujioka Y Nakamura F Kurokawa M Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation scale (PACT) and survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 2019 54 1013 21 10.1038/s41409-018-0371-6 30353064
Harashima S, Yoneda R, Horie T, Fujioka Y, Nakamura F, Kurokawa M, et al. Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation scale (PACT) and survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54:1013–21. 10.1038/s41409-018-0371-6.30353064 10.1038/s41409-018-0371-6
20. Solh MM Speckhart D Solomon SR Bashey A Morris LE Zhang X The Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale predicts overall survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Blood Adv 2020 4 4812 21 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002204 33022065
Solh MM, Speckhart D, Solomon SR, Bashey A, Morris LE, Zhang X, et al. The Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale predicts overall survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2020;4:4812–21. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002204.33022065 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002204
21. Foster LW McLellan L Rybicki L Dabney J Visnosky M Bolwell B Utility of the psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation (PACT) scale in allogeneic BMT Bone Marrow Transplant 2009 44 375 80 10.1038/bmt.2009.37 19290003
Foster LW, McLellan L, Rybicki L, Dabney J, Visnosky M, Bolwell B. Utility of the psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation (PACT) scale in allogeneic BMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;44:375–80. 10.1038/bmt.2009.37.19290003 10.1038/bmt.2009.37
22. Broers S Hengeveld MW Kaptein AA Le Cessie S van de Loo F de Vries T Are pretransplant psychological variables related to survival after bone marrow transplantation? A prospective study of 123 consecutive patients J Psychosom Res 1998 45 341 51 10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00003-8 9794280
Broers S, Hengeveld MW, Kaptein AA, Le Cessie S, van de Loo F, de Vries T. Are pretransplant psychological variables related to survival after bone marrow transplantation? A prospective study of 123 consecutive patients. J Psychosom Res. 1998;45:341–51. 10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00003-8.9794280 10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00003-8
23. Cooper RS Nadkarni GN Ogedegbe G Race, ancestry, and reporting in medical journals JAMA 2018 320 1531 2 10.1001/jama.2018.10960 30264132
Cooper RS, Nadkarni GN, Ogedegbe G. Race, ancestry, and reporting in medical journals. JAMA. 2018;320:1531–2. 10.1001/jama.2018.10960.30264132 10.1001/jama.2018.10960
24. Flanagin A Frey T Christiansen SL Updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals JAMA 2021 326 621 7 10.1001/jama.2021.13304 34402850
Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL. Updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals. JAMA. 2021;326:621–7. 10.1001/jama.2021.13304.34402850 10.1001/jama.2021.13304
25. 2018 Introduction to the NIS. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NIS_Introduction_2018.jsp. Accessed 21 Nov 2023.
26. Kind AJH Buckingham WR Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible - the neighborhood atlas N Engl J Med 2018 378 2456 8 10.1056/NEJMp1802313 29949490
Kind AJH, Buckingham WR. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible - the neighborhood atlas. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2456–8. 10.1056/NEJMp1802313.29949490 10.1056/NEJMp1802313
27. Majhail NS Long-term complications after hematopoietic cell transplantation Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 2017 10 220 7 10.1016/j.hemonc.2017.05.009 28641097
Majhail NS. Long-term complications after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017;10:220–7. 10.1016/j.hemonc.2017.05.009.28641097 10.1016/j.hemonc.2017.05.009
28. Sorror ML Maris MB Storb R Baron F Sandmaier BM Maloney DG Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT Blood 2005 106 2912 9 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004 15994282
Sorror ML, Maris MB, Storb R, Baron F, Sandmaier BM, Maloney DG, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood. 2005;106:2912–9. 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004.15994282 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004
29. Foster LW McLellan LJ Rybicki LA Dabney J Welsh E Bolwell BJ Allogeneic BMT and patient eligibility based on psychosocial criteria: a survey of BMT professionals Bone Marrow Transplant 2006 37 223 8 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705219 16273113
Foster LW, McLellan LJ, Rybicki LA, Dabney J, Welsh E, Bolwell BJ. Allogeneic BMT and patient eligibility based on psychosocial criteria: a survey of BMT professionals. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;37:223–8. 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705219.16273113 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705219
30. WHO. 3, Household crowding. In: Housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535289/.
31. Applebaum AJ Bevans M Son T Evans K Hernandez M Giralt S A scoping review of caregiver burden during allogeneic HSCT: lessons learned and future directions Bone Marrow Transplant 2016 51 1416 22 10.1038/bmt.2016.164 27295270
Applebaum AJ, Bevans M, Son T, Evans K, Hernandez M, Giralt S, et al. A scoping review of caregiver burden during allogeneic HSCT: lessons learned and future directions. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:1416–22. 10.1038/bmt.2016.164.27295270 10.1038/bmt.2016.164
32. Auletta JJ Sandmaier BM Jensen E Majhail NS Knutson J Nemecek E The ASTCT-NMDP ACCESS initiative: a collaboration to address and sustain equal outcomes for all across the hematopoietic cell transplantation and cellular therapy ecosystem Transplant Cell Ther Off Publ Am Soc Transplant Cell Ther 2022 28 802 9 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.09.020
Auletta JJ, Sandmaier BM, Jensen E, Majhail NS, Knutson J, Nemecek E, et al. The ASTCT-NMDP ACCESS initiative: a collaboration to address and sustain equal outcomes for all across the hematopoietic cell transplantation and cellular therapy ecosystem. Transplant Cell Ther Off Publ Am Soc Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28:802–9. 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.09.020.10.1016/j.jtct.2022.09.020
33. D’Souza A Fretham C Lee SJ Arora M Brunner J Chhabra S Current use of and trends in hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2020 26 e177 e182 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.04.013 32438042
D’Souza A, Fretham C, Lee SJ, Arora M, Brunner J, Chhabra S, et al. Current use of and trends in hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26:e177–e182. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.04.013.32438042 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.04.013
