PURPOSE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Tjarda van Heek; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Rob J Scholten; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Shreyamsa; Devina Singh; Pooja Ramakant; Akshay Anand; Kul Ranjan Singh; Sasi Mouli; Anand Kumar Mishra; A A Sonkar Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-02-19
Authors: Rie Sakai-Bizmark; Laurie A Mena; Hiraku Kumamaru; Ichiro Kawachi; Emily H Marr; Eliza J Webber; Hyun H Seo; Scott I M Friedlander; Ruey-Kang R Chang Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Paul D Colavita; Victor B Tsirline; Igor Belyansky; Ryan Z Swan; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; David A Iannitti; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Eva H DuGoff; Justin E Bekelman; Elizabeth A Stuart; Katrina Armstrong; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Jennifer E Hrabe; Kara B Wright; Jennifer A Schlichting; Bradley D McDowell; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B Stitzenberg; John W Cromwell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.452