The dilemma of distance: patients with kidney cancer from regional Australia present at a more advanced stage

Geographic disparities in thyroid cancer staging at presentation: Insights from an Australian context

BACKGROUND

Thyroid cancer diagnoses have increased over recent decades at a rate much higher than that of any other cancer in Australia. Rural patients are known to have reduced access to healthcare and may have different thyroid cancer presentation rates. This study examined the relationship between thyroid cancer diagnosis and patient rurality.

METHODS

Data from the Australia and New Zealand Thyroid Cancer Registry from 2017 to 2022 were analyzed, stratifying patient postcodes into rurality groups using the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines were used to stratify risk categories and management to compare treatment adequacy between the groups. Statistical analysis assessed demographic, clinical, and management differences.

RESULTS

Among 1766 patients, 70.6% were metropolitan (metro) and 29.4% were non-metropolitan (non-metro). Non-metro patients were older at diagnosis (median 56 vs. 50 years, p < 0.001), presented more frequently with T stage greater than 1 (stage 2-4, 41.9% vs. 34.8%, and p = 0.005), AJCC stage greater than 1 (stage 2-4, 18.5% vs. 14.6%, and p = 0.019), and cancers larger than 4 cm (14.3% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.005). No significant differences in treatment adequacy were observed between the groups for ATA low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-metropolitan patients in the registry present with more advanced thyroid cancer, possibly due to differences in healthcare access. Further research should assess long-term survival outcomes and influencing factors. Understanding the impact on patient outcomes and addressing healthcare access barriers can optimize thyroid cancer care across geographic regions in Australia.

Real-world outcomes of patients with renal cell carcinoma, surgically treated at regional hospitals, based on a prospective long-term survey of the pre-robotic era

PURPOSE

Renal cancer surgery is frequently performed in small regional hospitals in Japan. This study evaluated the outcomes of renal cancer surgery, comparing results from the pre-robotic surgery era with those obtained with robotic surgery.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent renal cancer surgery between 2008 and 2013 at 14 hospitals, comprising 13 regional hospitals and a university hospital, registered in the Tohoku Urological Evidence-Based Medicine Study Group. The patients' backgrounds; perioperative data; annual postoperative renal function; and prognostic surveys, performed over a median follow-up period of 10 years were obtained.

RESULTS

In 930 surgical cases at the 14 registered hospitals, the 10-year recurrence-free survival rates of cT1a, cT1b, cT2, and cT3 were 0.9326, 0.8501, 0.5786, and 0.5101, respectively. Meanwhile, the 10-year overall survival rates were 0.9612, 0.8662, 0.7505, and 0.7209, respectively. Long-term observation in patients with cT1 showed that vessel involvement and high tumor grade were prognostic factors for recurrence. As a noteworthy fact, radical nephrectomy was performed in 53.3% of patients with cT1a at the regional hospitals. However, even in patients with preoperative chronic kidney disease stage 3, radical nephrectomy was not a prognostic factor of renal function. This indicates that compensatory mechanisms had been working for a long time in many patients who underwent radical nephrectomies without hypertension and preoperative proteinuria, which were predictors of end-stage renal disease.

CONCLUSION

Based on a prospective long-term survey of the pre-robotic era, our results suggested no difference of the survival outcomes between the university hospital and regional hospitals. Our study provides baseline data to evaluate the outcomes of renal cancer robotic surgery, performed at regional hospitals.

The impact of patient travel time on disparities in treatment for early stage lung cancer in California

BACKGROUND

Travel time to treatment facilities may impede the receipt of guideline-concordant treatment (GCT) among patients diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). We investigated the relative contribution of travel time in the receipt of GCT among ES-NSCLC patients.

METHODS

We included 22,821 ES-NSCLC patients diagnosed in California from 2006-2015. GCT was defined using the 2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and delayed treatment was defined as treatment initiation >6 versus ≤6 weeks after diagnosis. Mean-centered driving and public transit times were calculated from patients' residential block group centroid to the treatment facilities. We used logistic regression to estimate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between patients' travel time and receipt of GCT and timely treatment, overall and by race/ethnicity and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES).

