1
|
Silverwood SM, Waeldner K, Demeulenaere SK, Keren S, To J, Chen JJ, Kouzi ZE, Ayoub A, Grover S, Lichter KE, Mohamad O. The Relationship Between Travel Distance for Treatment and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101652. [PMID: 39559261 PMCID: PMC11570298 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2024] [Accepted: 09/29/2024] [Indexed: 11/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Although recent technological advances in radiation therapy have significantly improved treatment outcomes, the global distribution of radiation therapy is unbalanced, making access especially challenging for patients in rural or low-resource settings because of travel burden. This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of geographic distance to treatment facilities on survival, as well as other treatment outcomes, among patients undergoing radiation therapy. Methods and Materials A search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was performed. Studies were included if they were primary literature, published between May 2000 and May 2023, and reported the travel distances for patients undergoing radiation therapy for malignant conditions and its influence on survival outcomes. Studies were excluded if they did not report primary outcomes, were published before 2000, or were non-English. Results After review, 23 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the United States, with cervical cancer being the most frequently studied disease site. Data suggested that travel distances vary significantly, with patients often traveling a median distance of 20 miles to radiation therapy. Among the studies, 5 reported a negative impact on overall survival, often associating greater travel with nonadherence to recommended care. Other survival metrics, including progression-free survival and all-cause mortality, were also assessed, demonstrating similar variability in relation to travel distance. Conversely, seven studies found no significant impact on overall survival, and four suggested a positive impact on overall survival, with improved outcomes at centers with higher case volumes. Some data also revealed an inverse correlation between travel distance and the likelihood of receiving guideline-concordant radiation therapy. Conclusions The impact of travel distance on radiation therapy outcomes is varied. Our findings underscore the challenges posed by travel in accessing radiation therapy and the disparities affecting particular patient demographic groups. Additional studies are needed to thoroughly assess the impacts of geographic disparities and to identify effective measures to address these challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kathleen Waeldner
- Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | | | - Shavit Keren
- University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Jason To
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Jie Jane Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Zakaria El Kouzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Alan Ayoub
- University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Surbhi Grover
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Katie E. Lichter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Osama Mohamad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pringle S, Ko EM, Doherty M, Smith AJB. Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions. Support Care Cancer 2024; 32:317. [PMID: 38684580 PMCID: PMC11058971 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08514-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophia Pringle
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Emily M Ko
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Meredith Doherty
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sharma RK, Patel S, Ye W, Rohde SL. Association of social vulnerability on survival, treatment, and presentation in oral cavity cancer. Head Neck 2023; 45:2185-2197. [PMID: 37415555 DOI: 10.1002/hed.27447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2022] [Revised: 06/14/2023] [Accepted: 06/22/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study utilized a population database to investigate how social environments are associated with outcomes including stage at diagnosis, multimodal treatment, and disease-specific survival for oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas. METHODS Retrospective analysis of adults with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2016 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) registry was performed. The CDC's social vulnerability index (SVI) was used to characterize social vulnerability at the county level. Predictors of disease-specific survival, stage at diagnosis, and use of multimodal therapy were identified using Cox regression and logistic regression. RESULTS Our analysis included 17 043 patients. On adjusted models, patients in the highest SVI quartile (most social vulnerability) exhibited worse disease-specific survival compared to the lowest quartile (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.37, p < 0.001), and were more likely to be diagnosed at later stages (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.38, p < 0.001) and less likely to receive multimodal therapy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.99, p = 0.037). CONCLUSION High social vulnerability was associated with worse disease-specific survival and disease presentation in oral cavity cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul K Sharma
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Siddharth Patel
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
- Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Wenda Ye
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Sarah L Rohde
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Silva VARD, Maestá I, Costa RADA, Campos ADÁ, Braga A, Horowitz N, Elias KM, Berkowitz R. Geographical Health District and Distance Traveled Influence on Clinical Status at Admission of Patients with Gestational Trophoblastic Disease. REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GINECOLOGIA E OBSTETRÍCIA 2023; 45:e384-e392. [PMID: 37595595 PMCID: PMC10438964 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772179] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2022] [Accepted: 02/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/20/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the potential relationship of clinical status upon admission and distance traveled from geographical health district in women with gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). METHODS This is a cross-sectional study including women with GTD from the 17 health districts from the São Paulo state (I-XVII), Brazil, referred to the Botucatu Trophoblastic Disease Center (specialized center, district VI), between 1990 and 2018. At admission, hydatidiform mole was assessed according to the risk score system of Berkowitz et al. