Literature DB >> 29112560

Is the Distance Worth It? Patients With Rectal Cancer Traveling to High-Volume Centers Experience Improved Outcomes.

Zhaomin Xu1, Adan Z Becerra, Carla F Justiniano, Courtney I Boodry, Christopher T Aquina, Alex A Swanger, Larissa K Temple, Fergal J Fleming.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether traveling long distances to high-volume centers would compensate for travel burden among patients undergoing rectal cancer resection.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether operative volume outweighs the advantages of being treated locally by comparing the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer treated at local, low-volume centers versus far, high-volume centers.
DESIGN: This was a population-based study. SETTINGS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were margins, lymph node yield, receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy, readmission within 30 days, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.
RESULTS: A total of 18,605 patients met inclusion criteria; 2067 patients were in the long-distance/high-volume group and 1362 in the short-distance/low-volume group. The median travel distance was 62.6 miles for the long-distance/high-volume group and 2.3 miles for the short-distance/low-volume group. Patients who were younger, white, privately insured, and stage III were more likely to have traveled to a high-volume center. When controlled for patient factors, stage, and hospital factors, patients in the short-distance/low-volume group had lower odds of a lymph node yield ≥12 (OR = 0.51) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR = 0.67) and higher 30-day (OR = 3.38) and 90-day mortality (OR = 2.07) compared with those in the long-distance/high-volume group. The short-distance/low-volume group had a 34% high risk of overall mortality at 5 years compared with the long-distance/high-volume group. LIMITATIONS: We lacked data regarding patient and physician decision making and surgeon-specific factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that when controlled for patient, tumor, and hospital factors, patients who traveled a long distance to a high-volume center had improved lymph node yield, neoadjuvant chemoradiation receipt, and 30- and 90-day mortality compared with those who traveled a short distance to a low-volume center. They also had improved 5-year survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A446.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29112560     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  15 in total

1.  Outcomes After Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Intersection of Travel Distance and Hospital Volume.

Authors:  Eliza W Beal; Rittal Mehta; Katiuscha Merath; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Paredes; Mary E Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Aslam Ejaz; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Influence of travel burden on tumor classification and survival of head and neck cancer patients.

Authors:  J M Vahl; A von Witzleben; C Welke; J Doescher; M N Theodoraki; M Brand; P J Schuler; J Greve; T K Hoffmann; S Laban
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Geographic Distribution of Adult Inpatient Surgery Capability in the USA.

Authors:  Adrian Diaz; Anna Schoenbrunner; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  The impact of hospital volume on clinical and economic outcomes in ventral hernia repair: an analysis with national policy implications.

Authors:  A Chattha; J Muste; A Patel
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Treatment at low-volume hospitals is associated with reduced short-term and long-term outcomes for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma.

Authors:  Emily Z Keung; Yi-Ju Chiang; Janice N Cormier; Keila E Torres; Kelly K Hunt; Barry W Feig; Christina L Roland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-14       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Factors Associated With Receipt of Partial Nephrectomy or Minimally Invasive Surgery for Patients With Clinical T1a and T1b Renal Masses: Implications for Regionalization of Care.

Authors:  Joshua Sterling; Zorimar Rivera-Núñez; Hiren V Patel; Nicholas J Farber; Sinae Kim; Kushan D Radadia; Parth K Modi; Sharad Goyal; Rahul Parikh; Robert E Weiss; Isaac Y Kim; Sammy E Elsamra; Thomas L Jang; Eric A Singer
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 2.872

7.  Guideline-Recommended Chemoradiation for Patients With Rectal Cancer at Large Hospitals: A Trend in the Right Direction.

Authors:  Natalie J Del Vecchio; Jennifer A Schlichting; Catherine Chioreso; Amanda R Kahl; Jennifer E Hrabe; Charles F Lynch; Michele M West; Mary E Charlton
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.585

8.  What's the magic number? Impact of time to initiation of treatment for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Gretchen C Edwards; Adriana C Gamboa; Michael P Feng; Roberta L Muldoon; Michael B Hopkins; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Glen C Balch; Jennifer Holder-Murray; Maryam Mohammed; Scott E Regenbogen; Matthew L Silviera; Alexander T Hawkins
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 4.348

9.  Canadian taTME expert collaboration (CaTaCO) position statement.

Authors:  Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda; Carl J Brown; Sami A Chadi; Shady Ashamalla; Lawrence Lee; Peter Stotland; Usmaan Hameed; George Melich; Grace Ma; Francois Letarte; Ahmer Karimuddin; Fayez Quereshy; Terry Phang; Manoj Raval; Elena Vikis; A Sender Liberman; Alexandre Bouchard; Phillipe Bouchard; Sebastien Drolet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Hospital and Surgeon Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: The Role of Rurality, Distance to Care, and Colonoscopy Provider.

Authors:  Catherine Chioreso; Xiang Gao; Irena Gribovskaja-Rupp; Chi Lin; Marcia M Ward; Mary C Schroeder; Charles F Lynch; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Mary E Charlton
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 13.787

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.