No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Evaluating Travel Distance to Radiation Facilities Among Rural and Urban Breast Cancer Patients in the Medicare Population
Abstract
Purpose:
The distance patients travel for specialty care is an important barrier to health care access, particularly for those living in rural areas. This study characterizes the actual distance older breast cancer patients traveled to radiation treatment and the minimum distance necessary to reach radiation care, and examines whether any patient demographic or clinical factors are associated with greater travel distance.
Methods:
We used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Our cohort included 52,317 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2013. Driving distances were calculated using Google Maps. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate associations between patient demographic and disease variables and travel distance.
Findings:
Patients living in rural areas traveled on average nearly 3 times as far as those from urban areas (40.8 miles vs 15.4 miles), and their nearest facility was more than 4 times farther away (21.9 miles vs 4.8 miles). Older age, being single or widowed, and lower household income were significantly associated with shorter actual travel distance, while increasing rurality was significantly associated with greater actual and minimum travel distance to radiation treatment. Disease severity (stage, grade, etc) was not significantly associated with actual or minimum travel distance.
Conclusions:
In this insured population, travel distance to radiation facilities may pose a significant burden for breast cancer patients, particularly among those living in rural areas. Policymakers and patient advocates should explore service delivery models, reimbursement models, and social supports aimed at reducing the impact of travel to radiation treatment for breast cancer patients.
... A shorter travel distance is associated with timely and adequate cancer care. Conversely, a high travel burden can lead to delayed cancer diagnoses and more advanced stages of cancer at the time of diagnosis [7,8]. Both travel distance and the travel time can be influenced by the mode of transportation (e.g., public transportation or private transportation) and geographically residential locations (e.g., rural, suburban, or urban). ...
... Additionally, patients with younger age, low income, uninsured, publicly insured, unmarried, or with self-reported physical functional limitations were more likely to experience high travel burden [16]. Longacre and colleagues [7] found that travel distances to radiation facilities posed a significant burden for cancer patients, particularly for those from rural areas; residents from rural areas were significantly more likely to perceive the price of gasoline as a problem (i.e., travel cost) compared to urban residents [17]. Similarly, higher travel time was associated with increased risk of undertreatment and delayed treatment in Black individuals with lung cancer and patients with low socioeconomic status [18]. ...
... Racial/ethnic minorities received higher estimates of travel support in this study. These findings echoed previous literature [7,16,17] that racial/ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and those from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas experience significant travel burden, suggesting potential targets to consider when navigating transportation needs and resources for cancer care. ...
Introduction
Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes.
Methods
We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients’ residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients’ sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes.
Results
On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received ) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support.
Conclusion
Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.
... Geographic location (urban versus rural) was a factor in several studies reporting mean distance traveled (n=3). [48][49][50] These three studies found that urban residents had significantly shorter average travel distances to access radiotherapy than rural residents (15.4 miles versus 40.8 miles, 9.26 miles versus 40.2 miles, and 16 miles versus 59 miles). [48][49][50] No studies outside the U.S. compared urban and rural populations. ...
... [48][49][50] These three studies found that urban residents had significantly shorter average travel distances to access radiotherapy than rural residents (15.4 miles versus 40.8 miles, 9.26 miles versus 40.2 miles, and 16 miles versus 59 miles). [48][49][50] No studies outside the U.S. compared urban and rural populations. ...
... Rural patients in the US have been found to require to travel farther for radiotherapy than urban patients, which can lead to additional stress and financial burden. [37,48,72,[82][83][84][85][86][87] Minority populations, particularly Black individuals and Native Americans, may also face unique barriers to medical care that can lead to increased psychological distress, financial burden, and lower survival rates. [88][89][90] These disparities in access to radiation care highlight the need for additional research to better understand the impact of distance traveled for treatment on different patient populations and identify potential strategies for reducing disparities in healthcare access to radiation care within the U.S.. Treatment modality may also impact the distance traveled. ...
... Furthermore, we performed sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of primary associations when flexing the travel time restriction to 210, 180, and 150 minutes. 21,34 In supplementary analysis, we explored if physician travel frequency, patient cancer type, or patient rurality modified the primary associations, accounting for multiple testing with a Bonferroni adjustment. For each statistical model, we reported point estimates, 95% CIs, and P values. ...
... Substantial research has highlighted that rural patients with breast cancer have significantly reduced uptake of lumpectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy compared to urban patients, mostly because of their high travel burden to radiation oncologists. 34,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] It is therefore promising that the inverse association between oncology outreach and patient travel time to radiotherapy was pronounced among patients with breast cancer, those living in isolated rural areas, and those receiving care from high-travel radiation oncologists. These insights suggest that high-frequency radiation oncology outreach is helpful in extending access to radiotherapy for rural patients with breast cancer. ...
PURPOSE
Oncology outreach is a common strategy for extending cancer care to rural patients. However, a nationwide characterization of the traveling workforce that enables this outreach is lacking, and the extent to which outreach reduces travel burden for rural patients is unknown.
METHODS
This cross-sectional study analyzed a rural (nonurban) subset of a 100% fee-for-service sample of 355,139 Medicare beneficiaries with incident breast, colorectal, and lung cancers. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists were linked to patients using Part B claims, and traveling oncologists were identified by observing hospital service area (HSA) transition patterns. We defined oncology outreach as the provision of cancer care by a traveling oncologist outside of their primary HSA. We used hierarchical gamma regression models to examine the separate associations between patient receipt of oncology outreach and one-way patient travel times to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery.
RESULTS
On average, 9,935 of 39,960 oncologists conducted annual outreach, where 57.8% traveled with low frequency (0-1 outreach visits/mo), 21.1% with medium frequency (1-3 outreach visits/mo), and 21.1% with high frequency (>3 outreach visits/mo). Oncologists provided surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy to 51,715, 27,120, and 5,874 rural beneficiaries, respectively, of whom 2.5%, 6.9%, and 3.6% received oncology outreach. Rural patients who received oncology outreach traveled 16% (95% CI, 11 to 21) and 11% (95% CI, 9 to 13) less minutes to chemotherapy and radiotherapy than those who did not receive oncology outreach, corresponding to expected one-way savings of 15.9 (95% CI, 15.5 to 16.4) and 11.9 (95% CI, 11.7 to 12.2) minutes, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our study introduces a novel claims-based approach for tracking the nationwide traveling oncology workforce and supports oncology outreach as an effective means for improving rural access to cancer care.
... Women ages 30-50 years are more likely to experience breast pain, but it can occur at any age, including the postmenopausal period [2]. Furthermore, the dichotomization or categorization of geographic locations as rural-urban codes is a prevailing paradigm, especially in cancer disparity studies, and affects screening for breast cancer and care quality [3][4][5][6][7][8]. The way in which patient-related barriers contribute to the diagnosis and outcomes of disorders is of great importance, especially in a situation such as mastalgia, which is a common health problem experienced by 70-80% of women at some time in their lives [9]. ...
... regarding medical history were selected for analysis. To determine the independent risk factors affecting LUI quadrant pain, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, and the results are presented in Table 4. Pre-existing gastrointestinal disease was found to be a significant independent factor for LUI quadrant pain in the rural group and caused an increase in the presence of LUI quadrant pain by 3 ...
Background
Breast pain, prevalent among women of reproductive age, varies during menstrual cycles and is influenced by sociodemographic and clinical factors. This study aimed to assess these demographic and clinical variables in women with breast pain, considering the spatial distinctions between urban and rural locations.
Material/Methods
This retrospective study included 730 women presenting with mastalgia between 2010 and 2023. The study evaluated patient demographics, pain characteristics (eg, breast pain duration, site, quadrant-based localization, and radiation of breast pain), radiologic findings, and the presence of comorbid medical conditions.
Results
There were 498 patients in the urban group and 232 patients in the rural group. Among the radiologic findings, the rate of mastitis was higher in the rural group (P<0.05). Regarding the localization of breast pain within the quadrants, left breast upper-inner (LUI) quadrant pain was more common in the rural group (P=0.014). Regarding comorbid medical conditions, the prevalence of gastrointestinal system disease was higher in the rural group (P=0.009). Using logistic regression analysis, gastrointestinal disease was determined to be a significant independent risk factor for increased LUI quadrant pain in the rural group (odds ratio [OR]: 3.132, P=0.014), while pre-existing thyroid disease (OR: 2.482, P=0.004), hypertension (OR: 2.534, P=0.006), and radiologic evidence of ductal ectasia (OR: 2.878, P=0.03) were independent risk factors in the urban group.
Conclusions
Patient outcomes may be improved by a tailored, population-based approach to mastalgia patients in rural and urban locations focused on their radiologic findings and comorbid medical conditions.
... The GP will then either directly admit the patient to hospital or refer them to a secondary care specialist at a hospital. Several studies have shown that both initial and continuing treatment decisions can be influenced by traveltime (Longacre et al., 2020;Aggarwal et al., 2022). Currently, limited data exist on potential disparities in secondary care contact time (defined as hospital admission or hospital outpatient clinic appointment) in the first year post cancer diagnosis (Pethick et al., 2021), specifically with relevance to travelling time. ...
... A discrete choice experiment study investigating centralisation of services showed that participants with cancer were willing to travel, on average, 75 min longer to reduce their risk of surgical complications by one per cent, and over 5 h longer to reduce their risk of death by one per cent (Vallejo-Torres et al., 2018). Breast cancer patients with longer travelling timesare more likely to select mastectomy which requires travel for surgery only as opposed to breast conservation surgery requiring travel for both surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (Longacre et al., 2020). Studies have also shown that patients were less likely to receive radiotherapy for breast, colon, rectal, and prostate cancer when they had longer time and distance to travel (Lin et al., 2015(Lin et al., , 2016Goyal et al., 2015;Muralidhar et al., 2016) and treatment nonadherence to radiotherapy is associated with rural residence (Morris et al., 2023). ...
... [8][9][10][11] Although these disparities may reflect differences in patient underlying health or the socioeconomic determinants of their health, decreased access to adjuvant cancer therapies may further exacerbate the gap in urban-rural outcomes. [12][13][14] Given the known disparities in use of surgical and radiation treatment for other cancer sites, we hypothesized that rural patients with rectal cancer would be less likely than urban patients to receive radiation. We sought to test this hypothesis by examining patterns of care among a nationwide sample of patients with rectal cancer. ...
... therapy. Although rural areas may have fewer radiation resources, 12,24 it is possible that rural patients are referred to centers where surgeons are more likely to recommend neoadjuvant therapy. It is also possible that rural residents are more tolerant of long commutes for work, recreation, and medical care, 25 and therefore more willing to adhere to treating surgeons' recommendations regarding neoadjuvant therapy. ...
Purpose
Radiation therapy and surgery are fundamental site-directed therapies for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. To understand the relationship between rurality and access to specialized care, we characterized the association of rural patient residence with receipt of surgery and radiation therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rectal cancer.
Methods and Materials
We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018. Beneficiary place of residence was assigned to one of 3 geographic categories (metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural) based on census tract and corresponding rural urban commuting area codes. Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between levels of rurality and receipt of both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis. In addition, we explored associations between patient rurality and characteristics of surgery and radiation such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).
Results
Among 13,454 Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, 3926 (29.2%) underwent proctectomy within 180 days of being diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 1792 (13.3%) received both radiation and proctectomy. Small town/rural residence was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30). Furthermore, small town/rural radiation patients were significantly less likely to receive IMRT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80) or MIS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) than metropolitan patients.
Conclusions
Although small town/rural Medicare beneficiaries were overall more likely to receive both radiation and proctectomy for their rectal cancer, they were less likely to receive preoperative IMRT or MIS as part of their treatment regimen. Together, these findings clarify that among Medicare beneficiaries, there appeared to be a similar utilization of radiation resources and time to radiation treatment regardless of rural/urban status.
... 21,22 Patients with cancer living in rural areas travel 3 times farther for treatment than their urban counterparts; greater travel distance can lead to a later stage at diagnosis and decreased likelihood of timely and complete treatment. 23 Previous research on the impact of rural residence on cancer treatment and outcomes has yielded inconsistent results, owing in part to variation in the definition of rurality across studies. 11 Commonly used classification schemes are based on census tract; others are county-based measures. ...
... The finding about radiation after breast-conserving surgery is supported by those of previous studies 16,43−45 and may be explained by the dearth of radiation facilities in rural areas or the lack of supportive services available to patients to facilitate transportation, payment for treatment, and paid employment leave. 13,23 Conventional radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery requires daily visits over a prolonged time period, which may require rural patients to travel long distances for treatment and to incur significant costs and inconvenience. Multiple telehealth interventions focused on providing remote expertise and coordination with local providers have demonstrated success in addressing these barriers and improving the quality of care delivered in rural areas by allowing for expert consultations and remote supervision of chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens. ...
