Impact of nationwide centralization of oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic surgery on travel distance and experienced burden in the Netherlands

Understanding surgical attrition for "resectable" pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

We used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to undergo surgery in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We identified rates of surgery and reasons for surgical attrition from clinical trials, which studied neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer. Next, we queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for Stage I-III, T1-3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. We investigated the rates and factors associated with the receipt of surgery. Finally, we evaluated variable importance predicting the receipt of surgery.

RESULTS

In clinical trials, 25-30 % of patients did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression. In the NCDB, the overall surgical rate was only 49 %, but increased to 67 % in a curated cohort meant to mirror clinical trial patients. Patients treated at low-volume institutions (OR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.61-0.67) and who were uninsured (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.52-0.62) and Medicaid-insured (OR = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.64-0.71) were less likely to receive potentially curative surgery.

CONCLUSION

We have identified a realistic target surgery rate of 70%-75 % in potentially-resectable pancreatic cancer. While attrition to pancreatic cancer surgery is mostly due to tumor biology, our study identified the most important non-medical barriers, such as facility volume and insurance, affecting pancreatic cancer surgery.

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport.

RESULTS

We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy).

CONCLUSION

Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Greater Patient Travel Distance is Associated with Perioperative and One-Year Cost Increases After Complex Aortic Surgery

BACKGROUND

With increasing regionalization of complex aortic surgery within fewer US centers, patients may face increased travel burden when accessing aortic surgery. Longer travel distances have been associated with inferior outcomes after major surgery; however, the impacts of distance on reinterventions and costs have not been described. This study aims to assess the association between patient travel distance and longer-term outcomes including costs and reinterventions after complex aortic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair including internal iliac or visceral vessel involvement, complex thoracic endovascular aortic repair including Zone 0-2 proximal extent or branched devices, and complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair including suprarenal or higher clamp sites. Travel distance was stratified by Rural-Urban Commuting Area population-density category. Multinomial logistic regression models, negative-binomial models, and zero-inflated Poisson models were used to assess the association between travel distance and index procedural and comprehensive first-year costs, long-term imaging, and long-term reinterventions, respectively.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2018, 8,782 patients underwent complex aortic surgery in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database, including 4,822 complex endovascular aortic repairs, 2,672 complex thoracic endovascular aortic repairs, and 1,288 complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Median travel distance was 22.8 miles (interquartile range 8.6-54.8 miles, range 0-2,688.9 miles). Median age was 75 years for all distance quintiles. Patients traveling farther were more likely to be female (26.8% in quintile 5 [Q5] vs. 19.9% in Q1, P < 0.001) and to have had a prior aortic surgery (20.8% for Q5 vs. 5.9% for Q1, P < 0.001). Patients traveling farther had higher index procedural costs, with adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.86-2.94, P < 0.0001) of being in the highest cost tertile versus lowest for patients in Q5 vs. Q1. For patients with ≥ 1-year follow-up, those traveling farther had higher imaging costs, with adjusted Q5 OR 1.55 (95% CI 1.22-1.95, P = 0.0002), and comprehensive first-year costs, with adjusted Q5 OR 2.06 (95% CI 1.57-2.70, P < 0.0001). In contrast, patients traveling farther had similar numbers of reinterventions and imaging studies postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients traveling farther for complex aortic surgery have higher procedural costs, postoperative imaging costs, and comprehensive first-year costs. These patients should be targeted for increased care coordination for improved outcomes and healthcare system burden.

Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada

Due to the rarity and complexity of treatment for Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, studies demonstrate improved patient outcomes when managed by a multidisciplinary team at high-volume centres (HVCs). Our study explores the difference in outcomes of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patients based on the centre of initial consultation in British Columbia, Canada. This retrospective study assessed adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020 undergoing curative intent therapy in one of five cancer centres across the province. Seventy-seven patients were included, 46 seen at HVCs and 31 at low-volume centres (LVCs). Patients at HVCs were younger (32.1 vs. 40.8 years, p = 0.020) and more likely to receive curative intent radiation (88% vs. 67%, p = 0.047). The time from diagnosis to first chemotherapy was 24 days shorter at HVCs (26 vs. 50 days, p = 0.120). There was no significant difference in overall survival by treatment centre (HR 0.850, 95% CI 0.448-1.614). Variations in care exist amongst patients treated at HVCs vs. LVCs, which may reflect differences in access to resources, clinical specialists, and varying practice patterns across centres. This study can be used to inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient treatment.

Longer patient travel distance is associated with increased non-index readmission after complex aortic surgery

