OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to determine the association between travel distance and surgical volume on outcomes after esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal cancer resections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: "Take the Volume Pledge" aims to centralize esophagectomies, pancreatectomies, and proctectomies to hospitals meeting minimum volume standards. The impact of travel, and possible care fragmentation, on potential benefits of centralized surgery is not well understood. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2016), patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, or rectal resections at far HVH meeting volume standards versus local intermediate (IVH) and low-volume (LVH) hospitals were identified. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year OS were compared. RESULTS: Of 49,454 patients, 17,544 (34.5%) underwent surgery at far HVH, 11,739 (23.7%) at local IVH, and 20,171 (40.8%) at local LVH. The median (interquartilerange) travel distances were 77.1 (51.1-125.4), 13.2 (5.8-27.3), and 7.8 (3.1-15.5) miles to HVH, IVH, and LVH, respectively. By multivariable analysis, LVH was associated with increased 30-day mortality for all resections compared to HVH, but IVH was associated with mortality only for proctectomies [odds ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-2.75]. Compared to HVH, both IVH (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.19-1.31) and LVH (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.29-1.42) were associated with decreased 5-year OS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to far HVH, 30-day mortality was higher for all resections at LVH, but only for proctectomies at IVH. Five-year OS was consistently worse at local LVH and IVH. Improving long-term outcomes at IVH may provide opportunities for greater access to quality cancer care.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to determine the association between travel distance and surgical volume on outcomes after esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal cancer resections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: "Take the Volume Pledge" aims to centralize esophagectomies, pancreatectomies, and proctectomies to hospitals meeting minimum volume standards. The impact of travel, and possible care fragmentation, on potential benefits of centralized surgery is not well understood. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2016), patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, or rectal resections at far HVH meeting volume standards versus local intermediate (IVH) and low-volume (LVH) hospitals were identified. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year OS were compared. RESULTS: Of 49,454 patients, 17,544 (34.5%) underwent surgery at far HVH, 11,739 (23.7%) at local IVH, and 20,171 (40.8%) at local LVH. The median (interquartilerange) travel distances were 77.1 (51.1-125.4), 13.2 (5.8-27.3), and 7.8 (3.1-15.5) miles to HVH, IVH, and LVH, respectively. By multivariable analysis, LVH was associated with increased 30-day mortality for all resections compared to HVH, but IVH was associated with mortality only for proctectomies [odds ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-2.75]. Compared to HVH, both IVH (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.19-1.31) and LVH (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.29-1.42) were associated with decreased 5-year OS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to far HVH, 30-day mortality was higher for all resections at LVH, but only for proctectomies at IVH. Five-year OS was consistently worse at local LVH and IVH. Improving long-term outcomes at IVH may provide opportunities for greater access to quality cancer care.