Sociodemographic and Clinical Factors Associated With Radiation Treatment Nonadherence and Survival Among Rural and Nonrural Patients With Cancer

Contribution of County Characteristics to Disparities in Rural Mortality After Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Rural disparities in cancer outcomes have been widely evaluated, but limited evidence is available to describe what characteristics of rural environments contribute to the increased risk of poor outcomes. Therefore, this manuscript sought to assess the mediating effects of county characteristics on the relationship between urban/rural status and mortality among patients with cancer, characterize county profiles, and determine at-risk county profiles alongside rural settings.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2016 were assessed using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data linked to the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Codes and 2010 County Health Rankings. There were 757,655 patients representing 596 counties (of 3,143 in the U.S.) and 12 states. Mediation analyses, conducted in 2023, estimated the direct contribution of rurality to 5-year all-cause survival and the contribution of the rural effect indirectly through County Health Ranking domains. Latent class analysis and survival models identified county groupings and estimated the hazard of mortality associated with class membership.

RESULTS

Rankings for premature death, clinical care, and physical environment resulted in rural patients having 17.9%-20.2% less survival time than urban patients. Of this, 4.1%-12.6% of the total excess risk was mediated by these characteristics. Patients living in rural and high-risk county classes saw higher all-cause mortality than those in urban lower-risk counties (hazard ratio=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.08 and 1.07, 95% CI=1.03, 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Counties with poorer health rankings had increased mortality risks regardless of rurality; however, the poor rankings, notably health behaviors and social and economic factors, elevated the risk for rural counties.

Impact of Severe Winter Weather on Operations of a Radiation Oncology Department

Purpose

During winter 2022, western New York faced 2 major storms with blizzard conditions and record-breaking snowfall. The severe weather resulted in power outages and travel bans. This study investigates the impact of these conditions on patient adherence to radiation therapy. Combining data from a large academic center and its satellite clinic, this single-center study sheds light on the challenges faced by cancer care facilities during severe weather and proposes suggestions to prevent and mitigate harm done by severe weather.

Methods and Materials

In this study, data were collected using the MOSAIQ Record and Verify system (v. 2.81) to generate deidentified reports of scheduled and treated patients. The treatment adherence rate was calculated by dividing the number of patients treated by the total number of patients scheduled. Data were specifically collected for patients undergoing treatment on linear accelerators at a primary academic center and a satellite facility. The study focused on working days from November 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, excluding weekends and holidays (as treatments are not routinely scheduled). Severe weather days were identified using advisories from the National Weather Service and the local institution, including specific periods in November, December, and January.

Results

In the study, 15,010 scheduled treatment visits were recorded across the academic center and the satellite clinic. The mean daily treatment adherence rate was 91.7%. Severe weather conditions led to a significant reduction in adherence, with rates dropping to 77.8%. Adherence rates during nonsevere weather days were notably higher at 93.9%. Statistical analysis confirmed the substantial influence of severe weather on adherence (P < .001). Severe weather had a more pronounced impact on the satellite clinic during periods of severe weather, with absolute reduction in adherence rates of 21.9% versus 15% in the primary hospital. Moreover, adherence at the satellite clinic was lower than at the primary hospital site even under standard operating conditions (92.2% vs 94.0%, P < .001).

Conclusion

As a part of operational planning, it is important to be aware how severe weather can impact treatment adherence. Study findings underscore the importance of proactive measures to ensure patient access to health care services during adverse weather events and highlight the broader significance of incorporating consideration of social determinants of health into contingency planning for maintaining treatment continuity.

Distance Traveled by Patients Globally to Access Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the travel patterns of patients seeking radiation therapy globally. It examined the distance patients travel for radiation therapy as well as secondary outcomes, including travel time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive search of 4 databases was conducted from June 2022 to August 2022. Studies were included in the review if they were observational, retrospective, randomized/nonrandomized, published between June 2000 and June 2022, and if they reported on the global distance traveled for radiation therapy in the treatment of malignant or benign disease. Studies were excluded if they did not report travel distance or were not written in English.

