Travel Distance as a Barrier to Receipt of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy

Radiotherapy recommendation, initiation, and completion: Complex questions of access and equity

In their recent work, Hogan and colleagues shed light on predictors of radiation recommendation, initiation, and completion in the United States across 3 million patients. Further work should use qualitative and intersectional lenses to examine the root causes of poor access to radiation and identify ways to intervene. Steps forward should be multidisciplinary in scope, approaching radiation access through research, clinical interventions, and national policy.

Impact of travel distance on receipt of indicated adjuvant therapy in resected non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

We have previously demonstrated the negative impact of travel distance on adherence to surveillance imaging guidelines for resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The influence of patient residential location on adherence to recommended postoperative treatment plans remains unclear. We sought to characterize the impact of travel distance on receipt of indicated adjuvant therapy in resected NSCLC.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution, retrospective review of patients with stage II-III NSCLC who underwent upfront pulmonary resection, 2012-2016. Clinicopathologic and operative/perioperative details of treatment were collected. Travel distance was measured from patients' homes to the operative hospital. Our primary outcome was receipt of adjuvant systemic or radiotherapy. Travel distance was stratified as <100 or >100 miles. Multivariable logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 391 patients met inclusion criteria, with mean age of 65.9 years and fairly even sex distribution (182 women, 49.2%). Most patients were Non-Hispanic White (n = 309, 83.5%), and most frequent clinical stage was II (n = 254, 64.9%). Indicated adjuvant therapy was received by 266 (71.9%), and median distance traveled was 209 miles (interquartile range, 50.7-617). Multivariate analysis revealed that longer travel distance was inversely associated with receipt of indicated adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.26; P < .001). In addition, Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate treatment (odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.15; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Travel distance >100 miles negatively impacts the likelihood of receiving indicated adjuvant therapy in NSCLC. Indications for systemic therapy in earlier staged disease are rapidly expanding, and these findings bear heightened relevance as we aim to provide equitable access to all patients.

Travel-Time Disparities in Access to Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer Treatment

Importance

Proton beam therapy is an emerging radiotherapy treatment for patients with cancer that may produce similar outcomes as traditional photon-based therapy for many cancers while delivering lower amounts of toxic radiation to surrounding tissue. Geographic proximity to a proton facility is a critical component of ensuring equitable access both for indicated diagnoses and ongoing clinical trials.

Objective

To characterize the distribution of proton facilities in the US, quantify drive-time access for the population, and investigate the likelihood of long commutes for certain population subgroups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cross-sectional study analyzed travel times to proton facilities in the US. Census tract variables in the contiguous US were measured between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from September to November 2023.

Exposures

Drive time in minutes to nearest proton facility. Population totals and prevalence of specific factors measured from the American Community Survey: age; race and ethnicity; insurance, disability, and income status; vehicle availability; broadband access; and urbanicity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Poor access to proton facilities was defined as having a drive-time commute of at least 4 hours to the nearest location. Median drive time and percentage of population with poor access were calculated for the entire population and by population subgroups. Univariable and multivariable odds of poor access were also calculated for certain population subgroups.

Results

Geographic access was considered for 327 536 032 residents of the contiguous US (60 594 624 [18.5%] Hispanic, 17 974 186 [5.5%] non-Hispanic Asian, 40 146 994 [12.3%] non-Hispanic Black, and 195 265 639 [59.6%] non-Hispanic White; 282 031 819 [86.1%] resided in urban counties). The median (IQR) drive time to the nearest proton facility was 96.1 (39.6-195.3) minutes; 119.8 million US residents (36.6%) lived within a 1-hour drive of the nearest proton facility, and 53.6 million (16.4%) required a commute of at least 4 hours. Persons identifying as non-Hispanic White had the longest median (IQR) commute time at 109.8 (48.0-197.6) minutes. Multivariable analysis identified rurality (odds ratio [OR], 2.45 [95% CI, 2.27-2.64]), age 65 years or older (OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11]), and living below the federal poverty line (OR, 1.22 [1.20-1.25]) as factors associated with commute times of at least 4 hours.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of drive-time access to proton beam therapy found that disparities in access existed among certain populations in the US. These results suggest that such disparities present a barrier to an emerging technology in cancer treatment and inhibit equitable access to ongoing clinical trials.

