AIM: To determine the association between the distribution of gynecologic oncologist (GO) and population-based ovarian cancer death rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in the United States (U.S.) was supplemented with U.S. census data, and analyzed in relation to practicing GOs. GO locations were geocoded to link association between county variables and GO availability. Logistic regression was used to measure areas of high and low ovarian cancer mortality, adjusting for contextual variables. RESULTS: Practicing GOs were unevenly distributed in the United States, with the greatest numbers in metropolitan areas. Ovarian cancer incidence and death rates increased as distance to a practicing GO increased. A relatively small number (153) of counties within 24 miles of a GO had high ovarian cancer death rates compared to 577 counties located 50 or more miles away with high ovarian cancer death rates. Counties located 50 or more miles away from a GO practice had an almost 60% greater odds of high ovarian cancer mortality compared to those with closer practicing GOs (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.15). CONCLUSION: The distribution of GOs across the United States appears to be significantly associated with ovarian cancer mortality. Efforts that facilitate outreach of GOs to certain populations may increase geographic access. Future studies examining other factors associated with lack of GO access (e.g. insurance and other socioeconomic factors) at the individual level will assist with further defining barriers to quality ovarian cancer care in the United States.
AIM: To determine the association between the distribution of gynecologic oncologist (GO) and population-based ovarian cancer death rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in the United States (U.S.) was supplemented with U.S. census data, and analyzed in relation to practicing GOs. GO locations were geocoded to link association between county variables and GO availability. Logistic regression was used to measure areas of high and low ovarian cancer mortality, adjusting for contextual variables. RESULTS: Practicing GOs were unevenly distributed in the United States, with the greatest numbers in metropolitan areas. Ovarian cancer incidence and death rates increased as distance to a practicing GO increased. A relatively small number (153) of counties within 24 miles of a GO had high ovarian cancer death rates compared to 577 counties located 50 or more miles away with high ovarian cancer death rates. Counties located 50 or more miles away from a GO practice had an almost 60% greater odds of high ovarian cancer mortality compared to those with closer practicing GOs (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.18-2.15). CONCLUSION: The distribution of GOs across the United States appears to be significantly associated with ovarian cancer mortality. Efforts that facilitate outreach of GOs to certain populations may increase geographic access. Future studies examining other factors associated with lack of GO access (e.g. insurance and other socioeconomic factors) at the individual level will assist with further defining barriers to quality ovarian cancer care in the United States.
Entities:
Keywords:
access to care; gynecologic oncologists; mortality; ovarian cancer
Authors: Amy H Wallace; Laura J Havrilesky; Fidel A Valea; Jason C Barnett; Andrew Berchuck; Evan R Myers Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kemi M Doll; Roman Puliaev; Julie Chor; Alicia Roston; Urjeet A Patel; Ashlesha Patel Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anobel Y Odisho; Matthew R Cooperberg; Vincent Fradet; Ardalan E Ahmad; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Craig C Earle; Deborah Schrag; Bridget A Neville; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Angela Fahey; Edward L Trimble; Diane C Bodurka; Robert E Bristow; Michael Carney; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laura J Havrilesky; Jennifer M Gierisch; Patricia G Moorman; Remy R Coeytaux; Rachel Peragallo Urrutia; William J Lowery; Michaela Dinan; Amanda J McBroom; Liz Wing; Michael D Musty; Kathryn R Lallinger; Vic Hasselblad; Gillian D Sanders; Evan R Myers Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2013-06
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Barbara J Matthews; Eric H Larson; C Holly A Andrilla; Michelle Wynn; Denise M Lishner; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John K Chan; Daniel S Kapp; Jacob Y Shin; Amreen Husain; Nelson N Teng; Jonathan S Berek; Kathryn Osann; Gary S Leiserowitz; Rosemary D Cress; Cynthia O'Malley Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Sherri L Stewart; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Sun Hee Rim; Susan A Sabatino; Kevin C Ward; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Macarena C Garcia; Mark Faul; Nicole F Dowling; Cheryll C Thomas; Michael F Iademarco Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Kristin S Weeks; Charles F Lynch; Michele West; Megan McDonald; Ryan Carnahan; Sherri L Stewart; Mary Charlton Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 5.667
Authors: Kristin Weeks; Charles F Lynch; Michele West; Ryan Carnahan; Michael O'Rorke; Jacob Oleson; Megan McDonald; Sherri L Stewart; Mary Charlton Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kristin S Weeks; Charles F Lynch; Michele M West; Ryan M Carnahan; Michael A O'Rorke; Jacob J Oleson; Megan E McDonald; Mary E Charlton Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.787