RESULTS

Of the 168 studies, most were conducted in North America (76.3%), with 90.7% based in the United States. Radiation therapy studies for treating patients with breast cancer were the most common (26.6%), while external beam radiation therapy was the most prevalent treatment modality (16.6%). Forty-six studies reported the mean distance traveled for radiation therapy, with the shortest being 4.8 miles in the United States and the longest being 276.5 miles in Iran. It was observed that patients outside of the United States traveled greater distances than those living within the United States. Geographic location, urban versus rural residence, and patient population characteristics affected the distance patients traveled for radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides the most extensive summary to date of the travel patterns of patients seeking radiation therapy globally. The results suggest that various factors may contribute to the variability in travel distance patterns, including treatment center location, patient residence, and treatment modality. Overall, the study highlights the need for more research to explore these factors and to develop effective strategies for improving radiation therapy access and reducing travel burden.

The impact of travel time to cancer treatment centre on post-diagnosis care and mortality among cancer patients in Scotland

Limited data exist on the effect of travelling time on post-diagnosis cancer care and mortality. We analysed the impact of travel time to cancer treatment centre on secondary care contact time and one-year mortality using a data-linkage study in Scotland with 17369 patients. Patients with longer travelling time and island-dwellers had increased incidence rate of secondary care cancer contact time. For outpatient oncology appointments, the incidence rate was decreased for island-dwellers. Longer travelling time was not associated with increased secondary care contact time for emergency cancer admissions or time to first emergency cancer admission. Living on an island increased mortality at one-year. Adjusting for cancer-specific secondary care contact time increased the hazard of death, and adjusting for oncology outpatient time decreased the hazard of death for island-dwellers. Those with longer travelling times experience the cancer treatment pathway differently with poorer outcomes. Cancer services may need to be better configured to suit differing needs of dispersed populations.

"Just give it to us straight!": a qualitative analysis of midwestern rural lung cancer survivors and caregivers about survivorship care experiences

PURPOSE

We assessed the experiences of rural lung cancer survivors and caregivers to understand and identify barriers to posttreatment survivorship care management.

METHODS

From May 2021 to June 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposively sampled cohort. Participants were either posttreatment lung cancer survivors (within 5 years of their last active treatment) or caregivers of a lung cancer survivor. Interviews probed participants regarding survivorship care knowledge, implementation, and navigation. Two analysts inductively coded verbatim transcripts and conducted a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed N = 21 participants: lung cancer survivors (76%) and caregivers (24%). Participants self-identified as Non-Hispanic White (100%), were at least 65 years old (77%), identified as male (62%), and previously smoked ≥ 5 packs over the lifetime (71%). The perspectives of survivors and caregivers were similar; thus, we analyzed them together. Themes related to survivorship care included (1) frustrations and uncertainty regarding unexpected barriers, (2) strategies to improve the delivery of posttreatment information, (3) strategies to remain positive and respond to emotional concerns of survivorship care, and (4) the impact of engaging and patient-centered care teams.

CONCLUSION

Given the limited access to lung cancer care resources in rural communities, our findings reveal that following a survivorship care program or plan requires a high level of individual resilience and community/interpersonal networking.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS

This study's findings can be applied to improve practice-based care for rural posttreatment lung cancer survivors and provide an impetus for developing tools to assist patient navigation toward community-based supportive care and care management resources.

Measuring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Behaviors and Health Care Utilization in Rural and Urban Patients with Cancer and Cancer Survivors

Healthcare access and health behaviors differ between those living in urban and rural communities and contribute to inequitable cancer health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in daily life and healthcare delivery. This cross-sectional survey aimed to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health behaviors of cancer patients and survivors, comparing outcomes for urban and rural respondents. Survey was administered from January 2021-June 2021 to cancer patients or survivors (treated within the last 5 years) at one of six cancer centers in Washington and Idaho. Respondent ZIP code was used to assess rurality using Rural-Urban Commuting Area designation. 515 rural (43.5% of those contacted) and 146 urban (40% of those contacted) cancer patients and survivors participated. Few differences between urban and rural cancer patients and cancer survivors were noted. Rural residents were older (69.2 years vs. 66.9 years). Rural respondents had higher mean alcohol consumption than urban respondents (4.4 drinks per week vs. 2.7 drinks per week). 12.2% of those who reported drinking in the last 30 days also reported increased alcohol consumption since the start of the pandemic, with no difference in reported increased alcohol consumption in rural vs. urban respondents. 38.5% reported decreased physical activity. 20.5% reported cancelling or delaying cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Delays in cancer healthcare services and worsening health behaviors due to the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to poorer health outcomes, with few differences between rural and urban cancer patients and cancer survivors.