Preoperative radiation therapy increases adherence in patients with high-risk extremity soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Surgery and radiation therapy remain the standard of care for patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma that are >5 cm. Radiation therapy is time and labor-intensive for patients, and social determinants of health may affect adherence. The aim of this study was to define demographic, clinical, and treatment factors associated with the completion of radiation therapy and determine if preoperative radiation therapy improved adherence compared to postoperative radiation therapy.

METHODS

The cohort included patients in the National Cancer Database with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma >5 cm without nodal or distant metastases who received limb-sparing surgery and radiation therapy with microscopically negative R0 margins. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with radiation therapy sequencing and adherence (defined as completion of 50 Gy preoperative radiation therapy or at least 60 Gy postoperative radiation therapy). A multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards model assessed overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 2,145 patients, 47.1% received preoperative radiation therapy (n = 1,010), and 52.9% (n = 1135) received postoperative radiation therapy. A greater proportion of patients treated with preoperative (77.2%) versus postoperative radiation therapy (64.9%, P < .0001) received the recommended dose. More patients with private insurance (49.8% vs 35.3% Medicaid vs 44.9% Medicare, P = .011) and patients treated at an academic medical center (52.6% vs 47.4%, P < .001) received preoperative radiation therapy. Patients who received preoperative radiation therapy had lower odds of receiving insufficient doses of radiation therapy (odds ratio 0.34 [95% CI 0.27-0.47]). Neither radiation therapy adherence nor sequencing were independent predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received preoperative radiation therapy were more likely to complete therapy and receive an optimal dose than patients treated with postoperative radiation therapy. Preoperative radiation therapy improves adherence and should be widely considered in patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma, particularly in patients at risk for not completing therapy.

Association between travel distance and overall survival among patients with adrenocortical carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Regionalization of care is associated with improved perioperative outcomes after adrenalectomy. However, the relationship between travel distance and treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is unknown. We investigated the association between travel distance, treatment, and overall survival (OS) among patients with ACC.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with ACC between 2004 and 2017 were identified with the National Cancer Database. Long distance was defined as the highest quintile of travel (≥42.2 miles). The likelihood of surgical management and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) were determined. The association between travel distance, treatment, and OS was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 3492 patients with ACC included, 2337 (66.9%) received surgery. Rural residents were more likely to travel long distances for surgery than metropolitan residents (65.8% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001), and surgery was associated with improved OS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.54). Overall, 807 (23.1%) patients received AC with rates decreasing approximately 1% per 4-mile travel distance increase. Also, long distance travel was associated with worse OS among surgically treated patients (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery was associated with improved overall survival for patients with ACC. However, increased travel distance was associated with lower likelihood to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and decreased overall survival.

Consensus Statement Supporting the Presence of Onsite Radiation Oncology Departments at VHA Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

Although multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underused worldwide, the impact that onsite radiation oncology at medical centers has on the use of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has evaluated the impact of onsite radiation therapy on the use of palliative radiation and has made recommendations based on these findings.

OBSERVATIONS

Radiation consults and treatment occur in a more timely manner at VHA centers with onsite radiation therapy compared with VHA centers without onsite radiation oncology. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation oncology less frequently report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006) and patient travel (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001) as barriers to referral for palliative radiotherapy. Facilities with onsite radiation oncology are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .11) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of the use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing or hospitalization should be understood by treating physicians and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Geographic Access to Radiation Therapy Facilities in the United States

BACKGROUND

The current distribution of radiation therapy (RT) facilities in the US is not well established. A comprehensive inventory of US RT facilities was last assessed in 2005, based on data from state regulatory agencies and dosimetric quality assurance bodies. We updated this database to characterize population-level measures of geographic access to RT and analyze changes over the past 15 years.

METHODS

We compiled data from regulatory and accrediting organizations to identify US facilities with linear accelerators used to treat humans in 2018-2020. Addresses were geocoded and analyzed with Geographic Information Services (GIS) software. Geographic access was characterized by assessing the Euclidian distance between zip code tabulation areas (ZCTA)/county centroids and RT facilities. Populations were assigned to each county to estimate the impact of facility changes at the population level. Logistic regressions were performed to identify features associated with increased distance to RT and associated with regions that gained an RT facility between the two time points studied.