Introduction
Previous research suggests cancer patients living in rural areas have lower quality of care, but population-based studies have yielded inconsistent results. This study examines the impact of rurality on care quality for 7 cancer types in California.
Methods
Breast, ovarian, endometrial, cervix, colon, lung, and gastric cancer patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2017 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. Multivariable logistic regression and proportional hazards models were used to assess effects of residential location on quality of care and survival. Stratified models examined the impact of treatment at National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers (NCICCs). Quality of care was evaluated using Commission on Cancer measures. Medical Service Study Areas were used to assess urban/rural status. Data were collected in 2004–2019 and analyzed in 2020.
Results
989,747 cancer patients were evaluated, with 14% living in rural areas. Rural patients had lower odds of receiving radiation after breast conserving surgery compared to urban residents. Colon and gastric cancer patients had 20% and 16% lower odds, respectively, of having optimal surgery. Rural patients treated at NCICCs had greater odds of recommended surgery for most cancer types. Survival was similar among urban and rural subgroups.
Conclusions
Rural residence was inversely associated with receipt of recommended surgery for gastric and colon cancer patients not treated at NCICCs, and for receiving recommended radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery regardless of treatment location. Further studies investigating the impact of care location and availability of supportive services on urban–rural differences in quality of care are warranted.
... Differential access to guideline-concordant treatment resulting from excess travel burden among rural patients may contribute to rural-urban survival disparities among cancer patients. Longacre, et al.; Women's Health Report 2021, 2.1 ...
... These findings build on previous studies [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]23,38,39 and add to a growing body of research that recognizes patient travel distance as an important barrier to access in cancer care, particularly among older and more vulnerable populations. [40][41][42] Our study also helps to illustrate the mechanism through which observed rural-urban survival disparities may occur-patients living farther from treatment facilities are more likely to receive guideline-discordant treatment, and those receiving guideline-discordant treatment experience worse survival outcomes. 43 Our study used strong data and innovative methods to improve on previous research in several ways. ...
Background: Travel distance to care facilities may shape urban–rural cancer survival disparities by creating barriers to specific treatments. Guideline-supported treatment options for women with early stage breast cancer involves considerations of breast conservation and travel burden: Mastectomy requires travel for surgery, whereas breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) requires travel for both surgery and RT. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of travel distance on surgical decisions and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment.
Materials and Methods: We included 61,169 women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer between 2004 and 2013 from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Driving distances to the nearest radiation facility were calculated by using Google Maps. We used multivariable regression to model treatment choice as a function of distance to radiation and Cox regression to model survival.
Results: Women living farthest from radiation facilities (>50 miles vs. <10 miles) were more likely to undergo mastectomy versus BCS (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22–1.79). Among only those who underwent BCS, women living farther from radiation facilities were less likely to receive guideline-concordant RT (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.32–2.23). These guideline-discordant women had worse overall (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.42–1.57) and breast-cancer specific survival (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.29–1.60).
Conclusions: We report two breast cancer treatments with different clinical and travel implications to show the association between travel distance, treatment decisions, and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Differential access to guideline-concordant treatment resulting from excess travel burden among rural patients may contribute to rural–urban survival disparities among cancer patients.
... The county where the cancer care institute is located is designated as rural; however, the remainder of the counties in its service area are designated as frontier which includes the Tribal Lands. Thus, distance becomes one of the most consequential barriers to cancer care delivery as it demands resources to overcome, such as transportation, finances, and drivers [41,42]. Distance not only affects access to healthcare services, but also family, friends, and colleagues, which can lead to professional and personal isolation [43,44]. ...
Objective
This descriptive qualitative study sought to understand the barriers affecting cancer care delivery from the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs) serving American Indian (AI), rural, and frontier populations.
Methods
One-on-one, semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary HCPs (N = 18) who provide cancer care to AI, rural, and frontier populations were conducted between January and April 2022. Interviews were conducted via Zoom. Data were analyzed following thematic content analysis methodologies.
Results
Thematic content analysis revealed three major themes: (a) Access, (b) Time, and (c) Isolation. The themes represent the HCP perspectives of the needs and barriers of persons with cancer to whom they provide cancer care. Furthermore, these themes also reflect the barriers HCPs experience while providing cancer care to AI, rural and frontier populations.
Conclusions
This study provides preliminary evidence for the need and strong multidisciplinary support for an early palliative care intervention in rural and frontier South Dakota (SD). This intervention could support the needs of persons with advanced cancer as well as the HCPs delivering cancer care in rural settings.
Innovation
This study is the initial step to develop the first culturally responsive, nurse-led, early palliative care intervention for AI, rural, and frontier persons with advanced cancer in SD.
... Multiple studies have found that women living in rural communities were less likely to elect for BCT. 6,49,50 Whereas distance from RT facilities has been cited as a factor for decreased use of BCT in rural populations, a study of rural patients with BC in Australia found that those who chose mastectomy were more likely to cite fear of recurrence and a belief that a family history of BC was inevitably linked to BC. 49,[51][52][53] In our study, 12% of patients had a de-escalation of surgery from unilateral radical mastectomy or BLM to BCT based on return of GGT, and the rates of BCT at TOBH increased from 48% before the offering of universal GGT to 79% after universal testing was offered (unpublished data). Thus, the use of GGT in conjunction with shared-decision making may be especially helpful in rural populations to dispel some of the fears or misconceptions about family history associated with guideline-discordant surgery. ...
Background
Whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria restrict germline-genetic testing (GGT) to a subset of breast cancer (BC) patients, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends universal GGT. Although the yield of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in unselected BC patients has been studied, the practicality and utility of incorporating universal GGT into routine cancer care in community and rural settings is understudied. This study reports real-world implementation of universal GGT for patients with breast cancer and genetics-informed, treatment decision-making in a rural, community practice with limited resources.
Methods
From 2019 to 2022, all patients with breast cancer at a small, rural hospital were offered GGT, using a genetics-extender model. Statistical analyses included Fisher’s exact test, t -tests, and calculation of odds ratios. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Of 210 patients with breast cancer who were offered GGT, 192 (91.4%) underwent testing with 104 (54.2%) in-criteria (IC) and 88 (45.8%) out-of-criteria (OOC) with NCCN guidelines. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 25 patients (13.0%), with PGV frequencies of 15 of 104 (14.4%) in IC and ten of 88 (11.4%) in OOC patients ( p = 0.495). GGT informed treatment for 129 of 185 (69.7%) patients.
Conclusions
Universal GGT was successfully implemented in a rural, community practice with > 90% uptake. Treatment was enhanced or de-escalated in those with and without clinically actionable PGVs, respectively. Universal GGT for patients with breast cancer is feasible within rural populations, enabling optimization of clinical care to patients’ genetic profile, and may reduce unnecessary healthcare, resource utilization.
... The distance cancer patients must travel to receive treatment and see health care providers is a major challenge. [1][2][3] This is largely because only 3% of oncologists in the U.S. work in rural areas. 3 Longer travel times in rural areas combined with higher rates of financial hardship, 4-8 lower insurance rates, [4][5][6]9 lower cancer-screening rates, 5,7,9,10 and poor access to standard care 8,11,12 make it more difficult to access high quality cancer treatment in rural areas. ...
Introduction:
Critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide an opportunity to meet the needs of individuals with cancer in rural areas. Two common innovative care delivery methods include the use of traveling oncologists and teleoncology. It is important to understand the availability and organization of cancer care services in CAHs due to the growing population with cancer and expected declines in oncology workforce in rural areas.
Methods:
Stratified random sampling was used to generate a sample of 50 CAHs from each of the four U.S. Census Bureau-designated regions resulting in a total sample of 200 facilities. Analyses were conducted from 135 CAH respondents to understand the availability of cancer care services and organization of cancer care across CAHs.
Results:
Almost all CAHs (95%) provided at least one cancer screening or diagnostic service. Forty-six percent of CAHs reported providing at least one component of cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery) at their facility. CAHs that offered cancer treatment reported a wide range of health care staff involvement, including 34% of respondents reporting involvement of a local oncologist, 38% reporting involvement of a visiting oncologist, and 28% reporting involvement of a non-local oncologist using telemedicine.
Conclusion:
Growing disparities within rural areas emphasize the importance of ensuring access to timely screening and guideline-recommended treatment for cancer in rural communities. These data demonstrated that CAHs are addressing the growing need through a variety of approaches including the use of innovative models that utilize non-local providers and telemedicine to expand access to crucial services for rural residents with cancer.
... Further, rural patients have limited access to healthcare and specialty providers compared to urban counties, largely due to longer driving distances. 30,31 Treatment for breast cancer in high volume or academic/research centers are associated with better outcomes regardless of stage, 32 and these factors likely contributed to the observed disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality, as specialty providers (e.g., cardiologists, cardio-oncologists 33 ) are generally concentrated in large academic centers, urban areas, and affluent neighborhoods. Cancer care established in a higher resourced health systems may be easier navigate referrals to cardiovascular or cardio-oncology care teams. ...
Background:
Disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality among breast cancer survivors are documented, but geographic factors by county-level socioeconomic status (SES) and rurality are not well described.
Methods:
We analyzed 724,518 women diagnosed with localized or regional stage breast cancer between 2000-2017 within SEER-18 with follow-up until 2018. We calculated relative risks (RR) of cardiovascular disease mortality using Poisson regression, accounting for age- and race-specific rates in the general population, according to county-level quintiles of SES (measured by Yost index), median income, and rurality at breast cancer diagnosis. We also calculated ten-year cumulative mortality risk of cardiovascular disease accounting for competing risks.
Results:
Cardiovascular disease mortality was 41% higher among breast cancer survivors living in the lowest SES (RR = 1.41, 95%CI=1.36-1.46, p-trend<0.001) and poorest (RR = 1.41, 95%CI=1.36-1.47, p-trend<0.001) counties compared to the highest SES and wealthiest counties, and 24% higher for most rural relative to most urban counties (RR = 1.24, 95%CI=1.17-1.30; p-trend<0.001). Disparities for lowest SES relative to highest SES counties were greatest among younger women: age 18-49 (RR = 2.32, 95%CI=1.90-2.83) and age 50-59 (RR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.77-2.28), and within the first 5 years of breast cancer diagnosis (RR = 1.53, 95%CI=1.44-1.64). In absolute terms, however, disparities were widest for women aged 60+ with approximately 2% higher ten-year cumulative cardiovascular disease mortality risk in the poorest compared to wealthiest counties.
Conclusion:
Geographic factors at breast cancer diagnosis were associated with increased cardiovascular disease mortality risk. Studies with individual and county-level information are needed to inform public health interventions and reduce disparities among breast cancer survivors.
... indicating the most disadvantaged neighborhood. Distances from patients' homes to the nearest clinic site were calculated using Google Maps [19,20] by selecting the shortest recommended route. Distances were analyzed on a continuous scale and in 5-mile increments, based on prior research [21]. ...
Purpose
Guidelines for early-stage breast cancer allow for radiotherapy (RT) omission following breast conserving surgery (BCS) among older women, though high utilization of RT persists. This study explores surgeon referral and the effect of a productivity-based bonus metric for radiation oncologists in an academic institution with centralized quality assurance (QA) review.
Methods
We evaluated patients ≥70 years of age treated with BCS for ER+ pT1N0 breast cancer at a single tertiary cancer network between 2015-2018. The primary outcomes were radiation oncology referral and RT receipt. Covariables included patient and physician characteristics, and treatment decisions before versus after productivity metric implementation. Univariable generalized linear effects models explored associations between these outcomes and covariables.
Results
Of 703 patients included, 483 (69%) were referred to radiation oncology and 273 (39%) received RT (among those referred, 57% received RT). No difference in RT receipt pre- versus post- productivity metric implementation was observed (p=0.57). RT receipt was associated with younger patient age (70-74 years, OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.54-4.57) and higher grade (grade 3, OR 7.75, 95% CI 3.33-18.07). Initial referral was associated with younger age (70-74, OR 5.64, 95% CI 3.37-0.45) and higher performance status (KPS ≥90, OR 5.34, 95% CI 2.63-10.83).
Conclusion
Non-referral to radiation oncology accounted for half of RT omission, but was based on age and KPS, in accordance with guidelines. Lack of radiation oncologist practice change in response to misaligned financial incentives is reassuring, potentially reflecting incentive design and/or centralized QA review. Multi-institutional studies are needed to confirm these findings.
