Are Patients Traveling for Intraoperative Radiation Therapy?

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.

Factors Associated With Travel Distance in the Receipt of Proton Breast Radiation Therapy

Introduction

Proton radiation therapy (PBT) may reduce cardiac doses in breast cancer treatment. Limited availability of proton facilities could require significant travel distances. This study assessed factors associated with travel distances for breast PBT.

Materials and Methods

Patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were summarized. Straight-line travel distances from the department to patients' addresses were calculated using BatchGeo. Median and mean travel distances were reported. Given non-normality of distribution of travel distances, Wilcoxon rank sum or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether travel distances differed by race, clinical trial participation, disease laterality, recurrence, and prior radiation.

Results

Of 1 male and 284 female patients, 67.8% were White and 21.7% Black. Median travel distance was 13.5 miles with interquartile range of 6.1 to 24.8 miles, and mean travel distance was 13.5 miles with standard deviation of 261.4 miles. 81.1% of patients traveled less than 30 and 6.0% more than 100 miles. Black patients' travel distances were significantly shorter than White patients' and non-Black or non-White patients' travel distances (median = 4.5, 16.5, and 11.3 miles, respectively; P < .0001). Patients not on clinical trials traveled more those on clinical trials (median = 14.7 and 10.2 miles, respectively; P = .032). There was no difference found between travel distances of patients with left-sided versus right-sided versus bilateral disease (P = .175), with versus without recurrent disease (P = .057), or with versus without prior radiation (P = .23).

Conclusion

This study described travel distances and demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients receiving breast PBT at the University of Pennsylvania. Black patients traveled less than White and non-Black or non-White patients and comprised a small portion of the cohort, suggesting barriers to travel and PBT. Patients did not travel further to receive PBT for left-sided or recurrent disease.

Global adoption of single-shot targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) for breast cancer—better for patients, better for healthcare systems

Micro abstract

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) is delivered immediately after lumpectomy for breast cancer. We estimated its impact. At least 44,752 patients with breast cancer were treated with TARGIT-IORT in 260 centres in 35 countries, saving &gt;20 million miles of travel and preventing ~2,000 non–breast cancer deaths. The TARGIT-IORT website (https://targit.org.uk/travel) provides maps and tools to find the nearest centre offering TARGIT-IORT and travel savings.

Background

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) delivers radiotherapy targeted to the fresh tumour bed exposed immediately after lumpectomy for breast cancer. TARGIT-A trial found TARGIT-IORT to be as effective as whole-breast radiotherapy, with significantly fewer deaths from non–breast cancer causes. This paper documents its worldwide impact and provides interactive tools for clinicians and patients.

Method

Centres using TARGIT-IORT provided the date of the first case and the total number of patients. We plotted these data on a customised Google Map. An interactive web-based tool provided directions to the closest centre. Using the data from the TARGIT-A trial, we estimated the total savings in travel miles, carbon footprint, and the number of non–breast cancer deaths that might be prevented.

Results

Data from 242 (93%) of the 260 centres treating patients from 35 countries were available. From the first patient treated in 1998 to early 2020, at least 44,752 women with breast cancer have been treated with TARGIT-IORT. The TARGIT-IORT website (https://targit.org.uk/travel) displays the Google Map of centres with number of cases and an interactive tool for patients to find the nearest centre offering TARGIT-IORT and their travel savings. Scaling up to the already treated patients, &gt;20 million miles of travel would have been saved and about 2,000 deaths prevented.

Conclusion

One can ascertain the number of patients treated with a novel treatment. These data show how widely TARGIT-IORT has now been adopted and gives an indication of its beneficial worldwide impact on a large number of women with breast cancer.

Intra-operative Radiation Therapy versus Whole Breast External Beam Radiotherapy: A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Introduction

This project sought to compare patient-reported outcomes between patients who received intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT) and those who qualified for IORT but received whole-breast external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

Methods

Three scales from the BREAST-Q Breast Cancer BCT Module Version 2.0 questionnaire were used to collect patient-reported outcomes regarding post-operative physical well-being of the chest, post-operative satisfaction with breast cosmesis, and post-operative adverse effects of radiation.

Results

Patients who received EBRT travelled farther on average than patients who received IORT to complete treatment. Respondents who received IORT reported better physical well-being of the chest than those who received EBRT. Regression revealed that the respondent’s age was the determining factor in the difference between IORT and EBRT post-operative physical well-being scores, where younger patients report poorer well-being. There was no difference in patient-reported outcomes regarding post-operative satisfaction with breast cosmesis or adverse effects of radiation.

Conclusions

Patients who received IORT reported better physical well-being of the chest than patients who received EBRT. There appeared to be a relationship between age and physical well-being of chest. This study suggested that there was no difference in patient-reported outcomes concerning post-operative satisfaction with breast cosmesis or post-operative adverse effects of radiation between patients who received IORT and those who received EBRT.

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy Versus Whole Breast Radiation for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treatment in Rural Appalachia

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternate accelerated form of radiation following breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Lack of data regarding long-term outcomes has limited adoption. We report our experience with IORT in patients undergoing BCS versus whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT).

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing BCS with IORT versus WBRT (2012-2017). Inclusion: low grade, T1-2N0M0, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positive, and Her2-negative infiltrating ductal carcinomas. IORT was delivered as a single fraction of radiation (20 Gy) intraoperatively. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's test for discrete variables or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (44%) received IORT, and 66 (56%) received WBRT. There was no difference in age, tumor size, receptor status, or in-breast recurrence (1.9% vs 0%, all P > .05). Length of follow-up was longer in the WBRT group due to time to inception of IORT (mean ± SD: 44 ± 8.1 vs 73 ± 13 months, P < .001). There was no difference in DFS between the 2 groups (HR 2.5; P = .44). IORT patients experienced delay to BCS (mean ± SD: 38 ± 12.7 vs 27 ± 12.2 days, P < .001) likely due to coordination of care. Analysis demonstrated IORT patients would have traveled a mean distance of 20 miles to the closest WBRT center (range 1-70, miles) for a mean travel time of 31 minutes (range 4-90, minutes) per WBRT treatment.

DISCUSSION

IORT produces noninferior oncologic outcomes and decreased skin toxicity compared with WBRT. It can be convenient for patients in rural regions with limited health care access.