OBJECTIVE

Recently evolving practice patterns in complex aortic surgery have led to regionalization of care within fewer centers in the United States, and thus patients may have to travel farther for complex aortic care. Travel distance has been associated with inferior outcomes after non-vascular surgery, particularly non-index readmission. This study aims to assess the impact of patient travel distance on perioperative outcomes and readmissions after complex aortic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative and Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network databases undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) including internal iliac or visceral vessel involvement, complex thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) including zone 0 to 2 proximal extent or branched devices, and complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair including suprarenal or higher clamp sites. Travel distance was stratified by rural/urban commuting area (RUCA) population-density category. Wilcoxon and χ2 tests were used to assess relationships between travel distance quintiles and baseline characteristics, mortality, and readmission. Travel distance and other factors were included in multivariable Cox models for survival and Fine-Gray competing risk models for freedom from readmission.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2018, 8782 patients underwent complex aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative and Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network databases, including 4822 complex EVARs, 2672 complex TEVARs, and 1288 complex open AAA repairs. Median travel distance was 22.8 miles (interquartile range [IQR], 8.6-54.8 miles). Median age was 75 years for all distance quintiles, but patients traveling longer distances were more likely female (26.8% in quintile 5 [Q5] vs 19.9% in Q1; P < .001), white (93.8% of Q5 vs 83.8% of Q1; P < .001), to have larger-diameter AAAs (median 59 mm for Q5 vs 55 mm for Q1; P < .001), and to have had prior aortic surgery (20.8% for Q5 vs 5.9% for Q1; P < .001). Overall 30-day readmission was more common at farther distances (18.1% for Q5 vs 14.8% for Q1; P = .003), with higher non-index readmission (11.2% for Q5 vs 2.7% for Q1; P < .001) and conversely lower index readmission (6.9% for Q5 vs 12.0% for Q1; P < .001). Multivariable-adjusted Fine-Gray models confirmed greater hazard of non-index readmission with farther distance, with a Q5 hazard ratio of 3.02 (95% confidence interval, 2.12-4.30; P < .001). Multivariable-adjusted Cox models demonstrated no association between travel distance and long-term survival but found that non-index readmission was associated with increased long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.78; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients traveling farther for complex aortic surgery demonstrate higher non-index readmission, which, in turn, is associated with increased long-term mortality risk. Aortic centers of excellence should consider targeting these patients for more comprehensive follow-up and care coordination to improve outcomes.

Impact of network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer on use and timing of chemotherapy and survival

BACKGROUND

Centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery aims to improve postoperative outcomes. Consequently, patients with pancreatic cancer may undergo pancreatic surgery in an expert centre and adjuvant chemotherapy in a local hospital (network treatment). The aim of this study was to assess whether network treatment has an impact on time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. Second, whether these parameters varied between pancreatic networks was studied.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2020). Time to chemotherapy was defined as the time between surgery and the start of adjuvant chemotherapy. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy was defined as the receipt of 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or six cycles of gemcitabine. Analysis was performed with linear mixed models and multilevel logistic regression models. Cox regression analyses were performed for survival.

RESULTS

In total, 1074 patients were included. Network treatment was observed in 468 patients (43.6 per cent) and was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy (0.77 days, standard error (s.e.) 1.14, P = 0.501), failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.140, 95 per cent c.i. 0.86 to 1.52, P = 0.349), and overall survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 1.22, P = 0.640). Significant variation between the networks was observed for time to chemotherapy (range 40.5-63 days, P < 0.0001) and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy (range 19-52 per cent, P = 0.030). Adjusted for case mix, time to chemotherapy significantly differed between networks.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide analysis, network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and worse survival. Significant variation between pancreatic cancer networks was found for time to chemotherapy.

Understanding Factors Leading to Surgical Attrition for "Resectable" Gastric Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to surgical resection in non-metastatic gastric cancer.

METHODS

We identified factors associated with the receipt of surgery in publicly available clinical trial data for gastric cancer and in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with stages I-III gastric adenocarcinoma. Next, we evaluated variable importance in predicting the receipt of surgery in the NCDB.

RESULTS

In published clinical trial data, 10% of patients in surgery-first arms did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression and 15% of patients in neoadjuvant therapy arms failed to reach surgery. Effects related to neoadjuvant administration explained the increased attrition (5%). In the NCDB, 61.7% of patients underwent definitive surgery. In a subset of NCDB patients resembling those enrolled in clinical trials (younger, healthier, and privately insured patients treated at high-volume and academic centers) the rate of surgery was 79.2%. Decreased likelihood of surgery was associated with advanced age (OR 0.97, p < 0.01), Charlson-Deyo score of 2+ (OR 0.90, p < 0.01), T4 tumors (OR 0.39, p < 0.01), N+ disease (OR 0.84, p < 0.01), low socioeconomic status (OR 0.86, p = 0.01), uninsured or on Medicaid (OR 0.58 and 0.69, respectively, p < 0.01), low facility volume (OR 0.64, p < 0.01), and non-academic cancer programs (OR 0.79, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Review of clinical trials shows attrition due to unavoidable tumor and treatment factors (~ 15%). The NCDB indicates non-medical patient and provider characteristics (i.e., age, insurance status, facility volume) associated with attrition. This combined analysis highlights specific opportunities for improving potentially curative surgery rates.

Establishing a state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team meeting in South Australia

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration surgery is complex, necessitating co-ordinated multidisciplinary input and improved referral pathways. A state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was established in SA and the outcomes of this were audited and compared with historical data.

METHODS

All patients referred for discussion between August 2021 and July 2022 to the SA State-wide Pelvic Exenteration MDT were included in this study. MDT discussion centred around disease resectability, risk versus benefit of surgery, and need for local or interstate referral. Prospective data collection included patient demographics and MDT recommendations of surgery, palliation, or referral. Patients referred for surgery locally or interstate were compared with a retrospective patient cohort treated previously between January and December 2020.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 91 patients were discussed (including nine multiple times), by a mean of 18 meeting participants each month. Forty-eight patients (58.5%) had primary malignancy, 25 (30.5%) recurrent malignancy, and 9 (11.0%) had non-malignant disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common presentation (56.1%), followed by gynaecological (30.5%) and urological (6.1%) malignancy. Pelvic exenteration surgery was recommended to be performed locally in 53.7% of patients and the remainder for non-surgical treatment, palliation, or re-discussion. During this time, 44 patients underwent surgery locally (versus 34 in 2020) and only 4 referred interstate (versus 8 in 2020).

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a dedicated state-wide pelvic exenteration MDT has resulted in better coordination of care for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancy in SA, and significantly reduced the need for interstate referral.