... 6 Rural breast cancer patients have to travel 4 times further than urban patients to the nearest facility with radiation service. 7 Longer travel distances add additional time and financial burden on rural patients, which can lead to delayed diagnosis, prolonged treatment initiation, and ultimately, poorer outcomes. 8,9 Since 2005, 181 rural hospitals have closed, most occurring since 2010. ...
Introduction:
Rural populations have less access to cancer care services and experience higher cancer mortality rates than their urban counterparts, which may be exacerbated by hospital closures. Our objective was to examine the impact of hospital closures on access to cancer-relevant hospital services across hospital service areas (HSAs).
Methods:
We used American Hospital Association survey data from 2008 to 2017 to examine the change in access to cancer-related screening and treatment services across rural HSAs that sustained hospitals over time, experienced any closures, or had all hospitals close. We performed a longitudinal analysis to assess the association between hospital closure occurrence and maintenance or loss of cancer-related service lines accounting for hospital and HSA-level characteristics. Maps were also developed to display changes in the availability of services across HSAs.
Results:
Of the 2,014 rural HSAs, 3.8% experienced at least 1 hospital closure during the study period, most occurring in the South. Among HSAs that experienced hospital closure, the loss of surgery services lines was most common, while hospital closures did not affect the availability of overall oncology and radiation services. Screening services either were stable (mammography) or increased (endoscopy) in areas with no closures.
Discussion:
Rural areas persistently experience less access to cancer treatment services, which has been exacerbated by hospital closures. Lack of Medicaid expansion in many Southern states and other policy impacts on hospital financial viability may play a role in this. Future research should explore the impact of closures on cancer treatment receipt and outcomes.
... A study found that the likelihood of receiving radiotherapy decreases significantly with increasing travel distance to the nearest facility [19]. Older age, being single or widowed, and lower household income were also associated with shorter travel distances, suggesting that those with less resources and social support are less likely to travel greater distances for specialized care [20]. Insurance coverage and income also affect access to PBT. ...
Introduction
Proton radiation therapy (PBT) may reduce cardiac doses in breast cancer treatment. Limited availability of proton facilities could require significant travel distances. This study assessed factors associated with travel distances for breast PBT.
Materials and Methods
Patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were summarized. Straight-line travel distances from the department to patients' addresses were calculated using BatchGeo. Median and mean travel distances were reported. Given non-normality of distribution of travel distances, Wilcoxon rank sum or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether travel distances differed by race, clinical trial participation, disease laterality, recurrence, and prior radiation.
Results
Of 1 male and 284 female patients, 67.8% were White and 21.7% Black. Median travel distance was 13.5 miles with interquartile range of 6.1 to 24.8 miles, and mean travel distance was 13.5 miles with standard deviation of 261.4 miles. 81.1% of patients traveled less than 30 and 6.0% more than 100 miles. Black patients' travel distances were significantly shorter than White patients' and non-Black or non-White patients' travel distances (median = 4.5, 16.5, and 11.3 miles, respectively; P < .0001). Patients not on clinical trials traveled more those on clinical trials (median = 14.7 and 10.2 miles, respectively; P = .032). There was no difference found between travel distances of patients with left-sided versus right-sided versus bilateral disease (P = .175), with versus without recurrent disease (P = .057), or with versus without prior radiation (P = .23).
Conclusion
This study described travel distances and demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania. Black patients traveled less than White and non-Black or non-White patients and comprised a small portion of the cohort, suggesting barriers to travel and PBT. Patients did not travel further to receive PBT for left-sided or recurrent disease.
... Rural patients typically live farther from cancer care services, raising questions as to whether greater travel time among rural patients would lead to delays in care; however, this was not observed in our study. 35,36 We observed a 13-14% increase in the odds of delay for urban non-reconstruction patients with driving times C 60 minutes, which may have confounded associations between facility distance and delay in prior studies that did not stratify by patient rurality. Delays did appear to be more likely to occur among rural patients having additional physician encounters before surgery compared with their urban counterparts, however, which may be consistent with greater challenges in access to specialty care or providers offering second opinions. ...
Background:
Delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgery are associated with worsened survival. Delays are more common in urban-residing patients, although factors specific to surgical delays among rural and urban patients are not well understood.
Methods:
We used a 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare claims during 2007-2014 to identify 238,491 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer undergoing initial surgery and assessed whether they experienced biopsy-to-surgery intervals > 90 days. We employed multilevel regression to identify associations between delays and patient, regional, and surgeon characteristics, both in combined analyses and stratified by rurality of patient residence.
Results:
Delays were more prevalent among urban patients (2.5%) than rural patients (1.9%). Rural patients with medium- or high-volume surgeons had lower odds of delay than patients with low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.88; OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90). Rural patients whose surgeon operated at ≥ 3 hospitals were more likely to experience delays (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.01-1.64, Ref: 1 hospital). Patient driving times ≥ 1 h were associated with delays among urban patients only. Age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, multimorbidity, and academic/specialty hospital status were associated with delays.
Conclusions:
Sociodemographic, geographic, surgeon, and facility factors have distinct associations with > 90-day delays to initial breast cancer surgery. Interventions to improve timeliness of breast cancer surgery may have disparate impacts on vulnerable populations by rural-urban status.
... 3,17 Rural women suffer significant disadvantages in obtaining these necessary mammography services compared to urban women. 8,[16][17][18] There can also be delays in diagnosis related to access issues in obtaining a biopsy after an abnormal mammogram. These disadvantages include but are not limited to decreased access to resources and increased distance to health care providers. ...
Purpose: To analyze the extent to which rural-urban differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis are explained by factors including age, race, tumor grade, receptor status, and insurance status.
Methods: Using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 database, analysis was performed using data from women aged 50–74 diagnosed with breast cancer between the years 2013 and 2016. Patient rurality of residence was coded according to SEER's Rural-Urban Continuum Code 2013: Large Urban (RUCC 1), Small Urban (RUCC 2,3), and Rural (RUCC 4,5,6,7,8,9). Stage at diagnosis was coded according to SEER's Combined Summary Stage 2000 (2004+) criteria: Localized (0,1), Regional (2,3,4,5), and Distant (7). Descriptive statistics were analyzed, and variations were tested for across rural-urban categories using Kruskall–Wallis and Kendall's tau-b tests. Additionally, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for the three ordinal levels of rural-urban residence were calculated while adjusting for other independent variables using ordinal logistic regression.
Results: The rural residence category showed the largest proportion of women diagnosed with distant stage breast cancer. Additionally, we determined that patients with residence in both large and small urban areas had statistically significantly lower odds of higher stage diagnosis compared to rural patients even after controlling for age, race, tumor grade, receptor status, and insurance status.
Conclusions: Rural women with breast cancer show small but statistically significant disparities in stage-at-diagnosis. Further research is needed to understand local area variation in these disparities across a wide range of rural communities, and to identify the most effective interventions to eliminate these disparities.
... For beneficiaries living on an island or island territory (e.g., Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island), if there was no HDSA COE on the island, we calculated the distance from the island airport to the airport of the nearest HDSA COE. We categorized the distance to nearest COE as '100 miles or less', '101-250 miles', '251-500 miles', and '> 500 miles', based on prior literature that posits a trip of 100 miles or less each way could be made safely in a single day [16,17,[27][28][29]. ...
Background:
Huntington's Disease Society of America Centers of Excellence (HDSA COEs) are primary hubs for Huntington's disease (HD) research opportunities and accessing new treatments. Data on the extent to which HDSA COEs are accessible to individuals with HD, particularly those older or disabled, are lacking.
Objective:
To describe persons with HD in the U.S. Medicare program and characterize this population by proximity to an HDSA COE.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥65 with HD in 2017. We analyzed data on benefit entitlement, demographics, and comorbidities. QGis software and Google Maps Interface were employed to estimate the distance from each patient to the nearest HDSA COE, and the proportion of individuals residing within 100 miles of these COEs at the state level.
Results:
Among 9,056 Medicare beneficiaries with HD, 54.5% were female, 83.0% were white; 48.5% were ≥65 years, but 64.9% originally qualified for Medicare due to disability. Common comorbidities were dementia (32.4%) and depression (35.9%), and these were more common in HD vs. non-HD patients. Overall, 5,144 (57.1%) lived within 100 miles of a COE. Race/ethnicity, sex, age, and poverty markers were not associated with below-average proximity to HDSA COEs. The proportion of patients living within 100 miles of a center varied from < 10% (16 states) to > 90% (7 states). Most underserved states were in the Mountain and West Central divisions.
Conclusion:
Older Medicare beneficiaries with HD are frequently disabled and have a distinct comorbidity profile. Geographical, rather than sociodemographic factors, define the HD population with limited access to HDSA COEs.
... Distance to specialists and the shuttering of rural hospitals has impacted rural care seeking. On average, rural breast cancer patients must travel nearly three times as far and colorectal patients almost eight times as far for care as their urban counterparts [42,43]. When mapping distances to oncology specialists in the U.S., Hung and colleagues identified substantial distances to specialists for rural and low-income communities, and found that distances were greater for communities with higher percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native residents [43]. ...
The recent focus on rural–urban cancer disparities in the United States (U.S.) requires a comprehensive understanding of the processes and relations that influence cancer care seeking and decision making. This is of particular importance for Black, Latino, and Native populations living in rural areas in the U.S., who remain marginalized in health care spaces. In this article, we describe the household production of health approach (HHPH) as a contextually-sensitive approach to examining health care seeking and treatment decisions and actions. The HHPH approach is based on several decades of research and grounded in anthropological theory on the household, gender, and therapy management. This approach directs analytical attention to how time, money, and social resources are secured and allocated within the household, sometimes in highly unequal ways that reflect and refract broader social structures. To demonstrate the benefits of such an approach to the study of cancer in rural populations in the U.S., we take lessons from our extensive HHPH research in Zambia. Using a case study of a rural household, in which household members had to seek care in a distant urban hospital, we map out what we call a rural HHPH approach to bring into focus the relations, negotiations, and interactions that are central to individual and familial health care seeking behaviors and clinical treatment particular to rural regions. Our aim is to show how such an approach might offer alternative interpretations of existing rural cancer research in the U.S. and also present new avenues for questions and for developing interventions that are more sensitive to people’s realities.
... We determined the national percentile for each patient according to their home address and associated ADI ranking, with 1 indicating the least disadvantaged and 100 indicating the most disadvantaged neighborhood. Distances from patients' homes to the nearest clinic site were calculated using Google Maps [19,20] by selecting the shortest recommended route. Distances were analyzed on a continuous scale and in 5-mile increments, based on prior research [21]. ...
Purpose: Guidelines for early-stage breast cancer allow for radiotherapy (RT) omission following breast conserving surgery (BCS) among older women, though high utilization of RT persists. This study explores surgeon referral and the effect of a productivity-based bonus metric for radiation oncologists in an academic institution with centralized quality assurance (QA) review.
Methods: We evaluated patients >70 years of age treated with BCS for ER+ pT1N0 breast cancer at a single tertiary cancer network between 2015-2018. The primary outcomes were radiation oncology referral and RT receipt. Covariables included patient and physician characteristics, and treatment decisions before versus after productivity metric implementation. Univariable generalized linear effects models explored associations between these outcomes and covariables.
Results: Of 703 patients included, 483 (69%) were referred to radiation oncology and 273 (39%) received RT (among those referred, 57% received RT). No difference in RT receipt pre- versus post- productivity metric implementation was observed (p=0.57). RT receipt was associated with younger patient age (70-74 years, OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.54-4.57) and higher grade (grade 3, OR 7.75, 95% CI 3.33-18.07). Initial referral was associated with younger age (70-74, OR 5.64, 95% CI 3.37-0.45) and higher performance status (KPS ³90, OR 5.34, 95% CI 2.63-10.83).
Conclusion: Non-referral to radiation oncology accounted for half of RT omission, but was based on age and KPS, in accordance with guidelines. Lack of radiation oncologist practice change in response to misaligned financial incentives is reassuring, potentially reflecting centralized QA review. Multi-institutional studies are needed to confirm these findings.
... We determined the national percentile for each patient according to their home address and associated ADI ranking, with 1 indicating the least disadvantaged and 100 indicating the most disadvantaged neighborhood. Distances from patients' homes to the nearest clinic site were calculated using Google Maps [19,20] by selecting the shortest recommended route. Distances were analyzed on a continuous scale and in 5-mile increments, based on prior research [21]. ...
Purpose
Guidelines for early-stage breast cancer allow for radiotherapy (RT) omission following breast conserving surgery (BCS) among older women, though high utilization of RT persists. This study explores surgeon referral and the effect of a productivity-based bonus metric for radiation oncologists in an academic institution with centralized quality assurance (QA) review.