Geographic Employment Outcomes for Graduating Residents in Radiation Oncology: 2021

PURPOSE

In light of the persistent disparity in the prevalence of radiation oncologists between rural and urban areas in the United States, we sought to characterize the geographic employment outcomes of the radiation oncology (RO) residency class of 2021.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified the employment positions accepted by 2021 RO residency graduates using publicly available information. Then, we classified each position as academic or nonacademic and determined the rural-urban continuum code and core-based statistical area (CBSA) of each position, residency program, and medical school associated with the 2021 graduates. Last, we compared the geographic employment outcomes of the 2021 class with those of the 2019 class.

RESULTS

Most 2021 graduates accepted employment positions outside of the counties, CBSAs, and states in which they attended medical school or residency. A total of 116 graduates accepted nonacademic positions, and 65 graduates accepted academic positions. Nine graduates accepted fellowships and were excluded from this analysis. As with the class of 2019, most 2021 graduates (n = 104; 57.5%) accepted positions in the largest metropolitan areas, and few (n = 11; 6.1%) accepted positions in nonmetropolitan areas. Female residents were more likely to accept academic (48.9% vs 31.3%; P = .03) and academic main site (36.2% vs 21.6%; P = .05) positions than male residents. The distribution of jobs in both the 5 and 10 largest CBSAs was not significantly different from what would have been expected if jobs were equally distributed across the country on the basis of population (P = .81 and P = .87, respectively). However, the distribution was significantly different from what would have been expected if the distribution of such positions reflected the number of residents who graduated from residency programs in those CBSAs (P < .01 and P < .01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

As with the class of 2019, the majority of graduates in the class of 2021 accepted employment positions in large metropolitan areas. Relatively few graduates accepted positions in nonmetropolitan areas. How key RO stakeholders respond to the challenge of maintaining a stable supply of rural radiation oncologists while also ensuring that jobs available to graduating RO residents reflect their preferences will have a significant effect on the field going forward.

Leveling Up the Access to Radiation Therapy in Latin America: Economic Analysis of Investment, Equity, and Inclusion Opportunities Up to 2030

PURPOSE

Latin America faces a shortage in radiation therapy (RT) units and qualified personnel for timely and high-quality treatment of patients with cancer. Investing in equitable and inclusive access to RT over the next decade would prevent thousands of deaths. Measuring the investment gap and payoff is necessary for stakeholder discussions and capacity planning efforts.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Data were collected from the International Atomic Energy Agency's Directory of Radiotherapy Centers, industry stakeholders, and individual surveys sent to national scientific societies. Nationwide data on available devices and personnel were compiled. The 10 most common cancers in 2020 with RT indication and their respective incidence rates were considered for gap calculations. The gross 2-year financial return on investment was calculated based on an average monthly salary across Latin America. A 10-year cost projection was calculated according to the estimated population dynamics for the period until 2030.

RESULTS

Eleven countries were included in the study, accounting for 557,213,447 people in 2020 and 561 RT facilities. Approximately 1,065,684 new cancer cases were diagnosed, and a mean density of 768,469 (standard deviation ±392,778) people per available unit was found. By projecting the currently available treatment fractions to determine those required in 2030, it was found that 62.3% and 130.8% increases in external beam RT and brachytherapy units are needed from the baseline, respectively. An overall regional investment of approximately United States (US) $349,650,480 in 2020 would have covered the existing demand. An investment of US $872,889,949 will be necessary by 2030, with the expectation of a 2-year posttreatment gross return on investment of more than US $2.1 billion from patients treated in 2030 only.

CONCLUSIONS

Investment in RT services is lagging in Latin America in terms of the population's needs. An accelerated outlay could save additional lives during the next decade, create a self-sustaining system, and reduce region-wide inequities in cancer care access. Cash flow analyses are warranted to tailor precise national-level intervention strategies.