Chad Tang1, Xiudong Lei2, Grace L Smith3, Hubert Y Pan4, Karen E Hoffman4, Rachit Kumar5, Brian F Chapin6, Ya-Chen Tina Shih2, Steven J Frank4, Benjamin D Smith7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: ctang1@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson, Phoenix, Arizona. 6. Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bsmith3@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment. RESULTS: Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.
PURPOSE: Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment. RESULTS: Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.
Authors: Anders Widmark; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars Beckman; Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson; Morten Hoyer; Magnus Lagerlund; Jon Kindblom; Claes Ginman; Bengt Johansson; Kirsten Björnlinger; Mihajl Seke; Måns Agrup; Per Fransson; Björn Tavelin; David Norman; Björn Zackrisson; Harald Anderson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Lars Franzén; Per Nilsson Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: W James Morris; Scott Tyldesley; Sree Rodda; Ross Halperin; Howard Pai; Michael McKenzie; Graeme Duncan; Gerard Morton; Jeremy Hamm; Nevin Murray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brandon A Mahal; Yu-Wei Chen; Roshan V Sethi; Oscar A Padilla; David D Yang; Janice Chavez; Vinayak Muralidhar; Jim C Hu; Felix Y Feng; Karen E Hoffman; Neil E Martin; Daniel E Spratt; James B Yu; Peter F Orio; Paul L Nguyen Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brandon A Mahal; Yu-Wei Chen; Jason A Efstathiou; Vinayak Muralidhar; Karen E Hoffman; James B Yu; Felix Y Feng; Clair J Beard; Neil E Martin; Peter F Orio; Paul L Nguyen Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sahaja Acharya; Samantha Hsieh; Jeff M Michalski; Eric T Shinohara; Stephanie M Perkins Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey M Martin; Elizabeth A Handorf; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo; Justin E Bekelman; Eric M Horwitz; Marc C Smaldone Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Jonathan J Paly; Anthony L Zietman; Paul L Nguyen; Clair J Beard; Sandhya K Rao; Irving D Kaplan; Andrzej Niemierko; Michelle S Hirsch; Chin-Lee Wu; Aria F Olumi; M Dror Michaelson; Anthony V D'Amico; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Ramsankar Basak; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; William R Carpenter; Robert P Agans; James R Broughman; Bryce B Reeve; Matthew E Nielsen; Deborah S Usinger; Kiayni C Spearman; Sarah Walden; Dianne Kaleel; Mary Anderson; Til Stürmer; Paul A Godley Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wee Loon Ong; Norah Finn; Luc Te Marvelde; Colin Hornby; Roger L Milne; Gerard G Hanna; Graham Pitson; Hany Elsaleh; Jeremy L Millar; Farshad Foroudi Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 1.667