Methods
We evaluated patients ≥ 70 years of age treated with BCS for ER + pT1N0 breast cancer at a single institution between 2015–2018. The primary outcomes were radiation oncology referral and RT receipt. Covariables included patient and physician characteristics, and treatment decisions before versus after productivity metric implementation. Univariable generalized linear effects models explored associations between these outcomes and covariables.
Results
Of 703 patients included, 483 (69%) were referred to radiation oncology and 273 (39%) received RT (among those referred, 57% received RT). No difference in RT receipt pre- versus post- productivity metric implementation was observed (p = 0.57). RT receipt was associated with younger patient age (70–74 years, OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.54–4.57) and higher grade (grade 3, OR 7.75, 95% CI 3.33–18.07). Initial referral was associated with younger age (70–74, OR 5.64, 95% CI 3.37–0.45) and higher performance status (KPS ≥90, OR 5.34, 95% CI 2.63–10.83).
Conclusion
Non-referral to radiation oncology accounted for half of RT omission, but was based on age and KPS, in accordance with guidelines. Lack of radiation oncologist practice change in response to misaligned financial incentives is reassuring, potentially reflecting centralized QA review. Multi-institutional studies are needed to confirm these findings.
... As in previous studies, driving distances between the centroids of patients' residential ZIP codes and HCT centers were calculated in miles using Google Maps (Google, Mountain View, CA). [56][57][58][59][60][61] When direct driving distances were not calculable because of patient residence on an island, straight-line distances were used as an approximation. 62 We summarized demographic and clinical characteristics using descriptive statistics, including scatter plots and frequency distributions. ...
Long driving distances to transplantation centers may impede access to care for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors. As a secondary analysis from the multicenter INSPIRE study (NCT01602211), we examined baseline data from relapse-free HCT adult survivors (2-10 years after allogeneic or autologous HCT) to investigate the association between driving distances and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of distress and physical function. We analyzed predictors of elevated distress and impaired physical function using logistic regression models that operationalized driving distance first as a continuous variable and separately as a dichotomous variable (<100 vs. 100+ miles). Of 1136 patients available for analysis from 6 US centers, median driving distance was 82 miles and 44% resided 100+ miles away from their HCT centers. Elevated distress was reported by 32% of patients, impaired physical function by 19%, and both by 12%. Driving distance, whether operationalized as a continuous or dichotomous variable, had no impact on distress or physical function in linear regression modeling (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.00 for both PROs with driving distance as a continuous variable). In contrast, chronic graft-versus-host-disease, lower income, and lack of Internet access independently predicted both elevated distress and impaired physical function. In summary, we found no impact of driving distance on distress and physical function among HCT survivors. Our results have implications for how long-term follow-up care is delivered after HCT, both with regard to the negligible impact of driving distances on PROs and also the risk of a ‘digital divide’ worsening outcomes among HCT survivors without Internet access.
Cancer and its care create substantial financial, time, and administrative burdens both for patients and their loved ones. While cancer-related financial burdens have been well documented in the past decade, time and administrative burdens of cancer care have received substantially less attention. We define time burdens as the burden patients and caregivers experience due to the time needed to complete cancer-related treatment and tasks that take away from other life responsibilities. Relatedly, we conceptualize administrative burdens as those burdens patients and caregivers experience due to cancer-related, resource-consuming bureaucratic and logistical tasks. Finally, financial hardship can be conceptualized as problems patients experience related to the cost of medical care. These burdens do not exist in isolation; time, administrative, and financial burdens intersect with and compound each other. Currently, we have limited evidence-based measures on the objective (e.g., scheduling time, transportation, wait time) and subjective (e.g., mental, emotional and physical stress) measures of time and administrative burden. We have even more limited evidence of the risk factors for and outcomes from increased time and administrative burdens, and how they differentially impact populations across social and demographic groups. In this commentary, we present a research agenda to map, measure, evaluate, and mitigate the time, administrative, and financial burdens of cancer and its care.
Background
In addition to greater delays in cancer screening and greater financial hardship, rural-dwelling cancer patients experience greater costs associated with accessing cancer care, including higher cumulative travel costs. This study aimed to identify and synthesize peer-reviewed research on the cumulative and overlapping costs associated with care access and utilization.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant studies published after 1995. by searching five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, and Healthcare Administration. Eligibility was determined using the PEO (Population, Exposure, and Outcomes) method, with clearly defined populations (cancer patients), exposures (financial hardship, toxicity, or distress; travel-related burdens), and outcomes (treatment access, treatment outcomes, health-related quality of life, and survival/mortality). Study characteristics, methods, and findings were extracted and summarized.
Results
Database searches yielded 6,439 results, of which 3,366 were unique citations. Of those, 141 were eligible for full-text review, and 98 studies at the intersection of cancer-related travel burdens and financial hardship were included. Five (5) themes emerged as we extracted from the full-texts of the included articles: (1) Cancer treatment choices, (2) Receipt of guideline-concordant care, (3) Cancer treatment outcomes, (4) Health-related quality of life, and (5) Propensity to participate in clinical trials.
Conclusions
This scoping review identifies and summarizes available research at the intersection of intersection of cancer care-related travel burdens and financial hardship. This review will inform the development of future interventions aimed at reducing the negative impacts of cancer-care related costs on patient outcomes and quality of life
Background: Poverty has been identified as a significant barrier to access to care for diabetes patients. Diabetes requires ongoing and adequate medical care, and delays or lack of care can exacerbate the disease and its complications. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the barriers that affect access to healthcare among diabetic patients living in poverty in Morocco. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with 20 diabetic individuals selected through purposive sampling. An interview guide was developed to facilitate in-depth interviews. The data were evaluated using the qualitative content analysis method. Results: Following data saturation, the final sample consisted of 20 participants: Twelve males and eight females, ranging in age from 23 to 83 years old. Three themes were identified as barriers for the poor: Contextual barriers, healthcare institution barriers, and patient barriers. The main findings highlighted the financial difficulties patients face due to the high cost of treatment for their illnesses. There was also an emphasis on issues related to healthcare institutions, including a lack of equipment and medication, staff shortages, distance, transportation, and the nature of the relationship between healthcare providers and patients. Conclusions: The study examined the obstacles to obtaining healthcare for diabetic patients living in poverty. These findings will help generate realistic recommendations for new strategies to improve equitable access to healthcare for the poor.
Background
No-show visits have serious consequences for patients, providers, and healthcare systems as they lead to delays in care, increased costs, and reduced access to services. Telemedicine has emerged as a promising alternative to in-person visits by reducing travel barriers, but risks exacerbating the digital divide. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telemedicine (video and phone) at a tertiary care academic center on no-show visits compared to in-person visits.
Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis of all weekday clinic visits among in-state adult patients at a single tertiary care center in the southeast from January 2020 to April 2023 was performed. Rates of no-show visits for patients who were seen via phone and video were compared with those who were seen in-person. Demographic and clinical characteristics of these groups were also compared, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and visit type. The primary outcome was the rate of no-show visits for each visit type.
Results
Our analysis included 3,105,382 scheduled appointments, of which 81.2% were in-person, 13.4% via video, and 5.4% via phone calls. Compared to in-person visits, phone calls and video visits reduced the odds of no-show visits by 50% (aOR 0.5, CI 0.49–0.51) and 15% (aOR 0.85, CI 0.84–0.86), respectively. Older patients, Black patients, patients furthest from clinic, and patients from counties with the greatest degree of vulnerability and disparities in digital access were more likely to use phone visits. No-shows were more common among non-white, male, and younger patients from counties with lower socioeconomic status.
Conclusion
Telemedicine effectively reduced no-show visits. However, limiting telemedicine to video-based visits only exacerbated disparities in access. Phone calls allow historically underserved patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to access healthcare and should be included within the definition of telemedicine.
Purpose
To characterize distance traveled for breast cancer screening and to sites of service for breast cancer treatment, among rural and urban women served by a Washington State healthcare network.
Methods
Data for this study came from one of the largest not-for-profit integrated healthcare delivery systems in Washington State. Generalized linear mixed models with gamma log link function were used to examine the associations between travel distance and sociodemographic and contextual characteristics of patients.
Results
Median travel distance for breast cancer screening facilities, hematologist/oncologists, radiation oncologists, or surgeons was 11, 19, 23, or 11 miles, respectively. Travel distance to breast cancer screening or referral facilities was longer in non-core metropolitan ZIP codes compared to metropolitan ZIP codes. AI/AN and Hispanic women travelled longer distances to reach referral facilities compared to other racial and ethnic groups.
Conclusion
Disparities exist in travel distance to breast cancer screening and treatment. Further research is needed to describe sociodemographic and system level characteristics that contribute to such disparities and to discover novel approaches to alleviate this burden.
Purpose:
There is strong evidence that hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Lack of access to high-volume hospitals (HVHs) may contribute to rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes. Yet, methods used to classify hospitals as high-volume vary, making interpretation of evidence on hospital volume complex. This study examines urban-rural differences in receipt of cancer surgery at HVHs and sensitivity to volume thresholds used.
Materials and methods:
Using 2017-2020 statewide Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council inpatient data, we implemented logistic regression models to examine the association between rural residence and cancer surgery at a HVH using different volume thresholds that are commonly used in the literature: top 10%, 20%, 25%, and 30%.
Results:
The relationship between rural residence and treatment in a HVH varied by cancer type, and for some cancers, varied in direction, magnitude, or statistical significance, depending on the volume threshold used. Rural patients with cancers of pancreas or esophagus were consistently more likely to receive surgery at HVHs across all four thresholds. For rectum, colon, bladder, lung, and breast cancers, rural patients were consistently less likely to receive surgery at HVHs. For prostate, brain, and stomach cancers, there was less consistency in the relationship between rural residence and treatment.
Conclusion:
For many cancers, patients residing in rural areas are less likely to receive care at HVHs. Findings highlight the complexity of examining patterns of cancer care at HVHs and can inform efforts to direct patients to HVHs.
OBJECTIVE
Interhospital transfers in the acute setting may contribute to high cost, patient inconvenience, and delayed treatment. The authors sought to understand patterns and predictors in the transfer of brain metastasis patients after emergency department (ED) encounter.
METHODS
The authors analyzed 3037 patients with brain metastasis who presented to the ED in Massachusetts and were included in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Emergency Department Database in 2018 and 2019.
RESULTS
The authors found that 6.9% of brain metastasis patients who presented to the ED were transferred to another facility, either directly or indirectly after admission. The sending EDs were more likely to be nonteaching hospitals without neurosurgery and radiation oncology services (p < 0.01). Transferred patients were more likely to present with neurological symptoms compared to those admitted or discharged (p < 0.01). Among those transferred, approximately 30% did not undergo a significant procedure after transfer and approximately 10% were discharged within 3 days, in addition to not undergoing significant interventions. In total, 74% of transferred patients were sent to a facility significantly farther (> 3 miles) than the nearest facility with neurosurgery and radiation oncology services. Further distance transfers were not associated with improvements in 30-day readmission rate (OR [95% CI] 0.64 [0.30–1.34] for 15–30 miles; OR [95% CI] 0.73 [0.37–1.46] for > 30 miles), 90-day readmission rate (OR [95% CI] 0.50 [0.18–1.28] for 15–30 miles; OR [95% CI] 0.53 [0.18–1.51] for > 30 miles), and length of stay (OR [95% CI] 1.21 days [0.94–1.29] for both 15–30 miles and > 30 miles) compared to close-distance transfers.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors identified a notable proportion of transfers without subsequent significant intervention or appreciable medical management. This may reflect ED physician discomfort with the neurological symptoms of brain metastasis. Many patients were also transferred to hospitals distant from their point of origin and demonstrated no differences in readmission rates and length of stay.
Background:
Medicare and Medicaid dually eligible beneficiaries (duals) could experience Medicaid coverage changes without losing Medicaid. It is unknown whether health care use and clinical outcomes among elderly duals with coverage changes would be like those among duals without coverage changes or duals ever lost Medicaid and whether various types of unstable coverage due to income/asset changes are associated with worse clinical outcomes.
Objectives:
Examine the associations of unstable Medicaid coverage with clinical outcomes among older Medicare beneficiaries.
Research design:
Population-based cohort study.
Subjects:
A total of 131,202 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer at 65 years and older between 2007 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database.
Measures:
We examined 2 types of unstable Medicaid coverage: (1) those who had changes in the types of Medicaid support they received and (2) those who ever lost Medicaid. We examined outcomes that predict better cancer survival and involve the use of inpatient and outpatient services and prescription drugs: early diagnosis, receiving surgery, receiving radiation, hormonal therapy adherence, and discontinuation. We used logistic regressions to estimate the predicted probabilities of outcomes for dual groups.