RESULTS

Overall, a 15-minute increase in travel time was associated with a decreased risk of undertreatment and delayed treatment. Compared to Whites, among Blacks, a 15-minute increase in driving time was associated with a 24% (95%CI = 8%-42%) increased risk of undertreatment, and among Filipinos, a 15-minute increase in public transit time was associated with a 27% (95%CI = 13%-42%) increased risk of delayed treatment. Compared to the highest nSES, among the lowest nSES, 15-minute increases in driving and public transit times were associated with 33% (95%CI = 16%-52%) and 27% (95%CI = 16%-39%) increases in the risk of undertreatment and delayed treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of GCT observed with increased travel times may be a 'Travel Time Paradox,' and may vary across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Geographic remoteness from a multidisciplinary team is associated with an increased clinical staging of head and neck cancer: a Newcastle (Australia) study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between a patient's residential distance from a tertiary referral regional multidisciplinary team (MDT) and the clinical staging of their head and neck cancer (HNC) at presentation. A retrospective cohort study was performed of all attendees with HNC who had undergone an MDT assessment. The period of study was January 2016 to January 2017. The primary predictor variable was the patient's residential distance from the MDT. Demographic and clinicopathological factors were recorded. The primary outcome variable was the clinical staging conferred by the MDT. Descriptive and ordinal logistical regression analyses were conducted to examine the data. There were 286 observations; 230 patients were male and 56 were female. The mean age of the cohort was 66.52 years. The average residential distance from the MDT was 68.16 km. Regression analysis, while not statistically significant, indicated that those living more than 100 km (range 102-592 km) from the MDT had a 1.49 times increased risk of being diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer when compared to those living less than 100 km away. This study provides insights into the potential adverse effect geographic remoteness has on initial staging of HNC and the need for further strategies to serve this at-risk population.

Greater travel distance to specialized facilities is associated with higher survival for patients with soft-tissue sarcoma: US nationwide patterns

Purpose

The survival impact of geographic access to specialized care remains unknown in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). This study aimed to clarify the association between the patient travel distance and survival outcome and investigate the factors lying behind it.

Methods

A total of 34 528 patients with STS registered in the National Cancer Data Base, diagnosed from 2004–2016, were investigated.

Results

Tumor stage correlated with travel distance: patients with metastatic disease stayed closer to home. However, the type of facility showed greatest variation: 37.0%, 51.0%, 73.5%, and 75.9% of patients with ≤10 miles, 10.1–50 miles, 50.1–100 miles, and >100 miles, respectively (P<0.001), had a sarcoma care at academic/research centers. On a multivariable analysis, reduced mortality risk was associated with longer (versus short) travel distance (>100 miles: HR = 0.877; P = 0.001) and management at academic/research (versus non-academic/research) centers (HR = 0.857; P<0.001). The greatest divergence was seen in patients traveling very long distance (>100 miles) to an academic/research center, with a 26.9% survival benefit (HR = 0.731; P<0.001), compared with those traveling short distance (≤10 miles; 95.4% living in metropolitan area) to a non-academic/research center. There was no significant correlation between travel distance and survival in patients who had care at academic/research centers, whereas a survival benefit of management at academic/research centers was observed in every group of travel distance, regardless of tumor stage.

Conclusions

This national study demonstrated that increased travel distance was associated with superior survival, attributable to a higher proportion of patients receiving sarcoma care at distant academic/research centers. These data support centralized care for STS. Overcoming referral and travel barriers may enable more patients to be treated at specialized centers and may further improve survival rates for patients with STS, even when it imposes an increased travel burden.

A Review of Models Used for Investigating Barriers to Healthcare Access in Australia

Understanding barriers to healthcare access is a multifaceted challenge, which is often highly diverse depending on location and the prevalent surroundings. The barriers can range from transport accessibility to socio-economic conditions, ethnicity and various patient characteristics. Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world; however, there are several concerns surrounding its accessibility, primarily due to the vast geographical area it encompasses. This review study is an attempt to understand the various modeling approaches used by researchers to analyze diverse barriers related to specific disease types and the various areal distributions in the country. In terms of barriers, the most affected people are those living in rural and remote parts, and the situation is even worse for indigenous people. These models have mostly focused on the use of statistical models and spatial modeling. The review reveals that most of the focus has been on cancer-related studies and understanding accessibility among the rural and urban population. Future work should focus on further categorizing the population based on indigeneity, migration status and the use of advanced computational models. This article should not be considered an exhaustive review of every aspect as each section deserves a separate review of its own. However, it highlights all the key points, covered under several facets which can be used by researchers and policymakers to understand the current limitations and the steps that need to be taken to improve health accessibility.

