Correlation between County-Level Surgeon Density and Mortality from Colorectal Cancer

IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE EMERGENCY SURGICAL TREATMENT OF COLORECTAL CANCER

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract and the third most common type of cancer worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic, during the years 2020 and 2022, increased the difficulties in offering adequate early diagnosis and treatment to CRC patients worldwide. During this period, it was only possible to treat patients who evolved with complications, mainly intestinal obstruction and perforation.

AIMS

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of patients with CRC.

METHODS

A review of data from a total of 112 patients undergoing emergency surgical treatment due to complications of CRC was carried out. Of these, 78 patients underwent emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020/2021), and 34 were treated before the pandemic (2018/2019). Ethnic aspects, clinical symptoms, laboratory tests, histopathological variables, intra and postoperative complications, and 90-day postoperative follow-up were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Between the years 2018 and 2019, 79.4% (27/34) of patients had intestinal obstruction, while 20.6% (7/34) had intestinal perforation. During the period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020/2021), 1.3% (1/78) of patients underwent surgery due to gastrointestinal bleeding, 6.4% (5/78) due to intestinal perforation, and 92.3% (72/78) due to intestinal obstruction. No statistically significant differences were recorded between the two groups in ethnic aspects, laboratory tests, type of complications, number of lymph nodes resected, compromised lymph nodes, TNM staging, pre or intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission, or mortality rate. When considering postoperative tumor staging, among patients operated on in 2018/2019, 44.1% were classified as stage III and 38.2% as stage IV, while during the pandemic period, 28.2% presented stage III and 51.3% stage IV, also without a statistically significant difference between the two periods. Patients operated on during the pandemic had higher rates of vascular, lymphatic and perineural invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the rate of complications related to CRC when comparing patients treated before and during the pandemic. Furthermore, it had a negative impact on histopathological variables, causing worse oncological prognoses in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Orthopaedic Surgeon Distribution in the United States

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on the supply and distribution of orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. The goal of this study was to analyze the association of orthopaedic surgeon distribution in the United States with geographic and sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

County-level data from the US Department of Health and Human Services Area Health Resources Files were used to determine the density of orthopaedic surgeons across the United States on a county level. Data were examined from 2000 to 2019 to analyze trends over time. Bivariate and multivariable negative binomial regression models were constructed to identify county-level sociodemographic factors associated with orthopaedic surgeon density.

RESULTS

In 2019, 51% of the counties in the United States did not have an orthopaedic surgeon. Metropolitan counties had a mean of 22 orthopaedic surgeons per 100,000 persons while nonmetropolitan and rural counties had a mean of 2 and 0.1 orthopaedic surgeons per 100,000 persons, respectively. Over the past 2 decades, there was a significant increase in the percentage of orthopaedic surgeons in metropolitan counties (77% in 2000 vs 93% in 2019, P < 0.001) and in the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons 55 years and older (32% in 2000 vs 39% in 2019, P < 0.001). Orthopaedic surgeon density increased with increasing median home value (P < 0.001) and median household income (P < 0.001). Counties with a higher percentage of persons in poverty (P < 0.001) and higher unemployment rate (P < 0.001) and nonmetropolitan (P < 0.001) and rural (P < 0.001) counties had a lower density of orthopaedic surgeons. On multivariable analysis, a model consisting of median home value (P < 0.001), rural counties (P < 0.001), percentage of noninsured persons (P < 0.001), and percentage of foreign-born persons (P < 0.001) predicted orthopaedic surgeon density.

CONCLUSION

Access to orthopaedic surgeons in the United States in rural areas is decreasing over time. County-level socioeconomic factors such as wealth and urbanization were found to be closely related with surgeon density.

American Indian/Alaska native access to colorectal cancer screening: Does gastroenterologist density matter?

BACKGROUND

American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) receive less colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than other populations. Using gastroenterologist (GI) locations as a measure of colonoscopy access, we correlate GI density and AI/AN CRC screening rates.