RESULTS

In 2020, a total of 2,313 US RT facilities were reported compared to 1,987 in 2005, representing a 16.4% growth in facilities over nearly 15 years. Based on population attribution to ZCTA centroids, 77.9% of the US population lives within 12.5 miles of an RT facility, and 1.8% of the US population lives more than 50 miles from an RT facility. We found that increased distance to RT was associated with non-metro status, less insurance, older median age, and less populated regions. Between 2005 and 2020, the population living within 12.5 miles from an RT facility increased by 2.1 percentage points, while the population living furthest from RT facilities decreased 0.6 percentage points. Regions with improved geographic RT access are more likely to be higher income and better insured.

CONCLUSION

1.8% of the US population has limited geographic access to radiation therapy. We found that people benefiting from improved access to RT facilities are more economically advantaged, suggesting disparities in geographic access may not improve without intervention.

Disparities in Refusal of Locoregional Treatment for Prostate Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

We assessed sociodemographic factors associated with and survival implications of refusal of potentially survival-prolonging locoregional treatment (LT, including radiotherapy and surgery) despite provider recommendation among men with localized prostate adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2004-2015) identified men with TxN0M0 prostate cancer who either received or refused LT despite provider recommendation. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CI of refusing LT, with sociodemographic and clinical covariates. Models were stratified by low-risk and intermediate- or high-risk (IR or HR) disease, with a separate interaction analysis between race and risk group. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard ratios compared overall survival (OS) among men who received versus refused LT.

RESULTS

Of 887,839 men (median age 64 years, median follow-up 6.14 years), 2,487 (0.28%) refused LT. Among men with IR or HR disease (n = 651,345), Black and Asian patients were more likely to refuse LT than White patients (0.35% v 0.29% v 0.17%; Black v White AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.01; P < .001; Asian v White AOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.06; P = .027, race * risk group interaction P < .001). Later year of diagnosis, community facility type, noninsurance or Medicaid, and older age were also associated with increased odds of LT refusal, overall and when stratifying by risk group. For men with IR or HR disease, LT refusal was associated with worse OS (5-year OS 80.1% v 91.5%, HR, 1.65, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

LT refusal has increased over time; racial disparities were greater in higher-risk disease. Refusal despite provider recommendation highlights populations that may benefit from efforts to assess and reduce barriers to care.

Geospatial Disparities in Access to Proton Therapy in the Continental United States

Proton therapy (PT) is an important component of therapy for select cancers, but no formal study of geospatial access to PT has been conducted to date. Population data for 320.7 million people in 32,644 zip codes were analyzed. Median travel time was 1.61 (IQR 0.67-3.36) hours for children and 1.64 (IQR 0.69-3.33) hours for adults. Significant variation in travel time to nearest PT center was observed between states. The West has a longer median travel time of 3.51 (IQR 1.15-7.13) hours when compared to the Midwest (1.70, IQR 0.79-2.69), South (1.60, IQR 0.61-3.12) and Northeast (1.04, IQR 0.57-2.01).

Disparities in NCCN Guideline Compliant Care for Resectable Cholangiocarcinoma at Minority-Serving Versus Non-Minority-Serving Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Racial/ethnic disparities in cancer outcomes may relate to variations in receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline compliant care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing resection of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) between 2004 and 2015 were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Institutions treating Black and Hispanic patients within the top decile were categorized as minority-serving hospitals (MSH). Factors associated with receipt of NCCN-compliant care, and the impact of NCCN compliance on overall survival (OS), were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 16,108 patients who underwent resection of CCA, the majority of patients were treated at non-MSH (n = 14,779, 91.8%), while a smaller subset underwent resection of CCA at MSH (n = 1329, 8.2%). Patients treated at MSH facilities tended to be younger (MSH: 65 years versus non-MSH: 67 years), Black or Hispanic (MSH: 59.9% versus non-MSH: 13.4%), and uninsured (MSH: 11.6% versus non-MSH: 2.2%). While overall compliance with NCCN care was 73.0% (n = 11,762), guideline-compliant care was less common at MSH (MSH: 68.8% versus non-MSH: 73.4%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, the odds of receiving non-NCCN compliant care remained lower at MSH (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). While white patients had similar odds of NCCN-compliant care with minority patients when treated at MSH (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75-1.28), minority patients had lower odds of receiving guideline-compliant care when treated at non-MSH (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96). Failure to comply with NCCN guidelines was associated with worse long-term outcomes (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.52-1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated at MSH had decreased odds to receive NCCN-compliant care following resection of CCA. Failure to comply with guideline-based cancer care was associated with worse long-term outcomes.