Combining Drive Time and Urologist Density to Understand Access to Urologic Care

OBJECTIVE

To improve our understanding of timely access to urologic care, we leveraged driving time combined with a measure of urologist density.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all urologists who billed Medicare using National Provider Identifier in 2015 and geocoded their practice location. We developed drive-time based service areas for each provider using Esri's street network dataset stratified into 30, 60, 90, and 120-minute areas. Population characteristics were aggregated and block groups were assigned to a Hospital Referral Region.

RESULTS

We identified 10,170 urologists that billed Medicare in 2015 in the United States. Compared to the northeast, vast expanses of land across the western United States have drive times to urology care >60 minutes. However, less than 13% of the US population is unable to obtain urologic care within 30 minutes. Likely reflecting rural populations, White and American Indian populations are represented in greater proportion among those requiring a longer drive time to urologic care. Disparities were noted between areas with timely access to a high versus low density of urologists; low density areas have a greater proportion of Black and Asian populations and greater income inequality.

CONCLUSIONS

Drive time to urologists combined with urologist density is a novel approach to investigating urologic care access and a tool for health disparities research. While almost all of the US population lives within 1-hour drive time to a urologist there remains important differences in the population severed by high compared to low provider density.

Understanding rural caregivers' experiences of cancer care when accessing metropolitan cancer services: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of cancer caregivers who live in rural Australia and travel to a metropolitan cancer health service to access cancer treatment.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured, audio-recorded interviews conducted between December 2017 and July 2018 with caregivers and social workers. Thematic analysis using interpretative descriptive techniques performed on textual interview data within a critical realist paradigm to develop understanding of rural caregivers' lived experiences.

SETTING

Participants were from rural areas attending a metropolitan cancer centre in Australia and social workers.

PARTICIPANTS

21 caregivers (16 female) of people with cancer living in rural Australia within a minimum distance of 100 km from the metropolitan cancer centre where they access treatment, and five social workers employed at a metropolitan cancer service with experience of working with rural patients and caregivers.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis developed two overarching themes: theme 1: caregiving in the rural setting describes the unique circumstance in which caregiving for a person with cancer takes place in the rural setting at considerable distance from the cancer service where the person receives treatment. This is explored in three categories: 'Rural community and culture', 'Life adjustments' and 'Available supports'. Theme 2: accessing metropolitan cancer services captures the multiplicity of tasks and challenges involved in organising and coordinating the journey to access cancer treatment in a metropolitan hospital, which is presented in the following categories: 'Travel', 'Accommodation' and 'Health system navigation'.

CONCLUSIONS

Caregivers who live in rural areas face significant challenges when confronting geographic isolation between their rural home environment and the metropolitan setting, where the patient accessed cancer treatment. There is a need for healthcare services to identify this group to develop feasible and sustainable ways to provide interventions that have the best chance of assisting rural caregivers in supporting the patient while maintaining their own health and well-being.

Distance as a Barrier to Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Review of the Literature

The burden of travel from a patient's residence to health care providers is an important issue that can influence access to diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Although several studies have shown that the travel burden can result in delays in diagnosis and treatment of many common cancers, its role appears underestimated in the treatment of patients in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a review of the published data on the role of travel burden influencing four items: delay of diagnosis, adequate treatment of cancer, outcome, and quality of life of cancer patients. Forty-seven studies published up to December 2014 were initially identified. Twenty studies were excluded because they did not regard specifically the four items of our review. Twenty-seven studies formed the basis of our study and involved 716,153 patients. The associations between travel burden and (a) cancer stage at diagnosis (12 studies), (b) appropriate treatment (8 studies), (c) outcome (4 studies), and (d) quality of life (1 study) are reported. In addition, in two studies, the relation between travel burden and compliance with treatment was examined. The results of our review show that increasing travel requirements are associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, inappropriate treatment, a worse prognosis, and a worse quality of life. These results suggest that clinical oncologists should remember the specific travel burden problem for cancer patients, who often need health care services every week or every month for many years.