Impact of Travel Distance and Urban‐Rural Status on the Multidisciplinary Management of Rectal Cancer

J. Loree, K. R. Javaheri, S. Lefresne, C. Speers, J. Ruan, Jennifer T. Chang, C. Brown, H. Kennecke, R. Olson, W. Cheung
{"title":"Impact of Travel Distance and Urban‐Rural Status on the Multidisciplinary Management of Rectal Cancer","authors":"J. Loree, K. R. Javaheri, S. Lefresne, C. Speers, J. Ruan, Jennifer T. Chang, C. Brown, H. Kennecke, R. Olson, W. Cheung","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nOptimal treatment of rectal cancer (RC) requires multidisciplinary care. We examined whether distance to treatment center or community size impacts access to multimodality care and population-based outcomes in RC.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPatients diagnosed with stage II/III RC from 1999 to 2009 and treated at 1 of 6 regional cancer centers in British Columbia were reviewed. Distance to treatment center was determined for each patient. Communities were classified as rural, small, medium, and large population centers. Logistic and Cox regression models assessed associations of distance and community size with treatment received as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS).\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 3,158 patients, 93.6% underwent surgery, 86.3% received radiotherapy, and 51.3% were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Median time from diagnosis to oncologic consultation was longer for those >100 km from a treatment center or residing in medium/rural communities. Logistic regression demonstrated no correlation between distance or community size and receipt of treatment modality. Univariate analysis showed similar CSS (P = .18, .88) and OS (P = .36, .47) based on community size and distance, respectively. In multivariate analysis, distance >100 km had inferior CSS (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.88; P = .031). There was no consistent trend between decreasing community size and outcomes; however, living in a small center was associated with improved OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; P = .011) and CSS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70; P = .001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn this population-based study, there were no urban-rural differences in access to multidisciplinary care, but increased distance may be associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes.","PeriodicalId":22902,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Rural Health","volume":"5 1","pages":"393–401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Optimal treatment of rectal cancer (RC) requires multidisciplinary care. We examined whether distance to treatment center or community size impacts access to multimodality care and population-based outcomes in RC. METHODS Patients diagnosed with stage II/III RC from 1999 to 2009 and treated at 1 of 6 regional cancer centers in British Columbia were reviewed. Distance to treatment center was determined for each patient. Communities were classified as rural, small, medium, and large population centers. Logistic and Cox regression models assessed associations of distance and community size with treatment received as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Of 3,158 patients, 93.6% underwent surgery, 86.3% received radiotherapy, and 51.3% were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Median time from diagnosis to oncologic consultation was longer for those >100 km from a treatment center or residing in medium/rural communities. Logistic regression demonstrated no correlation between distance or community size and receipt of treatment modality. Univariate analysis showed similar CSS (P = .18, .88) and OS (P = .36, .47) based on community size and distance, respectively. In multivariate analysis, distance >100 km had inferior CSS (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.88; P = .031). There was no consistent trend between decreasing community size and outcomes; however, living in a small center was associated with improved OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; P = .011) and CSS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS In this population-based study, there were no urban-rural differences in access to multidisciplinary care, but increased distance may be associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes.
交通距离和城乡状况对直肠癌多学科管理的影响
目的直肠癌(RC)的最佳治疗需要多学科的护理。我们研究了到治疗中心的距离或社区规模是否会影响RC中多模式护理的可及性和基于人群的结果。方法回顾1999年至2009年在不列颠哥伦比亚省6个区域癌症中心中的1个治疗的II/III期RC患者。确定每位患者到治疗中心的距离。社区被分为农村、小型、中型和大型人口中心。Logistic和Cox回归模型评估了距离和社区规模与所接受治疗以及癌症特异性(CSS)和总生存期(OS)的关系。结果3158例患者中,93.6%接受手术治疗,86.3%接受放疗,51.3%接受辅助化疗(AC)。对于那些距离治疗中心>100公里或居住在中/农村社区的人来说,从诊断到肿瘤会诊的中位时间更长。逻辑回归显示距离或社区规模与接受治疗方式之间没有相关性。单因素分析显示,基于社区规模和距离的CSS (P = 0.18, 0.88)和OS (P = 0.36, 0.47)相似。在多变量分析中,距离>100 km的CSS较差(风险比[HR] 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.88;P = .031)。社区规模的减小与结果之间没有一致的趋势;然而,生活在小中心与改善的OS相关(HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88;P = 0.011)和CSS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70;P = .001)。结论:在这项以人群为基础的研究中,在获得多学科护理方面没有城乡差异,但距离的增加可能与更差的癌症特异性结局有关。
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