Results:
Duals had poorer outcomes than those who were "never dual." Women with the 2 types of unstable Medicaid coverage had similarly worse outcomes than those with stable coverage. Those with stable coverage had similar outcomes regardless of the generosity of Medicaid support.
Conclusions:
These patterns are concerning and, in the context of well-defined clinical guidelines for beneficial treatments that extend survival, point to the importance of stable insurance coverage and income.
Background:
Since 2016, the Choosing Wisely campaign has recommended against routine axillary surgery in elderly patients with early stage, hormone receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. The objective was to evaluate factors associated with axillary surgery in breast cancer patients meeting criteria for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission and identify potential disparities.
Methods:
Female patients age ≥70 years with cT1-2N0M0, ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed after publication of the Choosing Wisely recommendations, between 2016 and 2019, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics associated with axillary surgery were analyzed.
Results:
Of the 31 756 patients meeting omission criteria, 25 771 (81.2%) underwent axillary surgery. Hispanic ethnicity, median household income between 70,000, treatment in rural areas, poor differentiation, lobular and mixed lobular with ductal histology, T2 tumors, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy were factors associated with receiving axillary surgery on multivariable analysis. In the axillary surgery cohort, a median of 2 (IQR = 2) nodes were examined and 529 (2.1%) patients were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes.
Discussion:
Among elderly patients meeting Choosing Wisely criteria for SLNB omission, particular racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic populations may be at increased risk for potential over treatment. Identification of these factors provides specific opportunities for education and implementation of de-escalation of unnecessary procedures.
Patients with cancer residing in geographically rural areas experience lower rates of preventative screening, more advanced disease at presentation, and higher mortality rates compared with urban populations. Although multiple factors contribute, access to transportation has been proposed as a critical barrier affecting timeliness and quality of health care delivery in rural populations. Patients from geographically rural regions may face a variety of transportation barriers, including lack of public transportation, limited access to private vehicles, and increased travel distance to specialized oncologic care. A search using PubMed was conducted to identify articles pertaining to transportation barriers to cancer care and tested interventions in rural patient populations. Studies demonstrate that transportation barriers are associated with delayed follow-up after abnormal screening test results, decreased access to specialized oncology care, and lower rates of receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Low clinical trial enrollment and variability in survivorship care are also linked to transportation barriers in rural patient populations. Given the demonstrated impact of transportation access on equitable cancer care delivery, several interventions have been tested. Telehealth visits and outreach clinics appear to reduce patient travel burden and increase access to specialized care, and patient navigation programs are effective in connecting patients with local resources, such as free or subsidized nonemergency medical transportation. To ensure equal access to high-quality cancer care and reduce geographic disparities, the design and implementation of tailored, multilevel interventions to address transportation barriers affecting rural communities is critical.
Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.
Background:
Rural cancer patients receive lower-quality care and experience worse outcomes than urban patients. Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requires hospitals to monitor performance on evidence-based quality measuresPlease confirm the list of authors is correc, but the impact of accreditation is not clear due to lack of data from non-accredited facilities and confounding between patient rurality and hospital accreditation, rurality, and size.
Methods:
This retrospective, observational study assessed associations between rurality, accreditation, size, and performance rates for four CoC quality measures (breast radiation, breast chemotherapy, colon chemotherapy, colon nodal yield). Iowa Cancer Registry data were queried to identify all eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. Cases were assigned to the surgery hospital to calculate performance rates. Univariate and multivariate regression models were fitted to identify patient- and hospital-level predictors and assess trends.
Results:
The study cohort included 10,381 patients; 46% were rural. Compared with urban patients, rural patients more often received treatment at small, rural, and non-accredited facilities (p < 0.001 for all). Rural hospitals had fewer beds and were far less likely to be CoC-accredited than urban hospitals (p < 0.001 for all). On multivariate analysis, CoC accreditation was the strongest, independent predictor of higher hospital performance for all quality measures evaluated (p < 0.05 in each model). Performance rates significantly improved over time only for the colon nodal yield quality measure, and only in urban hospitals.
Conclusions:
CoC accreditation requires monitoring and evaluating performance on quality measures, which likely contributes to better performance on these measures. Efforts to support rural hospital accreditation may improve existing disparities in rural cancer treatment and outcomes.
Purpose
The University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) increased access to high-quality cancer care for patients treated in community hospitals across the state by leveraging the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards to improve quality among its member sites. This study describes the network activities and services identified as most helpful or effective to its members, as well as the perceived value of joining MCCAN or pursing accreditation.
Methods
An independent research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 administrators and clinicians from 10 MCCAN hospitals in 2019. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis was conducted.
Findings
Network affiliation and CoC accreditation were perceived as helpful to improving quality of care. Having both clinician and administrative champions were key facilitators to achieving CoC standards and made mentoring of member sites a critical activity of the Network. Other components identified as valuable and/or key to the Network's success included providing access to specific CoC-required clinical services (eg, genetic counseling); offering regular performance monitoring and individualized feedback; establishing a culture of quality improvement; and fostering trust within the Network with patient referrals (ie, sending patients back to their local hospital for ongoing care).
Conclusions
Quality improvement in community cancer programs is challenging but several strategies were identified by members as valuable and effective. Efforts to disseminate the MCCAN model should focus on identifying the needs of community hospitals, implementing a quality monitoring system, and fostering site-level champions who can be influential drivers of change.
Background: The current distribution of radiation therapy (RT) facilities in the US is not well established. A comprehensive inventory of US RT facilities was last assessed in 2005, based on data from state regulatory agencies and dosimetric quality assurance bodies. We updated this database to characterize population-level measures of geographic access to RT and analyze changes over the past 15 years.
Methods: We compiled data from regulatory and accrediting organizations to identify US facilities with linear accelerators used to treat humans in 2018-2020. Addresses were geocoded and analyzed with Geographic Information Services (GIS) software. Geographic access was characterized by assessing the Euclidian distance between zip code tabulation areas (ZCTA)/county centroids and RT facilities. Populations were assigned to each county to estimate the impact of facility changes at the population level. Logistic regressions were performed to identify features associated with increased distance to RT and associated with regions that gained an RT facility between the two time points studied.
Results: In 2020, a total of 2,313 US RT facilities were reported compared to 1,987 in 2005, representing a 16.4% growth in facilities over nearly 15 years. Based on population attribution to ZCTA centroids, 77.9% of the US population lives within 12.5 miles of an RT facility, and 1.8% of the US population lives more than 50 miles from an RT facility. We found that increased distance to RT was associated with non-metro status, less insurance, older median age, and less populated regions. Between 2005 and 2020, the population living within 12.5 miles from an RT facility increased by 2.1 percentage points, while the population living furthest from RT facilities decreased 0.6 percentage points. Regions with improved geographic RT access are more likely to be higher income and better insured.
Conclusion: 1.8% of the US population has limited geographic access to radiation therapy. We found that people benefiting from improved access to RT facilities are more economically advantaged, suggesting disparities in geographic access may not improve without intervention.
Neighborhood has significant implications for breast cancer screening, stage, treatment, and mortality. Patients residing in neighborhoods with high deprivation or rurality face barriers and challenges to accessing and receiving care. Consequently, they experience higher mortality rates than their financially affluent or urban counterparts. There are multiple gaps in the literature on the relationship between place of residence and the use of systemic therapies or emerging surgical strategies for disease management. As the management of breast cancer continues to evolve, additional studies are needed to understand the implications of place on the implementation and dissemination of new and emerging treatment modalities.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Efforts to promote breast cancer control in rural settings face specific challenges. Access to breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment services is impaired by shortages of primary care and specialist providers, and geographic distance from medical facilities. Women in rural areas have comparable breast cancer mortality rates compared to women in urban settings, but this is due in large part to lower incidence rates and masks a substantial rural/urban disparity in breast cancer survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Mammography screening utilization rates are slightly lower among rural women than their urban counterparts, with a corresponding increase in late stage breast cancer. Differences in breast cancer survival persist after controlling for stage at diagnosis, largely due to disparities in access to treatment. Travel distance to treatment centers is the most substantial barrier to improved breast cancer outcomes in rural areas. While numerous interventions have been demonstrated in controlled studies to be effective in promoting treatment access and adherence, widespread dissemination in public health and clinical practice remains lacking. Efforts to improve breast cancer control in rural areas should focus on implementation strategies for improving access to breast cancer treatments.
PURPOSE
Most Veterans Health Administration hospitals do not have radiation oncology (RO) departments on-site. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of on-site RO on referral patterns and timeliness of palliative radiation therapy (PRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A survey was sent to medical directors at 149 Veterans Health Administration centers. Questions evaluated frequency of referral for PRT, timeliness of RO consults and treatment, and barriers to referral for PRT. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate differences between centers that have on-site RO and centers that refer to outside facilities.
RESULTS
Of 108 respondents, 33 (31%) have on-site RO. Chi-square analysis revealed that RO consult within 1 week is more likely at centers with on-site RO (68% v 31%; P = .01). Centers with on-site RO more frequently deliver PRT for spinal cord compression within 24 hours (94% v 70%; P = .01). Those without on-site RO were more likely to want increased radiation oncologist involvement (64% v 26%; P < .001). Barriers to referral for PRT included patient ability to travel (81%), patient noncompliance (31%), delays in consult and/or treatment (31%), difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (14%), and concern regarding excessive number of treatments (13%). Respondents with on-site RO less frequently reported delays in consult and/or treatment (6% v 41%; P < .0001) and difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (0% v 20%; P = .0056) as barriers.
CONCLUSION
Respondents with on-site RO reported improved communication with radiation oncologists and more timely consultation and treatment initiation. Methods to improve timeliness of PRT for veterans at centers without on-site RO should be considered.
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) monotherapy, and EBRT+brachytherapy for men with very high-risk prostate cancer (VHRPC). Methods: Using a decision tree with embedded Markov process models, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing the three treatment strategies for hypothetical cohorts of men with VHRPC. The base case time horizon was ten years; consistent with the maximum follow-up reported in the literature. The model parameters for distant metastases and mortality were derived from a multi-institutional study utilizing patient-level data. Costs were from a societal standpoint and health state utilities were obtained via standard gamble techniques. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated per quality-adjusted life year using a 3% discount rate. Sensitivity analyses (SA) addressed uncertainty in key variables. Findings: EBRT+brachytherapy was both cost-saving and more effective than both EBRT monotherapy and RP, strongly dominating both alternative treatment strategies. These results remained robust to extensive SA.
Purpose
Rectal cancer is rarer than colon cancer and is a technically more difficult tumor for surgeons to remove, thus rectal cancer patients may travel longer for specialized treatment compared to colon cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether travel time for surgery was different for colon versus rectal cancer patients.
Methods
A secondary data analysis of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence data from the Iowa Cancer Registry data was conducted. Travel times along a street network from all residential ZIP Codes to all cancer surgery facilities were calculated using a geographic information system. A new method for analyzing “time‐to‐place” data using the same type of survival analysis method commonly used to analyze “time‐to‐event” data is introduced. Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze travel time differences for colon versus rectal cancer patients.
Results
A total of 5,844 CRC patients met inclusion criteria. Median travel time to the nearest surgical facility was 9 minutes, median travel time to the actual cancer surgery facilities was 22 minutes, and the median number of facilities bypassed was 3. Although travel times to the nearest surgery facilities were not significantly different for colon versus rectal cancer patients, rectal cancer patients on average traveled 15 minutes longer to their actual surgery facility and bypassed 2 more facilities to obtain surgery.
Discussion
In general, the survival analysis method used to analyze the time‐to‐place data as described here could be applied to a wide variety of health services and used to compare travel patterns among different groups.
Background
Federal law mandates complete insurance coverage for breast reconstruction and considers it an “essential” aspect of breast cancer treatment, on par with mastectomy and chemotherapy. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of women do not undergo reconstruction. The objective of this study is to assess care gaps in breast cancer treatment and reconstruction in rural populations.
Methods
All hospitals in Upstate New York were surveyed regarding what components of breast cancer care they provide, including breast surgery, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and plastic surgery. Survey results were correlated with population data to determine how many women might be impacted by geographic barriers to care.
