[Residential areas, travel burdens, and children with cancer: Analysis of mobility and mortality ratios using data from Japan's national population-based cancer registry].

Anna Tsutsui, Yoshitaka Murakami, Takako Fujimaki, Masayuki Endo, Yuko Ohno
{"title":"[Residential areas, travel burdens, and children with cancer: Analysis of mobility and mortality ratios using data from Japan's national population-based cancer registry].","authors":"Anna Tsutsui, Yoshitaka Murakami, Takako Fujimaki, Masayuki Endo, Yuko Ohno","doi":"10.11236/jph.24-086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives Although childhood cancer treatment has recently become centralized at specialized hospitals worldwide, the relationship between mortality ratios and living in rural areas or traveling long distances for treatment remains controversial. In the present study, we examined whether regional differences in patient mobility and mortality ratios exist in Japan.Methods We investigated 10,713 patients with cancer aged ≤18 years, diagnosed between 2016 and 2019, registered in the national cancer registry data. The patients were divided into two categories based on their residence at diagnosis: urban and rural. Urban areas were defined as metropolitan or urban areas according to the 2015 census or as prefectural cities; all other areas were defined as rural. Additionally, we divided the patients into two groups based on the one-way travel time to the treatment hospital (≤1 h or >1 h), as estimated from location information at the community level using route-planner web services. Next, we calculated the percentage of patients who received treatment within their residences in both areas and for each treatment type. We compared the percentage of distant metastasis in all cancers and each diagnosis group between the two areas using the chi-square test. We finally applied Cox proportional hazard models to obtain adjusted mortality hazard ratios for urban versus rural areas and travel times of ≤1 h versus >1 h.Results Overall, 77% of the patients were classified as urban residents. The percentages of patients receiving treatment within their residency, secondary medical care area, prefecture, and regional block levels were 22-46%, 80-87%, and 95-99%, respectively. Only central nervous system tumors (III) showed a significant difference in the percentage of distant metastases, which were more common in urban areas (6% vs. 3%). The adjusted mortality hazard ratios were not significantly different between urban and rural areas for all cancers or each diagnosis group. The travel time comparison yielded significant differences of 1.17 for all cancers and 2.57 for lymphomas (II).Conclusion Approximately 80% of the patients received treatment within their prefecture, although a few traveled long distances across regional blocks. We observed no differences in the mortality ratio between urban and rural areas, although significant differences were found in all cancers and one cancer in the travel burden comparison. These results highlight the need for continued evaluation of the increasing trend in patient travel burden and its impact on survival, as childhood cancer treatment has become centralized in Japan.</p>","PeriodicalId":72032,"journal":{"name":"[Nihon koshu eisei zasshi] Japanese journal of public health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"[Nihon koshu eisei zasshi] Japanese journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11236/jph.24-086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives Although childhood cancer treatment has recently become centralized at specialized hospitals worldwide, the relationship between mortality ratios and living in rural areas or traveling long distances for treatment remains controversial. In the present study, we examined whether regional differences in patient mobility and mortality ratios exist in Japan.Methods We investigated 10,713 patients with cancer aged ≤18 years, diagnosed between 2016 and 2019, registered in the national cancer registry data. The patients were divided into two categories based on their residence at diagnosis: urban and rural. Urban areas were defined as metropolitan or urban areas according to the 2015 census or as prefectural cities; all other areas were defined as rural. Additionally, we divided the patients into two groups based on the one-way travel time to the treatment hospital (≤1 h or >1 h), as estimated from location information at the community level using route-planner web services. Next, we calculated the percentage of patients who received treatment within their residences in both areas and for each treatment type. We compared the percentage of distant metastasis in all cancers and each diagnosis group between the two areas using the chi-square test. We finally applied Cox proportional hazard models to obtain adjusted mortality hazard ratios for urban versus rural areas and travel times of ≤1 h versus >1 h.Results Overall, 77% of the patients were classified as urban residents. The percentages of patients receiving treatment within their residency, secondary medical care area, prefecture, and regional block levels were 22-46%, 80-87%, and 95-99%, respectively. Only central nervous system tumors (III) showed a significant difference in the percentage of distant metastases, which were more common in urban areas (6% vs. 3%). The adjusted mortality hazard ratios were not significantly different between urban and rural areas for all cancers or each diagnosis group. The travel time comparison yielded significant differences of 1.17 for all cancers and 2.57 for lymphomas (II).Conclusion Approximately 80% of the patients received treatment within their prefecture, although a few traveled long distances across regional blocks. We observed no differences in the mortality ratio between urban and rural areas, although significant differences were found in all cancers and one cancer in the travel burden comparison. These results highlight the need for continued evaluation of the increasing trend in patient travel burden and its impact on survival, as childhood cancer treatment has become centralized in Japan.

[居住区、交通负担和癌症儿童:利用日本全国人口癌症登记数据分析流动性和死亡率]。
虽然儿童癌症治疗最近已集中在世界各地的专科医院进行,但死亡率与居住在农村地区或长途旅行治疗之间的关系仍然存在争议。在本研究中,我们研究了日本是否存在患者流动性和死亡率的区域差异。方法我们调查了10713例年龄≤18岁的癌症患者,这些患者在2016年至2019年期间被诊断出癌症,并在国家癌症登记数据中登记。根据诊断时的居住地将患者分为城市和农村两类。城市地区定义为2015年人口普查的大都市或城市地区或地级市;所有其他地区都被定义为农村。此外,我们根据到治疗医院的单程旅行时间(≤1小时或bb10 1小时)将患者分为两组,这是根据使用路线规划网络服务从社区层面的位置信息估计的。接下来,我们计算了在两个地区和每种治疗类型的住所内接受治疗的患者的百分比。我们使用卡方检验比较了两个区域之间所有癌症和每个诊断组的远处转移百分比。最后,我们应用Cox比例风险模型获得了城市与农村地区的调整死亡率风险比,以及出行时间≤1 h与出行时间≤10 h的调整死亡率风险比。结果总体而言,77%的患者被归类为城市居民。住院患者接受治疗的比例为22-46%,二级医疗护理区为80-87%,区为95-99%。只有中枢神经系统肿瘤(III)在远端转移的百分比上有显著差异,远端转移在城市地区更为常见(6%对3%)。对于所有癌症或每个诊断组,调整后的死亡率风险比在城市和农村地区之间没有显著差异。出行时间的比较显示,所有癌症患者的出行时间差异为1.17,淋巴瘤患者的出行时间差异为2.57 (II)。结论:大约80%的患者在本县接受治疗,尽管有少数患者长途跋涉跨越区域街区。我们观察到城市和农村地区的死亡率没有差异,尽管在旅行负担比较中发现所有癌症和一种癌症的死亡率都有显著差异。这些结果突出了继续评估患者旅行负担增加趋势及其对生存的影响的必要性,因为儿童癌症治疗已经集中在日本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信