Overall survival based on oncologist density in the United States: A retrospective cohort study

Medically underserved areas (MUA) or health professional shortage areas (HPSA) designations are based on primary care health services availability. These designations are used in recruiting international medical graduates (IMGs) trained in primary care or subspecialty (e.g., oncology) to areas of need. Whether the MUA/HPSA designation correlates with Oncologist Density (OD) and supports IMG oncologists’ recruitment to areas of need is unknown. We evaluated the concordance of OD with the designation of MUAs/HPSAs and evaluated the impact of OD and MUA/HPSA status on overall survival. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies or metastatic solid tumors in 2011 from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. SEER was linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to calculate OD, defined as the number of oncologists per 100,000 population at the county level. We calculated the proportion of counties with MUA or HPSA designation for each OD category. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the OD category using a log-rank test. We identified 68,699 adult patients with hematologic malignancies or metastatic solid cancers in 609 counties. The proportion of MUA/HPSA designation was similar across counties categorized by OD (93.2%, 95.4%, 90.3%, and 91.7% in counties with <2.9, 2.9–6.5, 6.5–8.4 and >8.4 oncologists per 100K population, p = 0.7). Patients’ median survival in counties with the lowest OD was significantly lower compared to counties with the highest OD (8 vs. 11 months, p<0.0001). The difference remained statistically significant in multivariate and subgroup analysis. MUA/HPSA status was not associated with survival (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.97–1.09, p = 0.3). MUA/HPSA designation based on primary care services is not concordant with OD. Patients in counties with lower OD correlated with inferior survival. Federal programs designed to recruit physicians in high-need areas should consider the availability of health care services beyond primary care.

Socioeconomic inequality and omission of adjuvant radiation therapy in high-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

Gaps in access to appropriate cancer care, and associated cancer mortality, have widened across socioeconomic groups. We examined whether demographic and socioeconomic factors influenced receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in patients with high-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective study cohort was selected from 349,404 endometrial carcinoma patients from the National Cancer Database in whom adjuvant RT would be recommended per national guidelines. The study included surgically treated patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer with one of the following criteria: 1) FIGO 2009 stage IB, grade 1/2 disease, age ≥ 60 years; 2) stage IB, grade 3 disease; or 3) stage II disease. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with omission of adjuvant RT. Association between adjuvant RT, covariables, and overall survival (OS) was assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

19,594 patients were eligible for analysis; 47% did not receive adjuvant RT. Omission of adjuvant RT was more prevalent among African-American, Hispanic, and Asian compared to non-Hispanic white patients (OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.69-0.91; OR 0.75, 95%CI: 0.64-0.87; OR 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.94, respectively). Lower median household income of patient's area of residence, lack of health insurance, treatment at non-academic hospitals, farther distance to treatment facilities, and residence in metropolitan counties were associated with omission of adjuvant RT. Such omission was independently associated with worse OS (HR1.43, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant RT is omitted in 47% of patients with early-stage, high-risk endometrial cancer, which is associated with poor access to appropriate, high-quality care and worse outcome.

Palliative Radiotherapy Within the Veterans Health Administration: Barriers to Referral and Timeliness of Treatment

PURPOSE

Most Veterans Health Administration hospitals do not have radiation oncology (RO) departments on-site. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of on-site RO on referral patterns and timeliness of palliative radiation therapy (PRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was sent to medical directors at 149 Veterans Health Administration centers. Questions evaluated frequency of referral for PRT, timeliness of RO consults and treatment, and barriers to referral for PRT. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate differences between centers that have on-site RO and centers that refer to outside facilities.