Results
Of 135 hospitals, only 56% offered any component of breast cancer treatment, while 30% offer breast surgery, 44% offer radiation oncology, and 42% offer plastic surgery. Microsurgical breast reconstruction was offered at just 14% of hospitals. Only 11% of hospitals were complete cancer care centers, which offer all the essential elements of breast cancer care (breast surgery, reconstructive surgery, medical oncology, and radiation) and all reconstructive options (including microvascular). Based on population data, 21% of Upstate New Yorkers live in counties without access to any form of breast reconstruction, 44% live in counties without microsurgical reconstruction, 30% live in counties without a hospital that staffs all members of the cancer care team, and 47% live in counties without a complete cancer care center.
Conclusions
Geographic barriers play a large role in the lack of access to breast cancer care and reconstruction.
Some state governments are considering cuts to the non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit for Medicaid enrollees, and some Federal officials have proposed making this easier. Yet, there is clear demand. In 2015 alone, low-income patients used 59 million rides for medical appointments. NEMT’s future is under threat because evidence that NEMT improves health care access and downstream outcomes is incomplete. Second, it remains largely unknown whether scarce public resources for transportation are being driven to those who benefit from its availability. This knowledge gap is answerable but unknown because of variations in how states administer NEMT. As a result, tracking who uses the services is inconsistent, and states are unable to link NEMT data with health care outcomes. Instead of cutting NEMT benefits, we believe an alternative path involves improved tracking and evaluations of the benefit first. Better informed policy decisions are needed. Otherwise, if policymakers implement blanket reductions in NEMT spending, they run the risk of causing more harm than good.
Few studies of breast cancer treatment have focused on the Northern Plains of the United States, an area with a high mastec-tomy rate. This study examined the association between geographic access to radiation therapy facilities and receipt of breast cancer treatments among early-stage breast cancer patients in South Dakota. Based on 4,209 early-stage breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2012 in South Dakota, the study measured geographic proximity to radiation therapy facilities using the shortest travel time for patients to the closest radiation therapy facility. Two-level logistic regression models were used to estimate for early stage cases i) the odds of mastectomy versus breast conserving surgery (BCS); ii) the odds of not receiving radiation therapy after BCS versus receiving follow-up radiation therapy. Covariates included race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, tumour grade, tumour sequence, year of diagnosis, census tract-level poverty rate and urban/rural residence. The spatial scan statistic method was used to identify geographic areas with significantly higher likelihood of experiencing mastectomy. The study found that geographic accessibility to radiation therapy facilities was negatively associated with the likelihood of receiving mastectomy after adjustment for other covariates, but not associated with radiation therapy use among patients receiving BCS. Compared with patients travelling less than 30 minutes to a radiation therapy facility, patients travelling more than 90 minutes were about 1.5 times more likely to receive mastectomy (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.11) and patients travelling more than 120 minutes were 1.7 times more likely to receive mastectomy (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.42). The study also identified a statistically significant cluster of patients receiving mastectomy who were located in southeastern South Dakota, after adjustment for other factors. Because geographic proximity to treatment facilities plays an important role on the treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients, this study has important implications for developing targeted intervention to reduce disparities in breast cancer treatment in South Dakota.
Objectives:
To investigate whether there is an association between differences in travel time/travel distance to healthcare services and patients' health outcomes and assimilate the methodologies used to measure this.
Design:
Systematic Review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Transport database, HMIC and EBM Reviews for studies up to 7 September 2016. Studies were excluded that included children (including maternity), emergency medical travel or countries classed as being in the global south.
Settings:
A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care (these were not restricted in the search).
Results:
108 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were mixed. 77% of the included studies identified evidence of a distance decay association, whereby patients living further away from healthcare facilities they needed to attend had worse health outcomes (eg, survival rates, length of stay in hospital and non-attendance at follow-up) than those who lived closer. 6 of the studies identified the reverse (a distance bias effect) whereby patients living at a greater distance had better health outcomes. The remaining 19 studies found no relationship. There was a large variation in the data available to the studies on the patients' geographical locations and the healthcare facilities attended, and the methods used to calculate travel times and distances were not consistent across studies.
Conclusions:
The review observed that a relationship between travelling further and having worse health outcomes cannot be ruled out and should be considered within the healthcare services location debate.
Background:
Guideline-concordant local therapy options for early breast cancer include lumpectomy plus whole breast irradiation (Lump+WBI), lumpectomy plus brachytherapy, mastectomy alone, mastectomy plus reconstruction, and, in older women, lumpectomy alone. We performed a comparative examination of each treatment's complications and cost to assess their relative values.
Methods:
Using the MarketScan database of younger women with private insurance and the SEER-Medicare database of older women with public insurance, we identified 105 211 women with early breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2011. We used diagnosis and procedural codes to identify treatment complications within 24 months of diagnosis and compared complications by treatment using two-sided logistic regression. Mean total and complication-related cost, relative to Lump+WBI, were calculated from a payer's perspective and adjusted for differences in covariables using linear regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results:
Lump+WBI was the most commonly used treatment. Mastectomy plus reconstruction was associated with nearly twice the complication risk of Lump+WBI (Marketscan: 54.3% vs 29.6%, relative risk [RR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.82 to 1.91, P < .001; SEER-Medicare: 66.1% vs 37.6%, RR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.69 to 1.82, P < .001) and was also associated with higher adjusted total cost (Marketscan: 1748 greater) and complication-related cost (Marketscan: 2092 greater). Brachytherapy had modestly higher total cost and complications than WBI. Lumpectomy alone entailed lower cost and complications in the SEER-Medicare cohort only.
Conclusions:
Mastectomy plus reconstruction results in substantially higher complications and cost than other guideline-concordant treatment options for early breast cancer. These findings are relevant to patients evaluating their local therapy options and to value-based population health management.
Background:
We determined whether the current SEER registries are representative of the nation's cancer cases or the socio-demographic characteristics.
Methods:
We used breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) cases diagnosed 2004-2009 from the US Cancer Statistics (USCS) database. Cases were classified into groups residing in SEER coverage areas and the other areas. We compared difference between SEER and non-SEER areas in: age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, area demographics and socioeconomic factors, and data quality.
Results:
For late-stage CRC diagnosis, SEER areas contained lower proportions of people with other race and higher proportions of Asian and Hispanic females aged <40, than non-SEER areas. For late-stage BC diagnosis, SEER and non-SEER estimates were comparable. SEER areas had lower percentages of whites and higher percentages of young people, were more urban, and had higher percentage of poor, lower educational attainment, and higher unemployment. SEER areas also tended to have a higher percentage of case completeness than non-SEER areas.
Conclusion:
Overall, SEER registries were not significantly different from non-SEER areas in terms of average age-race-specific proportions of late-stage BC or CRC, except for estimates of late-stage CRC for other race and young Asian and Hispanic women. Although case completeness was better in SEER areas than non-SEER areas, SEER areas had greater economic disadvantage and greater minority diversity among the population. This study demonstrated a need for caution in using SEER data and discussed advantages of using the more complete USCS database.
Characterizing geographic access depends on a broad range of methods available to researchers and the healthcare context to which the method is applied. Globally, travel time is one frequently used measure of geographic access with known limitations associated with data availability. Specifically, due to lack of available utilization data, many travel time studies assume that patients use the closest facility. To examine this assumption, an example using mammography screening data, which is considered a geographically abundant health care service in the United States, is explored. This work makes an important methodological contribution to measuring access—which is a critical component of health care planning and equity almost everywhere.
We analyzed one mammogram from each of 646,553 women participating in the US based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for years 2005–2012. We geocoded each record to street level address data in order to calculate travel time to the closest and to the actually used mammography facility. Travel time between the closest and the actual facility used was explored by woman-level and facility characteristics.
Only 35 % of women in the study population used their closest facility, but nearly three-quarters of women not using their closest facility used a facility within 5 min of the closest facility. Individuals that by-passed the closest facility tended to live in an urban core, within higher income neighborhoods, or in areas where the average travel times to work was longer. Those living in small towns or isolated rural areas had longer closer and actual median drive times.
Since the majority of US women accessed a facility within a few minutes of their closest facility this suggests that distance to the closest facility may serve as an adequate proxy for utilization studies of geographically abundant services like mammography in areas where the transportation networks are well established.
Rural cancer patients face many challenges in receiving care, including limited availability of cancer treatments and cancer support providers (oncologists, social workers, mental healthcare providers, palliative care specialists, etc), transportation barriers, financial issues, and limited access to clinical trials. Oncologists and other cancer care providers experience parallel challenges in delivering care to their rural cancer patients. Although no one approach fully addresses the many challenges of rural cancer care, a number of promising strategies and interventions have been developed that transcend the issues associated with long travel distances. These include outreach clinics, virtual tumor boards, teleoncology and other telemedicine applications, workforce recruitment and retention initiatives, and provider and patient education programs. Given the projected increase in demand for cancer care due to the aging population and increasing number of Americans with health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, expansion of these efforts and development of new approaches are critical to ensure access to high-quality care.
Background:
Distance to oncology service providers and rurality may affect receipt of guideline-recommended radiation therapy (RT), but the extent to which these factors affect the care of Medicare-insured patients is unknown.
Methods:
Using cancer registry data linked to Medicare claims from the Integrated Cancer Information and Surveillance System (ICISS), we identified all women aged 65 years or older who were diagnosed with stage I, II, or III breast cancer from 2003 through 2005, who had Medicare claims through 2006, and who were clinically eligible for RT. We geocoded the address of each RT service provider's practice location and calculated the travel distance from each patient's residential address to the nearest RT provider. We used ZIP codes to classify each patient's residence as rural or urban according to rural- urban commuting area codes. We used generalized estimating equations models with county-level clustering and interaction terms between distance categories and rural-urban status to estimate the effect of distance to care and rural-urban status on receipt of RT.
Results:
In urban areas, increasing distance to the nearest RT provider was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving RT (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.97) for those living more than 20 miles from the nearest RT provider compared with those living less than 10 miles away. In rural areas, those living within 10-20 miles of the nearest RT provider were more likely to receive RT than those living less than 10 miles away (OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.76).
Limitations:
Results may not be generalizable to areas outside North Carolina or to non-Medicare populations.
Conclusion:
Coordinated outreach programs targeted differently to rural and urban patients may be necessary to improve the quality of oncology care.
Health care access and advanced cancer stage are associated with oncologic outcomes for numerous common cancers. However, the impact of patient travel distance to health care on stage at diagnosis has not been well characterized.
This study used a historical cohort of patients with colon cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2003 through 2010. The primary outcome, stage at diagnosis, was evaluated using hierarchical regression modeling. A secondary outcome was time to receipt of initial therapy that was evaluated using Cox shared frailty modeling.
Among 296,474 patients with colon cancer (mean age, 68 ± 13.6 years; 47.6% male; 78.5% white), 3.9% traveled ≥ 50 miles to the diagnosing facility. Fewer black patients, patients with higher income, and patients with lower education traveled longer distances (trend test P < .001 for all). Patients traveling ≥ 50 miles were more likely to present with metastatic disease compared with those traveling less than 12.5 miles (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.24) or 12.5 to 49.9 miles (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.24). In sensitivity analyses, the association was robust to alternate methods of modeling travel distance (quintile stratification or continuous). Travel distance ≥ 50 miles was also associated with a higher likelihood of earlier initiation of therapy compared with travel distance of less than 12.5 miles (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.13) or 12.5 to 49.9 miles (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.13).
Advanced colon cancer stage at diagnosis is associated with patient travel distance to health care, which may be a barrier to early cancer screening. Health care reform efforts designed to address only insurance coverage may not mitigate disparities based on difficulties accessing cancer care.
Women with early stage breast cancer who live far from a radiation therapy facility may be more likely to opt for mastectomy over breast conserving surgery (BCS). The geographic dimensions of this relationship deserve further scrutiny.
For over 100,000 breast cancer patients in 10 states who received either mastectomy or BCS, a newly-developed software tool was used to calculate the shortest travel distance to the location of surgery and to the nearest radiation treatment center. The likelihood of receipt of mastectomy was modeled as a function of these distance measures and other demographic variables using multilevel logistic regression.
Women traveling over 75 km for treatment are about 1.4 times more likely to receive a mastectomy than those traveling under 15 km.
Geographic barriers to optimal breast cancer treatment remain a valid concern, though most women traveling long distances to receive mastectomies are doing so after bypassing local options.
National and regional data indicate that breast cancer early detection is low in Kentucky, especially rural regions, perhaps because access to mammography services can be problematic.
This study examined the distance between residences of women diagnosed with breast cancer and the nearest mammography facility, as a risk factor for advanced stage diagnosis in rural populations.
1999-2003 Kentucky Cancer Registry data were used for this study. A total of 12,322 women, aged 40 and older at diagnosis, with no previous history of cancer, and with known cancer stage were included. Travel distance was obtained using a geographic information system (GIS). Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship between travel distance and advanced stage diagnosis.
