Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the theoretical impact of regionalizing cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer (OC) to high-volume facilities on patient travel. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with OC who underwent cytoreduction between 1/1/2004-12/31/2018 from the New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Hospitals were stratified by low-volume (<21 cytoreductive surgical procedures for OC annually) and high-volume centers (≥21 procedures annually). A simulation was performed; outcomes of interest were driving distance and time between the centroid of the patient's residence zip code and the treating facility zip code. RESULTS: Overall, 60,493 patients met inclusion criteria. Between 2004 and 2018, 210 facilities were performing cytoreductive surgery for OC in New York; 159 facilities (75.7%) met low-volume and 51 (24.3%) met high-volume criteria. Overall, 10,514 patients (17.4%) were treated at low-volume and 49,979 (82.6%) at high-volume facilities. In 2004, 78.2% of patients were treated at high-volume facilities, which increased to 84.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). Median travel distance and time for patients treated at high-volume centers was 12.2 miles (IQR, 5.6-25.5) and 23.0 min (IQR, 15.2-37.0), and 8.2 miles (IQR, 3.7-15.9) and 16.8 min (IQR, 12.4-26.0) for patients treated at low-volume centers. If cytoreductive surgery was centralized to high-volume centers, median distance and time traveled for patients originally treated at low-volume centers would be 11.2 miles (IQR, 3.8-32.3; P < .001) and 20.2 min (IQR, 13.6-43.0; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Centralizing cytoreductive surgery for OC to high-volume centers in New York would increase patient travel burden by negligible amounts of distance and time for most patients.

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.