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia was evaluated using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics / World Health Organization (FIGO/WHO) staging/risk score. Data on demographics, clinical status and distance traveled were collected. Multiple regression analyses were performed. RESULTS This study included 366 women (335 hydatidiform mole, 31 gestational trophoblastic neoplasia). The clinical status at admission and distance traveled significantly differed between the specialized center district and other districts. Patients referred from health districts IX (β = 2.38 [0.87-3.88], p = 0.002) and XVI (β = 0.78 [0.02-1.55], p = 0.045) had higher hydatidiform mole scores than those from the specialized center district. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia patients from district XVI showed a 3.32 increase in FIGO risk scores compared with those from the specialized center area (β = 3.32, 95% CI = 0.78-5.87, p = 0.010). Distance traveled by patients from districts IX (200km) and XVI (203.5km) was significantly longer than that traveled by patients from the specialized center district (76km). CONCLUSION Patients from health districts outside the specialized center area had higher risk scores for both hydatidiform mole and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia at admission. Long distances (>80 km) seemed to adversely influence gestational trophoblastic disease clinical status at admission, indicating barriers to accessing specialized centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Izildinha Maestá
- Postgraduation Program in Tocogynecology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
- Botucatu Trophoblastic Disease Center, Botucatu Medical School Hospital, São Paulo State University, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
| | - Roberto Antonio de Araújo Costa
- Postgraduation Program in Tocogynecology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
- Scientific Initiation Program by the São Paulo Research Foundation, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
| | - Aline de Ávila Campos
- Postgraduation Program in Tocogynecology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
- Scientific Initiation Program by the São Paulo Research Foundation, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
| | - Antonio Braga
- Rio de Janeiro Trophoblastic Disease Center, Maternity School of the Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
| | - Neil Horowitz
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Kevin M. Elias
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Ross Berkowitz
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Toboni MD, Cohen A, Gentry ZL, Ostby SA, Wang Z, Bae S, Leath C. Sociodemographic characteristics and cervical cancer survival in different regions of the United States: a National Cancer Database study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:724-731. [PMID: 35428687 PMCID: PMC9177815 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine how sociodemographic factors impact cervical cancer survival in different geographic locations in the USA. METHODS A retrospective cohort of patients with cervical cancer from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2015 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was identified. Tumor characteristics as well as race, income, insurance type, and treating facility types were compared among nine geographic regions. χ2 tests and Cox regression were used to compare differences between regions; p values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS A total of 48 787 patients were included. Survival was inferior in seven of nine regions for underinsured patients. In six regions survival was inferior for Medicaid and Medicare patients, respectively: Middle Atlantic: hazard ratio (HR) 1.25 and 1.22; South Atlantic: HR 1.41 and HR 1.22; East North Central: HR 1.36 and HR 1.25; East South Central: HR 1.37 and HR 1.25; West North Central: HR 1.67 and HR 1.42; West South Central: HR 1.44 and HR 1.46. In the Pacific region survival was inferior for Medicare patients (HR 1.35) but not inferior for Medicaid patients. Being uninsured was associated with worse survival in the South Atlantic (HR 1.23), East North Central (HR 1.23), East South Central (HR 1.56), and West South Central (HR 1.31) regions. Annual income level under $38 000 was associated with worse survival in the Middle Atlantic (HR 1.24), South Atlantic (HR 1.35), and East North Central (HR 1.49) regions. Lastly, when compared with academic research institutions, comprehensive community cancer centers had significantly worse survival in four of the nine regions. CONCLUSIONS Cervical cancer mortality is higher for women with a low income, underinsured (Medicaid or Medicare) or uninsured status, and decreased access to academic institutions in most US regions. An increase in cervical cancer mortality was associated with underinsured or uninsured populations in regions mainly located in the South and Midwest.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D Toboni
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Alexander Cohen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Zachary L Gentry
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Stuart A Ostby
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Zhixin Wang
- Department of Preventive Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Sejong Bae
- Department of Preventive Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Charles Leath
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To summarize the most recent evidence on gynecologic cancer disparities and to describe studies investigating the social determinants of health and receipt of evidence-based care and potential interventions to address inequities in care. RECENT FINDINGS Significant disparities in disease-specific survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and payer status have persisted in women with gynecologic cancers. Compared with white women, black women have an increased likelihood of disease-specific mortality for endometrial cancer and are less likely to receive guideline-adherent care for ovarian cancer. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought significant attention to the structural barriers that contribute to persistent health disparities and how community-based partnerships with a focus on policy interventions are needed for equitable gynecologic cancer outcomes. SUMMARY In this review, we discuss structural barriers contributing to racial inequities, the role of Medicaid payer status and receipt of quality cancer care, gender, and racial workforce diversity, and community-based partnerships to create evidence-based interventions to address disparities.
Collapse
|