Advanced diagnoses had longer average travel distances than early stage diagnoses (P < 0.01). After adjusting for age, race, insurance, and education at census tract level, the odds of advanced diagnosis were significantly greater for women residing over 15 miles from a facility, compared to those living within 5 miles (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.25-1.80).
Although socioeconomic status, race, and age may help explain advanced diagnoses, longer travel distance also adversely affects early detection for rural populations. Accurate measurement of spatial accessibility indicators, such as travel distance, facilitates identification of at-risk groups so that interventions can be developed to reduce this disease.
Effective breast-conserving surgical techniques for early-stage disease were developed to improve breast cancer patients' quality of life. The literature comparing the psychosocial sequelae of these newer treatments with mastectomy is ambiguous and shows an unexpected lack of substantial benefits. To clarify these inconsistencies, meta-analytic methods were used to summarize the findings of 40 investigations. Mean weighted effect sizes were calculated for 6 psychosocial outcomes. Modest advantages for breast-conserving surgery were identified for psychological, marital-sexual, and social adjustment; body/self-image; and cancer-related fears and concerns. Method of assignment to treatment and timing of assessment were relevant for some outcomes.
To develop and validate a clinically informed algorithm that uses solely Medicare claims to identify, with a high positive predictive value, incident breast cancer cases.
Population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Tumor Registry data linked to Medicare claims, and Medicare claims from a 5 percent random sample of beneficiaries in SEER areas.
An algorithm was developed using claims from 1995 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database, as well as 1995 claims from Medicare control subjects. The algorithm was validated on claims from breast cancer subjects and controls from 1994. The algorithm development process used both clinical insight and logistic regression methods.
Training set: Claims from 7,700 SEER-Medicare breast cancer subjects diagnosed in 1995, and 124,884 controls. Validation set: Claims from 7,607 SEER-Medicare breast cancer subjects diagnosed in 1994, and 120,317 controls.
A four-step prediction algorithm was developed and validated. It has a positive predictive value of 89 to 93 percent, and a sensitivity of 80 percent for identifying incident breast cancer. The sensitivity is 82-87 percent for stage I or II, and lower for other stages. The sensitivity is 82-83 percent for women who underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy, and is similar across geographic sites. A cohort identified with this algorithm will have 89-93 percent incident breast cancer cases, 1.5-6 percent cancer-free cases, and 4-5 percent prevalent breast cancer cases.
This algorithm has better performance characteristics than previously proposed algorithms. The ability to examine national patterns of breast cancer care using Medicare claims data would open new avenues for the assessment of quality of care.
To examine the effect of travel distance and other sociodemographic factors on access to a diagnosing provider for patients with melanoma.
Analysis was performed of all incident cases of melanoma in 2000 from 42 North Carolina counties.
Academic research.
Patients and providers from 42 North Carolina counties were geocoded to street address.
Associations between Breslow thickness and clinical and sociodemographic factors (age, sex, poverty rate, rurality, provider supply, and distance to diagnosing provider) were examined.
Of 643 eligible cases, 4.4% were excluded because of missing data. The median Breslow thickness was 0.6 mm (range, 0.1-20.0 mm). The median distance to diagnosing provider was 8 miles (range, 0-386 miles). For each 1-mile increase in distance, Breslow thickness increased by 0.6% (P =.003). For each 1% increase in poverty rate, Breslow thickness increased by 1% (P =.04). Breslow thickness was 19% greater for patients aged 51 to 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P =.02) and was 109% greater for patients older than 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P < .001). Sex, rurality, and supply of dermatologists were not associated with Breslow thickness.
For patients with melanoma, distance to the diagnosing provider is a meaningful measure of access that captures different information than community-level measures of rurality, provider supply, and socioeconomic status. Future work should be targeted at identifying factors that may affect distance to diagnosing provider and serve as barriers to melanoma care.
The variations of breast cancer mortality rates from place to place reflect both underlying differences in breast cancer prevalence and differences in diagnosis and treatment that affect the risk of death. This article examines the role of access to health care in explaining the variation of late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. We use cancer registry data for the state of Illinois by zip code to investigate spatial variation in late diagnosis. Geographic information systems and spatial analysis methods are used to create detailed measures of spatial access to health care such as convenience of visiting primary care physicians and travel time from the nearest mammography facility. The effects of spatial access, in combination with the influences of socioeconomic factors, on late-stage breast cancer diagnosis are assessed using statistical methods. The results suggest that for breast cancer, poor geographical access to primary health care significantly increases the risk of late diagnosis for persons living outside the city of Chicago. Disadvantaged population groups including those with low income and racial and ethnic minorities tend to experience high rates of late diagnosis. In Illinois, poor spatial access to primary health care is more strongly associated with late diagnosis than is spatial access to mammography. This suggests the importance of primary care physicians as gatekeepers in early breast cancer detection.
6030
Background: Post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has been shown to improve survival in patients at high risk for local or regional recurrence. However, radiation therapy necessitates daily travel to treatment centers for several weeks. We sought to study the effect of distance to the nearest radiation treatment facility on receipt of PMRT in elderly women. Methods: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database, we analyzed 19,787 women with Stage I or II breast cancer who received mastectomy as definitive surgery between 1991 and 1999. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association of travel distance with receipt of PMRT after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Results: Overall, 2,075 (10.5%) patients treated with mastectomy received PMRT. In addition to cancer and patient characteristics, increasing distance from the nearest radiation treatment facility was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving PMRT, (OR = 0.996 per additional mile, p = 0.01). The decline in PMRT use appeared at distances greater than 25 miles and was statistically significant for those patients living greater than 75 miles from the nearest radiation facility (odds of receiving PMRT of 0.58 [95% CI: 0.34–0.99] versus those living within 25 miles of such a facility). In secondary analyses, the effect of distance was only significant in women aged 75–80 years (OR = 0.992 per additional mile, p = 0.03), and those above the age of 80 (OR = 0.989, p = 0.02). When analyses were conducted separately by geographic region, the effect of distance was only significant in the Midwest (OR = 0.992, p = 0.014). The effect of distance was not significant (OR = 1.00, p = 0.87) among women with positive nodes, but was significant in women with no positive nodes (OR = 0.992, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Oncologists must be cognizant of the potential barrier to quality care that is posed by travel distance, especially for elderly patients. Mechanisms to ameliorate the effect of distance on receipt of radiation therapy by assisting individuals with transportation limitations or policies to decrease the centralization of RT services, may help to remove barriers to potentially life-saving treatment.
No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Background:
Transportation to primary care is a well-documented barrier for patients with Medicaid, despite access to non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefits. Rideshare services, which offer greater convenience and lower cost, have been proposed as an NEMT alternative.
Objective:
To evaluate the impact of rideshare-based medical transportation on the proportion of Medicaid patients attending scheduled primary care appointments.
Design:
In one of two similar practices, all eligible Medicaid patients were offered rideshare-based transportation ("rideshare practice"). A difference-in-difference analytical approach using logistic regression with robust standard errors was employed to compare show rate changes between the rideshare practice and the practice where rideshare was not offered ("control practice").
Participants:
Our study population included residents of West Philadelphia who were insured by Medicaid and were established patients at two academic general internal medicine practices located in the same building.
Intervention:
We designed a rideshare-based transportation pilot intervention. Patients were offered the service during their reminder call 2 days before the appointment, and rides were prescheduled by research staff. Patients then called research staff to schedule their return trip home.
Main measures:
We assessed the effect of offering rideshare-based transportation on appointment show rates by comparing the change in the average show rate for the rideshare practice, from the baseline period to the intervention period, with the change at the control practice.
Key results:
At the control practice, the show rate declined from 60% (146/245) to 51% (34/67). At the rideshare practice, the show rate improved from 54% (72/134) to 68% (41/60). In the adjusted model, controlling for patient demographics and provider type, the odds of showing up for an appointment before and after the intervention increased 2.57 (1.10-6.00) times more in the rideshare practice than in the control practice.
Conclusions:
Results of this pilot program suggest that offering a rideshare-based transportation service can increase show rates to primary care for Medicaid patients.
Purpose To present guidance for patients and physicians regarding the use of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI), based on current published evidence complemented by expert opinion. Methods and Materials A systematic search of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database yielded 645 candidate original research articles potentially applicable to APBI. Of these, 4 randomized trials and 38 prospective single-arm studies were identified. A Task Force composed of all authors synthesized the published evidence and, through a series of meetings, reached consensus regarding the recommendations contained herein. Results The Task Force proposed three patient groups: ( 1 ) a "suitable" group, for whom APBI outside of a clinical trial is acceptable, ( 2 ) a "cautionary" group, for whom caution and concern should be applied when considering APBI outside of a clinical trial, and ( 3 ) an "unsuitable" group, for whom APBI outside of a clinical trial is not generally considered warranted. Patients who choose treatment with APBI should be informed that whole-breast irradiation (WBI) is an established treatment with a much longer track record that has documented long-term effectiveness and safety. Conclusion Accelerated partial-breast irradiation is a new technology that may ultimately demonstrate long-term effectiveness and safety comparable to that of WBI for selected patients with early breast cancer. This consensus statement is intended to provide guidance regarding the use of APBI outside of a clinical trial and to serve as a framework to promote additional clinical investigations into the optimal role of APBI in the treatment of breast cancer.
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute collects data on cancer diagnoses, treatment, and survival for approximately 30% of the United States (US) population. To reflect advances in research and oncology practice, approaches to cancer control are evolving from simply enumerating the development of cancers by organ site in populations to including monitoring of cancer occurrence by histopathologic and molecular subtype, as defined by driver mutations and other alterations. SEER is an important population-based resource for understanding the implications of pathology diagnoses across demographic groups, geographic regions, and time and provides unique insights into the practice of oncology in the US that are not attainable from other sources. It provides incidence, survival, and mortality data for histopathologic cancer subtypes, and data by molecular subtyping are expanding. The program is developing systems to capture additional biomarker data, results from special populations, and expand biospecimen banking to enable cutting-edge cancer research and oncology practice. Pathology has always been central and critical to the effectiveness of SEER, and strengthening this relationship in this modern era of cancer diagnosis could be mutually beneficial. Achieving this goal requires close interactions between pathologists and the SEER program. This review provides a brief overview of SEER, focuses on facets relevant to pathology practice and research, and highlights the opportunities and challenges for pathologists to benefit from and enhance the value of SEER data.
Background:
The authors compared longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and physician-rated cosmesis with conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI) versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) within the context of a randomized trial.
Methods:
From 2011 to 2014, a total of 287 women with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage II breast cancer were randomized to receive CF-WBI (at a dose of 50 grays in 25 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) or HF-WBI (at a dose of 42.56 grays in 16 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) after breast-conserving surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, and the Body Image Scale and were recorded at baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years after radiotherapy. Physician-rated cosmesis was assessed at the same time points. Outcomes by treatment arm were compared at each time point using a 2-sided Student t test. Multivariable mixed effects growth curve models assessed the effects of treatment arm and time on longitudinal outcomes.
Results:
Of the 287 patients enrolled, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 were randomized to HF-WBI. At 2 years, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Trial Outcome Index score was found to be modestly better in the HF-WBI arm (mean 79.6 vs 75.9 for CF-WBI; P = .02). In multivariable mixed effects models, treatment arm was not found to be associated with longitudinal outcomes after adjusting for time and baseline outcome measures (P≥.14). The linear effect of time was significant for BCTOS measures of functional status (P = .001, improved with time) and breast pain (P = .002, improved with time).
Conclusions:
In this randomized trial, longitudinal outcomes did not appear to differ by treatment arm. Patient-reported functional and pain outcomes improved over time. These findings are relevant when counseling patients regarding decisions concerning radiotherapy. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Cancer care in the United States remained a mixed picture in 2015. Declining mortality rates, growing numbers of survivors, and exciting progress in treatment were set against the backdrop of increasingly unsustainable costs and a volatile practice environment. In this third annual State of Cancer Care in America report, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) describes both challenges and opportunities facing the US cancer care system.
Purpose:
Prior studies have forecasted demand for radiation therapy to grow 10 times faster than the supply between 2010 and 2020. We updated these projections for 2015 to 2025 to determine whether this imbalance persists and to assess the accuracy of prior projections.
Methods and materials:
The demand for radiation therapy between 2015 and 2025 was estimated by combining current radiation utilization rates determined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data with population projections provided by the US Census Bureau. The supply of radiation oncologists was forecast by using workforce demographics and full-time equivalent (FTE) status provided by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), current resident class sizes, and expected survival per life tables from the US Centers for Disease Control.
