Individual patient and socioeconomic factors are underexplored prognostic factors for glioblastoma (GBM). Frailty, a measure of physiological vulnerability, and area deprivation, a measure of socioeconomic status, are easily obtained during the preoperative evaluation. These metrics are predictors of outcome and access to treatments for other cancers. Therefore, we sought to determine the association of frailty and neighborhood disadvantage with outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed GBM. This was a retrospective review of newly diagnosed patients with GBM undergoing surgery from 2015 through 2020. The 5-factor modified frailty index and national area deprivation index were determined for each patient. There were 244 patients. Compared with patients with "some or no" frailty, patients with "significant" frailty had a shorter median survival: 273 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 126-339) versus 393 days (95% CI 317-458), P = 0.008. The median survival for patients living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, 210 days (95% CI 134-334), was significantly lower than for those living in the least, 384 days (95% CI 239-484), P = 0.17. Twenty-five percent of patients living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods did not receive postoperative chemoradiation compared with 11% of patients in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods, P = 0.046. Similarly, patients of color were less likely to receive standard of care chemoradiation than White patients. Increasing frailty and neighborhood disadvantage predict worse outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with GBM undergoing surgery. Patients living in the most-deprived neighborhoods are less likely to receive postoperative chemoradiation. Identification of nontraditional predictors of treatment access and survival will inform mitigation strategies and improve outcomes.

Background: The shortage of primary care physicians in the United States is expected to grow to 17,800–48,000 physicians by 2034. Student Run Free Clinics are an increasingly popular component of medical schools and may provide an avenue for increasing medical student interest in primary care specialties. However, there is limited research on the impact of Student Run Free Clinics on medical student specialty choice. This investigation sought to determine whether volunteering with the Interprofessional Community Clinic (ICC), the Student Run Free Clinic associated with Chicago Medical School, was associated with an increased likelihood of matching into primary care specialties. Secondarily, the authors investigated associations between volunteering and matching into family practice. Finally, the authors explored associations between volunteering and the competitiveness of specialty choice. Methods: This retrospective review utilized data on medical school graduates from 2015 – 2021 including their matched specialties, the number of ICC shifts they volunteered for, and whether they held an ICC leadership position (executive officers). Primary care specialties were defined as internal medicine, family practice, pediatrics, or combined internal medicine/pediatrics. Residency fill rate was used as a proxy for competitiveness. Results: This analysis included 506 medical students (254 ICC volunteers and 252 non-volunteers). Among ICC volunteers, 47.2% matched into a primary care specialty compared to 36.5% of non-volunteers (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.59). Each additional shift worked at the ICC was correlated with increased odds of matching into family practice by a factor of 1.042 (95% CI 1.005–1.079). Conclusions: Medical students who volunteered with the ICC were more likely to match into primary care residencies. Students who volunteered more frequently were more likely to match into family practice. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether these associations are causative and could thus be leveraged to encourage medical students to pursue primary care careers.