RESULTS

Of 108 respondents, 33 (31%) have on-site RO. Chi-square analysis revealed that RO consult within 1 week is more likely at centers with on-site RO (68% v 31%; P = .01). Centers with on-site RO more frequently deliver PRT for spinal cord compression within 24 hours (94% v 70%; P = .01). Those without on-site RO were more likely to want increased radiation oncologist involvement (64% v 26%; P < .001). Barriers to referral for PRT included patient ability to travel (81%), patient noncompliance (31%), delays in consult and/or treatment (31%), difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (14%), and concern regarding excessive number of treatments (13%). Respondents with on-site RO less frequently reported delays in consult and/or treatment (6% v 41%; P < .0001) and difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist (0% v 20%; P = .0056) as barriers.

CONCLUSION

Respondents with on-site RO reported improved communication with radiation oncologists and more timely consultation and treatment initiation. Methods to improve timeliness of PRT for veterans at centers without on-site RO should be considered.

Association Between Travel Distance and Use of Postoperative Radiation Therapy Among Men With Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Influence Treatment Decisions?

PURPOSE

After radical prostatectomy, men with adverse pathologic features or a persistent postoperative detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are candidates for postoperative radiation therapy (PORT). Previous data have suggested disparities in receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy for adverse pathologic features according to travel distance. Among patients without adverse pathologic features (pT2 disease and negative margins), the main indication for PORT is a persistent postoperative detectable PSA. However, it remains unknown whether the rate of receipt of PORT in this cohort of men with persistently detectable PSA is related to travel distance from the treating facility.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 170,379 men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 managed with upfront surgery who were found to have pT2 disease with negative surgical margins. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of receiving PORT as the primary dependent variable and distance (<5, 5-10, 10-20, ≥20 miles from the treatment facility) as the primary independent variable.

RESULTS

Within our cohort, progressively farther distance from the treatment facility was associated with lower rates of PORT. In patients living <5 miles, 5 to 10 miles, 10 to 20 miles, and >20 miles from the treating facility, rates of PORT of were 1.37% (referent), 1.16% (AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P = .158), 0.98% (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .003), and 0.64% (AOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.54; P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For men with localized prostate cancer without adverse pathologic features managed with surgery, increasing distance from treatment facility was associated with lower receipt of PORT. Given that the rate of a persistent postoperative detectable PSA is unlikely to depend on the distance to the treatment facility, these findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment facilities influences the decision to undergo PORT for patients with persistent postoperative detectable PSA.

National trends in the management of patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate practice patterns of planned post-operative radiation therapy (RT) among men with positive surgical margins (PSM) at radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

We identified 43,806 men within the National Cancer Database with pathologic node-negative prostate cancer diagnosed in 2010 through 2014 with PSM. The primary endpoint was receipt of planned (RT) within a patient's initial course of treatment. We examined post-RP androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with RT as a secondary endpoint. We evaluated patterns of post-operative management and characteristics associated with planned post-prostatectomy RT.

RESULTS

Within 12 months of RP, 87.0% received no planned RT, 8.5% RT alone, 1.3% ADT alone, and 3.1% RT with ADT. In a multivariable logistic regression model, planned RT use was associated with clinical and pathologic characteristics as estimated by surgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) category (intermediate versus low, OR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.19-3.75, P < 0.001; high versus low, OR = 10.23, 95% CI 7.79-13.43, P < 0.001), treatment at community versus academic centers (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.15-1.34, P < 0.001), shorter distance to a treatment facility (OR = 0.97 for each 10-mile, 95% CI 0.96-0.98, P < 0.001), and uninsured status (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77, P = 0.005). The odds of receiving planned RT were lower in 2014 versus 2010 (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, P < 0.001). There was no significant change in the use of ADT with RT. High versus low CAPRA-S category was associated with the use of ADT in addition to RT (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.57-16.80, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The use of planned post-prostatectomy RT remained stable among patients with PSM and appears driven primarily by the presence of other adverse pathologic features.