Chun Chieh Lin1, Suanna S Bruinooge2, M Kelsey Kirkwood2, Dawn L Hershman3, Ahmedin Jemal4, B Ashleigh Guadagnolo5, James B Yu6, Shane Hopkins7, Michael Goldstein8, Dean Bajorin9, Sharon H Giordano5, Michael Kosty10, Anna Arnone11, Amy Hanley2, Stephanie Stevens11, Christine Olsen12. 1. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: anna.lin@cancer.org. 2. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia. 3. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 4. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 7. William R. Bliss Cancer Center, Ames, Iowa. 8. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 10. Scripps Clinic, San Diego, California. 11. American Society for Radiation Oncology, Fairfax, Virginia. 12. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Trimodality therapy (chemoradiation and surgery) is the standard of care for stage II/III rectal cancer but nearly one third of patients do not receive radiation therapy (RT). We examined the relationship between the density of radiation oncologists and the travel distance to receipt of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study based on the National Cancer Data Base identified 26,845 patients aged 18 to 80 years with stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. Radiation oncologists were identified through the Physician Compare dataset. Generalized estimating equations clustering by hospital service area was used to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of RT, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 26,845 patients, 70% received RT within 180 days of diagnosis or within 90 days of surgery. Compared with a travel distance of <12.5 miles, patients diagnosed at a reporting facility who traveled ≥50 miles had a decreased likelihood of receipt of RT (50-249 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.75, P<.001; ≥250 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.46; P=.002), all else being equal. The density level of radiation oncologists was not significantly associated with the receipt of RT. Patients who were female, nonwhite, and aged ≥50 years and had comorbidities were less likely to receive RT (P<.05). Patients who were uninsured but self-paid for their medical services, initially diagnosed elsewhere but treated at a reporting facility, and resided in Midwest had an increased the likelihood of receipt of RT (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: An increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving RT for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, all else being equal; however, radiation oncologist density was not. Further research of geographic access and establishing transportation assistance programs or lodging services for patients with an unmet need might help decrease geographic barriers and improve the quality of rectal cancer care.
PURPOSE: Trimodality therapy (chemoradiation and surgery) is the standard of care for stage II/III rectal cancer but nearly one third of patients do not receive radiation therapy (RT). We examined the relationship between the density of radiation oncologists and the travel distance to receipt of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study based on the National Cancer Data Base identified 26,845 patients aged 18 to 80 years with stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. Radiation oncologists were identified through the Physician Compare dataset. Generalized estimating equations clustering by hospital service area was used to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of RT, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 26,845 patients, 70% received RT within 180 days of diagnosis or within 90 days of surgery. Compared with a travel distance of <12.5 miles, patients diagnosed at a reporting facility who traveled ≥50 miles had a decreased likelihood of receipt of RT (50-249 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.75, P<.001; ≥250 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.46; P=.002), all else being equal. The density level of radiation oncologists was not significantly associated with the receipt of RT. Patients who were female, nonwhite, and aged ≥50 years and had comorbidities were less likely to receive RT (P<.05). Patients who were uninsured but self-paid for their medical services, initially diagnosed elsewhere but treated at a reporting facility, and resided in Midwest had an increased the likelihood of receipt of RT (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: An increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving RT for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, all else being equal; however, radiation oncologist density was not. Further research of geographic access and establishing transportation assistance programs or lodging services for patients with an unmet need might help decrease geographic barriers and improve the quality of rectal cancer care.
Authors: William J Mackillop; Weidong Kong; Michael Brundage; Timothy P Hanna; Jina Zhang-Salomons; Pierre-Yves McLaughlin; Scott Tyldesley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Corrie A M Marijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Hein Putter; Mandy van den Brink; Cornelis P Maas; Hendrik Martijn; Harm J Rutten; Theo Wiggers; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Jan-Willem H Leer; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Yong Cai; Eric H Larson; Sharon A Dobie; George E Wright; David C Goodman; Barbara Matthews; L Gary Hart Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Sophia Y Chen; Miloslawa Stem; Susan L Gearhart; Bashar Safar; Sandy H Fang; Nilofer S Azad; Adrian G Murphy; Amol K Narang; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jonathan E Efron Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Michelle S Wong; David T Grande; Nandita Mitra; Archana Radhakrishnan; Charles C Branas; Katelyn R Ward; Craig E Pollack Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Harold D Miller; Andres Azuero; Stephanie B Wheeler; Maria Pisu; Olivia Hull; Rodney P Rocconi; Kelly M Kenzik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ali Jalali; Christopher Martin; Richard E Nelson; Megan E Vanneman; Brook I Martin; Kathleen A Cooney; Norman J Waitzman; Brock O'Neil Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Narek Shaverdian; Erin F Gillespie; Elaine Cha; Soo Young Kim; Stephanie Benvengo; Fumiko Chino; Jung Julie Kang; Yuelin Li; Thomas M Atkinson; Nancy Lee; Charles M Washington; Oren Cahlon; Daniel R Gomez Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Avinash Maganty; Lindsay M Sabik; ZhaoJun Sun; Kirsten Y Eom; Jie Li; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Leo Y Luo; Emeline M Aviki; Anna Lee; Marisa A Kollmeier; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; C Jillian Tsai; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Zachary A K Frosch; Esin C Namoglu; Nandita Mitra; Daniel J Landsburg; Sunita D Nasta; Justin E Bekelman; Raghuram Iyengar; Carmen E Guerra; Marilyn M Schapira Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-09-15