Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Fujiwara T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177553 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhile travel distance and time are important proxies of physical access to health facilities, obtaining valid measures with an appropriate modelling method remains challenging in many settings. We compared five measures of geographic accessibility in Haiti, producing recommendations that consider available analytic resources and geospatial goals.MethodsEight public hospitals within the ministry of public health and population were included. We estimated distance and time between hospitals and geographic centroids of Haiti's section communes and population-level accessibility. Geographic feature data were obtained from public administrative databases, academic research databases and government satellites. We used validated geographic information system methods to produce five geographic access measures: (1) Euclidean distance (ED), (2) network distance (ND), (3) network travel time (NTT), (4) AccessMod 5 (AM5) distance (AM5D) and (5) AM5 travel time (AM5TT). Relative ranking of section communes across the measures was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients, while mean differences were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise t-tests.ResultsAll five geographic access measures were highly correlated (range: 0.78-0.99). Of the distance measures, ED values were consistently the shortest, followed by AM5D values, while ND values were the longest. ND values were as high as 2.3 times ED values. NTT models generally produced longer travel time estimates compared with AM5TT models. ED consistently overestimated population coverage within a given threshold compared with ND and AM5D. For example, population-level accessibility within 15 km of the nearest studied hospital in the Center department was estimated at 68% for ED, 50% for AM5D and 34% for ND.ConclusionWhile the access measures were highly correlated, there were significant differences in the absolute measures. Consideration of the benefits and limitations of each geospatial measure together with the intended purpose of the estimates, such as relative proximity of patients or service coverage, are key to guiding appropriate use.