Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Association of Distance Traveled for Surgery with Short- and Long-Term Cancer Outcomes

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The influence of distance traveled for treatment on short- and long-term cancer outcomes is unclear.

Methods

Patients with colon, esophageal, liver, and pancreas cancer from 2003 to 2006 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Distance traveled for surgical treatment was estimated using zip code centroids. Propensity scores were generated for probability of traveling farther for treatment. Mixed effects logistic regression for 90-day mortality and Cox regression for 5-year mortality were compared between patients treated regionally and those traveling from farther away.

Results

The mean distance traveled for all patients for surgical resection was 30.0 ± 227 miles, with a median distance of 7.5 (interquartile range 14.4) miles. Patients who were aged ≥80 years, on Medicaid, or African American were less likely to be in the fourth quartile of distance (Q4) traveled for surgery. Patients who were in Q4 had a lower risk-adjusted 90-day mortality compared to Q1 for colon [odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–0.96], liver (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.3–0.78), and pancreatic (OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.56–0.98) cancer. Similarly, patients in Q4 for all tumor types had a lower risk-adjusted 5-year mortality compared to patients in Q1; colon (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95 % CI 0.93–0.99), esophagus (HR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.75–0.94), liver (HR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.62–0.89), and pancreas (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.80–0.95).

Conclusions

Greater travel distance for surgical resection of gastrointestinal cancers is associated with lower 90-day and 5-year mortality outcomes. This distance bias has implications for regionalization and reporting of cancer outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ballard DJ, Bryant SC, O’Brien PC, et al. Referral selection bias in the Medicare hospital mortality prediction model: are centers of referral for Medicare beneficiaries necessarily centers of excellence?. Health Serv Res. 1994;28:771–84.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Etzioni DA, Fowl RJ, Wasif N, et al. Distance bias and surgical outcomes. Med Care. 2013;51:238–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lamont EB, Hayreh D, Pickett KE, et al. Is patient travel distance associated with survival on phase II clinical trials in oncology?. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1370–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenhard RE Jr, Enterline JP, Crowley J, et al. The effects of distance from primary treatment centers on survival among patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:1640–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K, et al. The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4059–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Byrne BE, Mamidanna R, Vincent CA, et al. Population-based cohort study comparing 30- and 90-day institutional mortality rates after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1810–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Onega T, Duell EJ, Shi X, et al. Geographic access to cancer care in the US. Cancer. 2008;112:909–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, et al. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dehejia RH. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002;84:151–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Imbens G. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose–response functions. Biometrika. 2000;87:706–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Etzioni DA, Wasif N, Dueck AC, et al. Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality. JAMA. 2015;313:505–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Patlak M, Nass SJ. The role of obesity in cancer survival and recurrence: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Esnaola NF, Ford ME. Racial differences and disparities in cancer care and outcomes: where’s the rub? Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2012;21:417–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fortney J RK, Warren J. Comparing alternative methods of measuring geographic access to health services. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2000;1:173–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The data used in this study are derived from a deidentified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology employed or for the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigators.

Disclosure

No financial disclosures or conflicts of interest for any of the authors and no specific source of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, USA

    Nabil Wasif MD, MPH, Barbara A. Pockaj MD & Richard J. Gray MD

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Yu-Hui Chang PhD

  3. Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, USA

    Amit Mathur MD, MS

  4. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, USA

    David Etzioni MD, MS

  5. Surgical Outcomes Division, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, USA

    Nabil Wasif MD, MPH, Yu-Hui Chang PhD, Amit Mathur MD, MS & David Etzioni MD, MS

Authors
  1. Nabil Wasif MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu-Hui Chang PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara A. Pockaj MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard J. Gray MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amit Mathur MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Etzioni MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nabil Wasif MD, MPH.

Additional information

The data used in this study are derived from a de-identified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology employed, or the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigators.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 64 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wasif, N., Chang, YH., Pockaj, B.A. et al. Association of Distance Traveled for Surgery with Short- and Long-Term Cancer Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3444–3452 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5242-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5242-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation