Is Centralisation of Cancer Services Associated With Under‐Treatment of Patients With High‐Risk Prostate Cancer?—A National Population‐Based Study

Estupiñán Fdez. de Mesa M., Marcu A., Ream E., Whitaker K.L.

Han L., Sullivan R., Tree A., Lewis D., Price P., Sangar V., van der Meulen J., Aggarwal A.

AbstractBackground The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport. Results We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy). Conclusion Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Kyaw J.Y., Rendall A., Gillespie E.F., Roques T., Court L., Lievens Y., Tree A.C., Frampton C., Aggarwal A.

Evidence of a volume–outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume–outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (

Aggarwal A., Han L., Boyle J., Lewis D., Kuyruba A., Braun M., Walker K., Fearnhead N., Sullivan R., van der Meulen J.

ImportanceMany health care systems publish hospital-level quality measures as a driver of hospital performance and to support patient choice, but it is not known if patients with cancer respond to them.ObjectiveTo investigate hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis choice modeling study used national administrative hospital data. Patients with colon and rectal cancer treated in all 163 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals delivering colorectal cancer surgery between April 2016 and March 2019 were included. The extent to which patients chose to bypass their nearest surgery center was investigated, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association of additional travel time, hospital quality measures, and patient characteristics with treatment location.ExposuresAdditional travel time in minutes, hospital characteristics, and patient characteristics: age, sex, cancer T stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and rural or urban residence.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTreatment location.ResultsOverall, 44 299 patients were included in the final cohort (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.6] years; 18 829 [42.5%] female). A total of 8550 of 31 258 patients with colon cancer (27.4%) and 3933 of 13 041 patients with rectal cancer (30.2%) bypassed their nearest surgical center. Travel time was strongly associated with treatment location. The association was less strong for younger, more affluent patients and those from rural areas. For rectal cancer, patients were more likely to travel to a hospital designated as a specialist colorectal cancer surgery center (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87; P = .004) and to a hospital performing robotic surgery for rectal cancer (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.86; P = .007). Patients were less likely to travel to hospitals deemed to have inadequate care by the national quality regulator (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97; P = .03). Patients were not more likely to travel to hospitals with better 2-year bowel cancer mortality outcomes.Conclusions and RelevancePatients appear responsive to hospital characteristics that reflect overall hospital quality and the availability of robotic surgery but not to specific disease-related outcome measures. Policies allowing patients to choose where they have colorectal cancer surgery may not result in better outcomes but could drive inequities in the health care system.

Aggarwal A., Han L., van der Geest S., Lewis D., Lievens Y., Borras J., Jayne D., Sullivan R., Varkevisser M., van der Meulen J.

SummaryBackground Centralisation of specialist cancer services is occurring in many countries, often without evaluating the potential impact before implementation. We developed a health service planning model that can estimate the expected impacts of different centralisation scenarios on travel time, equity in access to services, patient outcomes, and hospital workload, using rectal cancer surgery as an example. Methods For this population-based modelling study, we used routinely collected individual patient-level data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and linked to the NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for 11 888 patients who had been diagnosed with rectal cancer between April 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2018, and who subsequently underwent a major rectal cancer resection in 163 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in England. Five centralisation scenarios were considered: closure of lower-volume centres (scenario A); closure of non-comprehensive cancer centres (scenario B); closure of centres with a net loss of patients to other centres (scenario C); closure of centres meeting all three criteria in scenarios A, B, and C (scenario D); and closure of centres with high readmission rates (scenario E). We used conditional logistic regression to predict probabilities of affected patients moving to each of the remaining centres and the expected changes in travel time, multilevel logistic regression to predict 30-day emergency readmission rates, and linear regression to analyse associations between the expected extra travel time for patients whose centre is closed and five patient characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity, and rurality of the patients' residential areas (rural, urban [non-London], or London). We also quantified additional workload, defined as the number of extra patients reallocated to remaining centres. Findings Of the 11 888 patients, 4130 (34·7%) were women, 5249 (44·2%) were aged 70 years and older, and 5005 (42·1%) had at least one comorbidity. Scenario A resulted in closures of 43 (26%) of the 163 rectal cancer surgery centres, affecting 1599 (13·5%) patients; scenario B resulted in closures of 112 (69%) centres, affecting 7029 (59·1%) patients; scenario C resulted in closures of 56 (34%) centres, affecting 3142 (26·4%) patients; scenario D resulted in closures of 24 (15%) centres, affecting 874 (7·4%) patients; and scenario E resulted in closures of 16 (10%) centres, affecting 1000 (8·4%) patients. For each scenario, there was at least a two-times increase in predicted travel time for re-allocated patients with a mean increase in travel time of 23 min; however, the extra travel time did not disproportionately affect vulnerable patient groups. All scenarios resulted in significant reductions in 30-day readmission rates (range 4–48%). Three hospitals in scenario A, 41 hospitals in in scenario B, 13 hospitals in scenario C, no hospitals in scenario D, and two hospitals in scenario E had to manage at least 20 extra patients annually. Interpretation This health service planning model can be used to to guide complex decisions about the closure of centres and inform mitigation strategies. The approach could be applied across different country or regional health-care systems for patients with cancer and other complex health conditons. Funding National Institute for Health Research.

Washington C., Goldstein D.A., Moore A., Gardner U., Deville C.

The American Cancer Society estimates approximately 268,490 new cases of prostate cancer and approximately 34,500 deaths caused by prostate cancer in the United States for 2022. Globally, a total of 1,414,259 new cases of prostate cancer and 375,304 related deaths were reported in 2020. Well-documented health disparities and inequities exist along the continuum of care for prostate cancer management—from screening to diagnostic and staging work-up, surveillance, and treatment—ultimately impacting clinical outcomes. This session-based article discusses innovative patient-centered approaches to advance equitable prostate cancer care. It begins with a review of domestic health disparities in diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and it summarizes barriers and solutions to achieving health equity, such as equity metrics and practice quality improvement projects. Next, a global perspective is provided that describes approaches to address financial and geographic barriers to prostate cancer care, including specific examples of strategies that emphasize the use of the cheapest method of care delivery while maintaining outcomes for drug delivery and radiotherapy.

Aggarwal A., Han L., Tree A., Lewis D., Roques T., Sangar V., van der Meulen J.

To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment.This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics.Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other.The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.

Luijten J.C., Nieuwenhuijzen G.A., Sosef M.N., de Hingh I.H., Rosman C., Ruurda J.P., van Duijvendijk P., Heisterkamp J., de Steur W.O., van Laarhoven H.W., Besselink M.G., Groot Koerkamp B., van Santvoort H.C., Lemmens V.E., Vissers P.A.

This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer according to age in the Netherlands. As centralization of care increases to improve postoperative outcomes, travel distance and experienced burden might increase.All patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2017 for oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands were included. Travel distance between patient's home address and hospital of surgery in kilometres was calculated. Questionnaires were used to assess experienced travel burden in a subpopulation (n = 239). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors for longer travel distance.Over 23,838 patients were included, in whom median travel distance for surgical care increased for oesophageal cancer (n = 9217) from 18 to 28 km, for gastric cancer (n = 6743) from 9 to 26 km, and for pancreatic cancer (n = 7878) from 18 to 25 km (all p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed an increase in travel distance for all cancer types over time. In general, patients experienced a physical and social burden, and higher financial costs, due to traveling extra kilometres. Patients aged >70 years travelled less often independently (56% versus 68%), as compared to patients aged ≤70 years.With nationwide centralization, travel distance increased for patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Younger patients travelled longer distances and experienced a lower travel burden, as compared to elderly patients. Nevertheless, on a global scale, travel distances in the Netherlands remain limited.

Pekala K.R., Yabes J.G., Bandari J., Yu M., Davies B.J., Sabik L.M., Kahn J.M., Jacobs B.L.

To evaluate the impact of centralized surgical and nonsurgical care (i.e., radiation and chemotherapy) on travel distances and survival outcomes for patients with advanced bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is a disease with high mortality for which treatment access is paramount and survival is superior in patients receiving surgery at high-volume centers.Using SEER-Medicare, we identified patients 66 years or older diagnosed with bladder cancer between 2004-2013. We categorized patients as treated with either surgical (i.e., radical cystectomy) or nonsurgical (i.e., radiation or chemotherapy) care. We fit a linear probability model to generate the predicted proportion of patients treated at the top quintile of volume over time and assessed travel distance, 1-year all-cause mortality, and 1-year bladder cancer-specific mortality over time.A total of 6,756 and 10,383 patients underwent surgical and nonsurgical care, respectively. The percentage of patients treated at high-volume centers increased over the study period for both surgical care (53% to 62%) and nonsurgical care (47% to 55%), (both P< 0.001). Median travel distance increased (11.8 to 20.3 miles) for surgical care and (6.5 to 8.3 miles) for nonsurgical care, (both P < 0.001). The 1-year adjusted all-cause mortality and 1-year adjusted bladder-cancer specific mortality decreased significantly for both surgical and nonsurgical care (both P < 0.05).Over time, centralization of surgical and nonsurgical care for bladder cancer patients increased, which was associated with increasing patient travel distance and decreased all-cause and bladder-cancer specific mortality.

Rendle K.A., Beidas R.S.

Dixit N., Rugo H., Burke N.J.

Notable barriers exist in the delivery of equitable care for all patients with cancers. Social determinants of health at distal, intermediate, and proximal levels impact cancer care. Patient navigation is a patient-centered intervention that functions across these overlapping determinants to increase access to cancer services throughout the cancer care continuum. There is a need to standardize patient navigation training while remaining responsive to local contexts of care and a need to implement patient navigation programs with a health equity lens to address cancer care inequities.

Lievens Y., Borras J.M., Grau C.

Aggarwal A., van der Geest S.A., Lewis D., van der Meulen J., Varkevisser M.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access. METHODS: We used patient-level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics. RESULTS: Scenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small. CONCLUSION: The study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient-level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.

Kalsi T., Harari D.

National cancer strategy calls for comprehensive assessments for older people but current practice across the United Kingdom is not well described.To identify current assessment methods and access to relevant supporting services for older people with cancer.A web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) targeting health professionals (oncologists, cancer surgeons, geriatricians, nurses and allied health professionals) was distributed January-April 2016 via United Kingdom nationally recognised professional societies. Responses were analysed in frequencies and percentages. Chi Square was used to compare differences in responses between different groups.640 health care professionals responded. Only 14.1% often/always involved geriatricians and 52.0% often/always involved general practitioners in assessments. When wider assessments were used, they always/often influenced decision-making (40.5%) or at least sometimes (34.1%). But 30.5%-44.3% did not use structured assessment methods. Most clinicians favoured clinical history taking. Few used scoring tools and few wished to use them in the future. Most had urgent access to palliative care but only a minority had urgent access to other key supporting professionals (e.g. geriatricians, social workers, psychiatry). 69.6% were interested in developing Geriatric Oncology services with geriatricians.There is variability in assessment methods for older people with cancer across the United Kingdom and variation in perceived access to supporting services. Clinical history taking was preferred to scoring systems. Fostering closer links with geriatricians appears supported.

Alcaraz K.I., Wiedt T.L., Daniels E.C., Yabroff K.R., Guerra C.E., Wender R.C.

Although cancer mortality rates declined in the United States in recent decades, some populations experienced little benefit from advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship care. In fact, some cancer disparities between populations of low and high socioeconomic status widened during this period. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths continue to occur, and disadvantaged populations bear a disproportionate burden. Reducing the burden of cancer and eliminating cancer-related disparities will require more focused and coordinated action across multiple sectors and in partnership with communities. This article, part of the American Cancer Society's Cancer Control Blueprint series, introduces a framework for understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity and presents actionable recommendations for practice, research, and policy. The article aims to accelerate progress toward eliminating disparities in cancer and achieving health equity.

Tanderup K., Offersen B.V., Georg D., Coppes R.P., Blanchard P.