METHODS

We identified GIs from the 2016 National Provider Identifier registry, and calculated GI density per 100,000 people. We identified screening, demographic, and socioeconomic variables from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. GI density and CRC screening rates were analyzed with Multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

In states with GI Density greater than 3.98/100,000, odds of AI/AN CRC screening are 1.27-1.37 times higher than in states below this threshold (p < 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

GI density has a limited association on CRC screening, with decrease impact beyond threshold of 3.98 GI/100,000. Minimal access to GIs is important in improving AI/AN CRC screening; however, further research is required to elucidate the most critical factors contributing to CRC screening.

Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in France: how many people are actually covered? Focus on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) remains low in France, particularly in the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (PACA) region. The aim of this study was to compare insured persons (50-74 years) who had FIT and/or colonoscopy in PACA with the general French population.

METHODS

FIT and colonoscopy rates were calculated according to SP-France and National Health Data System data.

RESULTS

The rate of FIT in 2016-2017 was lower in PACA than in France (25.6 vs. 29.1%, P < 0.001). Conversely, in 2013-2017, the rate of colonoscopy in the past 5 years was higher in PACA than in France (23.1 vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). Total rate for FIT within 2 years and/or colonoscopy within 5 years was 46.0% in PACA vs. 46.5% in France (P < 0.001). Overuse was higher for diagnostic (1.21) than therapeutic colonoscopies (1.05). Therapeutic colonoscopy occurred more with FIT than without (47.88 vs. 38.7%, P < 0.001). According to USA criteria, persons with FIT within 2 years and/or sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy within 10 years was 59.4% in PACA vs. 54.7% in France (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Low participation in FIT in France must be improved to increase the rate of therapeutic colonoscopies and reduce the incidence of CRC. The higher colonoscopy rate in PACA could explain the lower CRC mortality. Efforts should be focused on the more than 40% of French insured who are not screened by either FIT or colonoscopy.

Role of physician density in predicting stage and survival for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Identifying and linking barriers to access to head and neck cancer care, specifically provider density, to stage of diagnosis and survival outcomes is important to serve as a foundation for policy interventions.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using patients with head and neck squamous cell (HNSCC) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2007 to 2016 and Area Resource File. Primary outcomes included stage of presentation and cancer-specific 5-year survival and relation to provider density.

RESULTS

The initial cohort consisted of 18 342 patients with oral cavity, 21 809 oropharyngeal, 15 860 laryngeal, and 2887 patients with hypopharyngeal malignancy. Non-Hispanic Black race and being uninsured increased the odds of presenting with advanced stage HNSCC and increased hazard of death. There was no significant and consistent association identified between Health Service Areas provider density and advanced stage at diagnosis or cancer-specific 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider density of otolaryngologists and primary care physicians and dentists was not significantly associated with stage of presentation or cancer-specific survival for HNSCC while race and insurance status remained independent predictors for worse outcomes.

Does uneven geographic distribution of urologists effect bladder and prostate cancers mortality? National health insurance data in Korea from 2007-2011

The relationship between distribution of urologists and mortality of bladder and prostate cancers has not been clearly established. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between uneven distribution of urologists and urologic cancer specific mortality at country level. Data from the National Health Insurance Service and National Statistical Office in Korea from 2007 to 2011 were analyzed in this ecological study. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine risk factors for age standardized mortality rates (ASMR) of bladder and prostate cancers. Linear regression analysis showed a markedly (p < 0.001) uneven distribution of urologists between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. There was no significant difference in cancer specific ASMRs for either bladder cancer or prostate cancer. Univariate analysis after adjusting for time showed that country area, urologist density, and income were significant factors affecting bladder cancer incidence (p < 0.001, p = 0.013, and p < 0.001, respectively). It also showed that the number of training hospitals was a significant factor for prostate cancer incidence (p = 0.002). Although country area showed borderline significance (p = 0.056) for ASMR of bladder cancer, urologist density was not related to ASMR of bladder cancer or prostate cancer. Although there was a marked difference in urologist density between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas for these years analyzed, mortality rates of bladder and prostate cancers were not significantly affected by country area or urologist density.