Results:
Between 2015 and 2025, the annual total number of patients receiving radiation therapy during their initial treatment course is expected to increase by 19%, from 490,000 to 580,000. Assuming a graduating resident class size of 200, the number of FTE physicians is expected to increase by 27%, from 3903 to 4965. In comparison with prior projections, the new projected demand for radiation therapy in 2020 dropped by 24,000 cases (a 4% relative decline). This decrease is attributable to an overall reduction in the use of radiation to treat cancer, from 28% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the prior projections down to 26% for the new projections. By contrast, the new projected supply of radiation oncologists in 2020 increased by 275 FTEs in comparison with the prior projection for 2020 (a 7% relative increase), attributable to rising residency class sizes.
Conclusion:
The supply of radiation oncologists is expected to grow more quickly than the demand for radiation therapy from 2015 to 2025. Further research is needed to determine whether this is an appropriate correction or will result in excess capacity.
The objective of this study was to develop a prospectively applicable method for classifying comorbid conditions which might alter the risk of mortality for use in longitudinal studies. A weighted index that takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid disease was developed in a cohort of 559 medical patients. The 1-yr mortality rates for the different scores were: "0", 12% (181); "1-2", 26% (225); "3-4", 52% (71); and "greater than or equal to 5", 85% (82). The index was tested for its ability to predict risk of death from comorbid disease in the second cohort of 685 patients during a 10-yr follow-up. The percent of patients who died of comorbid disease for the different scores were: "0", 8% (588); "1", 25% (54); "2", 48% (25); "greater than or equal to 3", 59% (18). With each increased level of the comorbidity index, there were stepwise increases in the cumulative mortality attributable to comorbid disease (log rank chi 2 = 165; p less than 0.0001). In this longer follow-up, age was also a predictor of mortality (p less than 0.001). The new index performed similarly to a previous system devised by Kaplan and Feinstein. The method of classifying comorbidity provides a simple, readily applicable and valid method of estimating risk of death from comorbid disease for use in longitudinal studies. Further work in larger populations is still required to refine the approach because the number of patients with any given condition in this study was relatively small.
Implications for practice:
The influence of travel burden on cancer patients has been previously studied, but this is the first comprehensive review of the available literature. This review shows that travel burden negatively influences stage at diagnosis, appropriate treatment, outcome, and quality of life in cancer patients. The results demonstrate that clinical oncologists should keep in mind the specific travel burden problem for cancer patients who often need health care services every week or every month for many years.
Background
To determine whether increasing distance to the nearest accessible specialist hospital (NASH, a public hospital with a thoracic surgical service) increases a patient's likelihood of missing out on curative surgery for localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Method
Population-based study of cancer registry records for 27 033 people with lung cancer diagnosed in New South Wales, Australia, between 2000 and 2008 linked to hospital admission records. This analysis includes 3240 patients with localized NSCLC admitted to hospital within 12 months of diagnosis.ResultsPatients who lived 100+ km from the NASH were more likely to have no surgery (50.6%) than those living 0–39 km away (37.6%) and more likely to attend general hospitals for their care (52.2% at 100+ km, 14.8% at 0–39 km). Relative to patients living 0–39 km from the NASH and attending a specialist hospital for their care, the odds ratio (OR) of not having surgery was high if patients attended a general hospital (adjusted OR 5.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87–9.26, for those 0–39 km distant) and even higher as distance from the NASH increased (24.68, 95% CI 12.37–49.13 for 40–49 km and 30.10, 95% CI 18.2–49.40 for 100+ km). For patients treated in specialist hospitals (public or private), the trend with distance was opposite: relative to 0–39 km, the OR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.15–0.50) at 40–99 km and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08–0.26) at 100+ km.Conclusions
Patients with localized NSCLC are most likely to have no potentially curative surgery if they live distant from a specialist hospital and attend a general hospital for their care.
Transportation barriers are often cited as barriers to healthcare access. Transportation barriers lead to rescheduled or missed appointments, delayed care, and missed or delayed medication use. These consequences may lead to poorer management of chronic illness and thus poorer health outcomes. However, the significance of these barriers is uncertain based on existing literature due to wide variability in both study populations and transportation barrier measures. The authors sought to synthesize the literature on the prevalence of transportation barriers to health care access. A systematic literature search of peer-reviewed studies on transportation barriers to healthcare access was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) study addressed access barriers for ongoing primary care or chronic disease care; (2) study included assessment of transportation barriers; and (3) study was completed in the United States. In total, 61 studies were reviewed. Overall, the evidence supports that transportation barriers are an important barrier to healthcare access, particularly for those with lower incomes or the under/uninsured. Additional research needs to (1) clarify which aspects of transportation limit health care access (2) measure the impact of transportation barriers on clinically meaningful outcomes and (3) measure the impact of transportation barrier interventions and transportation policy changes.
Rural populations have limited geographic access to radiation therapy. The current study examines whether rural patients with cancer are less likely than urban patients with cancer to receive recommended radiation therapy, and identifies factors influencing rural versus urban differences in radiation therapy receipt.
The current study included 14,692 rural and 107,834 urban patients with 5 cancer types and stages for which radiation therapy was recommended. The authors used 2000 to 2004 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Limited-Use Data from 8 state-based (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Utah) and 3 county-based (Atlanta, rural Georgia, and Seattle/Puget Sound) cancer registries. Adjusted radiation therapy receipt rates were calculated by rural versus urban residence overall, for different sociodemographic and cancer characteristics, and for different states based on logistic regression analyses using general estimating equation methods to account for patient clustering by county.
Adjusted rates of radiation therapy receipt were lower for rural (62.1%) than urban (69.1%) patients with breast cancer (P ≤ .001). Among patients with breast cancer, radiation therapy receipt differed more by sociodemographic characteristics (eg, rural patients aged < 50 years had a 67.1% receipt rate, whereas those aged ≥ 80 years had a radiation therapy receipt rate of 29.1%) than rural versus urban residence. Adjusted rates of radiation therapy receipt were similar for rural and urban patients with other cancer types overall (66.1% vs 68.2%; difference not significant), although there were differences between urban and rural patients with regard to radiation therapy receipt for patients with stage IIIA nonsmall cell lung cancer (66.2% vs 60.7%; P ≤ .01).
Sociodemographics, cancer types and stages, and state of residence appear to have a greater influence over receipt of radiation therapy than rural versus urban residence location, suggesting that factors such as social support, receipt of other cancer treatments, and regional practice patterns are important determinants of radiation therapy receipt. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.
Background:
The distribution of radiation oncologists across the United States varies significantly among geographic regions. Accompanying these variations exist geographic variations in prostate cancer mortality. Prostate cancer outcomes have been linked to variations in urologist density, however, the impact of geographic variation in the radiation oncologist workforce and prostate cancer mortality has yet to be investigated. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of increasing radiation oncologist density on regional prostate cancer mortality.
Methods:
Using county-level prostate cancer mortality data from the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control as well as physician workforce and health system data from the Area Resource File a regression model was built for prostate cancer mortality controlling for categorized radiation oncologist density, urologist density, county socioeconomic factors and pre-existing health system infrastructure.
Results:
There was statistically significant reduction in prostate cancer mortality (3.91-5.45% reduction in mortality) in counties with at least 1 radiation oncologist compared with counties lacking radiation oncologists. However, increasing the density of radiation oncologists beyond 1 per 100 000 residents did not yield statistically significant incremental reductions in prostate cancer mortality.
Conclusion:
The presence of at least one radiation oncologist is associated with significant reductions in prostate cancer mortality within that county. However, the incremental benefit of increasing radiation oncologist density exhibits a plateau effect providing marginal benefit. In order to optimize outcomes a geographically aware policy, which addresses the size and distribution of the workforce, must be in place in order prevent geographic disparities in prostate cancer mortality.
Distance to provider might be an important barrier to timely diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients who qualify for Medicaid coverage. Whether driving time or driving distance is a better indicator of travel burden is also of interest.
Driving distances and times from patient residence to primary care provider were calculated for 3,917 breast, colorectal (CRC) and lung cancer Medicaid patients in Washington State from 1997 to 2003 using MapQuest.com. We fitted regression models of stage at diagnosis and time-to-treatment (number of days between diagnosis and surgery) to test the hypothesis that travel burden is associated with timely diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
Later stage at diagnosis for breast cancer Medicaid patients is associated with travel burden (OR = 1.488 per 100 driving miles, P= .037 and OR = 1.270 per driving hour, P= .016). Time-to-treatment after diagnosis of CRC is also associated with travel burden (14.57 days per 100 driving miles, P= .002 and 5.86 days per driving hour, P= .018).
Although travel burden is associated with timely diagnosis and treatment for some types of cancer, we did not find evidence that driving time was, in general, better at predicting timeliness of cancer diagnosis and treatment than driving distance. More intensive efforts at early detection of breast cancer and early treatment of CRC for Medicaid patients who live in remote areas may be needed.
To evaluate trends in the geographic distribution of the radiation oncology (RO) workforce.
We used the 1995 and 2007 versions of the Area Resource File to map the ratio of RO to the population aged 65 years or older (ROR) within different health service areas (HSA) within the United States. We used regression analysis to find associations between population variables and 2007 ROR. We calculated Gini coefficients for ROR to assess the evenness of RO distribution and compared that with primary care physicians and total physicians.
There was a 24% increase in the RO workforce from 1995 to 2007. The overall growth in the RO workforce was less than that of primary care or the overall physician workforce. The mean ROR among HSAs increased by more than one radiation oncologist per 100,000 people aged 65 years or older, from 5.08 per 100,000 to 6.16 per 100,000. However, there remained consistent geographic variability concerning RO distribution, specifically affecting the non-metropolitan HSAs. Regression analysis found higher ROR in HSAs that possessed higher education (p = 0.001), higher income (p < 0.001), lower unemployment rates (p < 0.001), and higher minority population (p = 0.022). Gini coefficients showed RO distribution less even than for both primary care physicians and total physicians (0.326 compared with 0.196 and 0.292, respectively).
Despite a modest growth in the RO workforce, there exists persistent geographic maldistribution of radiation oncologists allocated along socioeconomic and racial lines. To solve problems surrounding the RO workforce, issues concerning both gross numbers and geographic distribution must be addressed.
The volume-outcomes relationship has led many to advocate centralization of cancer procedures at high volume hospitals (HVH). We hypothesized that in response cancer surgery has become increasingly centralized and that this centralization has resulted in increased travel burden for patients.
Using 1996 to 2006 discharge data from NY, NJ, PA, all patients > or = 18 years old treated with extirpative surgery for colorectal, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer were examined. Patients and hospitals were geocoded. Annual hospital procedure volume for each tumor site was examined, and multiple quantile and logistic regressions were used to compare changes in centralization and distance traveled.
Five thousand two hundred seventy-three esophageal, 13,472 pancreatic, 202,879 colon, and 51,262 rectal procedures were included. A shift to HVH occurred to varying degrees for all tumor types. The odds of surgery at a low volume hospital decreased for esophagus, pancreas and colon: per year odds ratios (ORs) were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.90), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87), and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.98). Median travel distance increased for all sites: esophagus 72%, pancreas 40%, colon 17%, and rectum 28% (P < .0001). Travel distance was proportional to procedure volume (P < .0001). The majority of the increase in distance was attributable to centralization.
There has been extensive centralization of complex cancer surgery over the past decade. While this process should result in population-level improvements in cancer outcomes, centralization is increasing patient travel. For some subsets of the population, increasing travel requirements may pose a significant barrier to access to quality cancer care.
The objective of this study was to develop a prospectively applicable method for classifying comorbid conditions which might alter the risk of mortality for use in longitudinal studies. A weighted index that takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid disease was developed in a cohort of 559 medical patients. The 1-yr mortality rates for the different scores were: "0", 12% (181); "1-2", 26% (225); "3-4", 52% (71); and "greater than or equal to 5", 85% (82). The index was tested for its ability to predict risk of death from comorbid disease in the second cohort of 685 patients during a 10-yr follow-up. The percent of patients who died of comorbid disease for the different scores were: "0", 8% (588); "1", 25% (54); "2", 48% (25); "greater than or equal to 3", 59% (18). With each increased level of the comorbidity index, there were stepwise increases in the cumulative mortality attributable to comorbid disease (log rank chi 2 = 165; p less than 0.0001). In this longer follow-up, age was also a predictor of mortality (p less than 0.001). The new index performed similarly to a previous system devised by Kaplan and Feinstein. The method of classifying comorbidity provides a simple, readily applicable and valid method of estimating risk of death from comorbid disease for use in longitudinal studies. Further work in larger populations is still required to refine the approach because the number of patients with any given condition in this study was relatively small.