Effect of rurality and travel distance on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite lack of survival benefit, demand for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer remains high. High uptake of CPM has been demonstrated in Midwestern rural women. Greater travel distance for surgical treatment is associated with CPM. Our objective was to examine the relationship between rurality and travel distance to surgery with CPM. METHODS: Women diagnosed with stages I-III unilateral breast cancer between 2007 and 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression was used to model likelihood of CPM based on rurality, proximity to metropolitan centers, and travel distance. A multinomial logistic regression model compared factors associated with CPM with reconstruction versus other surgical options. RESULTS: Both rurality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15 for non-metro/rural vs. metro) and travel distance (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41 for those who traveled 50 + miles vs. < 30 miles) were independently associated with CPM. For women who traveled 30 + miles, odds of receiving CPM were highest for non-metro/rural women (OR 1.33 for 30-49 miles, OR 1.57 for 50 + miles; reference: metro women traveling < 30 miles). Non-metro/rural women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM regardless of travel distance (ORs 1.11-1.21). Both metro and metro-adjacent women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM only if they traveled 30 + miles (ORs 1.24-1.30). CONCLUSION: The impact of travel distance on likelihood of CPM varies by patient rurality and receipt of reconstruction. Further research is needed to understand how patient residence, travel burden, and geographic access to comprehensive cancer care services, including reconstruction, influence patient decisions regarding surgery.

Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States.

PURPOSE: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division. METHODS: All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS. FINDINGS: Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.

Choice of Survival Metric and Its Impacts on Cancer Survival Estimates for American Indian and Alaska Native People.

BACKGROUND: Different survival metrics have different applicability to clinical practice and research. We evaluated how choice of survival metric influences assessment of cancer survival among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people relative to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). A secondary objective was to present variations in survival among AIAN people by age, sex, stage, and Indian Health Service (IHS) region. METHODS: Five-year survival was calculated using the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Cancer in North America dataset. We calculated survival among AIAN people, compared with NHW using four approaches: (i) observed (crude) survival, (ii) cause-specific survival, (iii) relative survival using age- and sex-adjusted lifetables, and (iv) relative survival using lifetables additionally adjusted for race, geography, and socioeconomic status. For AIAN people, we evaluated how survival varied by age, stage at diagnosis, and IHS region. RESULTS: Observed survival methods produced the lowest estimates, and-excepting prostate cancer-cause-specific methods produced the highest survival estimates. Survival was lower among AIAN people than NHW for all methods. Among AIAN people, survival was higher among those 20-64 years, females, and tumors diagnosed at local stage. Survival varied by IHS region and cancer sites. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the assertion that using the same methodology to compare survival estimates between racial and ethnic groups is of paramount importance, but that the choice of metric requires careful consideration of study objectives. IMPACT: These findings have the potential to impact choice of survival metric to explore disparities among AIAN people.

Identifying Core Functions of an Evidence-Based Intervention to Improve Cancer Care Quality in Rural Hospitals.

Background: Rural patients experience worse cancer survival outcomes than urban patients despite similar incidence rates, due in part to significant barriers to accessing quality cancer care. Community hospitals in non-metropolitan/rural areas play a crucial role in providing care to patients who desire and are able to receive care locally. However, rural community hospitals typically face challenges to providing comprehensive care due to lack of resources. The University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) is an effective complex, multi-level intervention, improving cancer care in rural/under-resourced hospitals by supporting them in achieving American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards. With the long-term goal of adapting MCCAN for other rural contexts, we aimed to identify MCCAN's core functions (i.e., the components key to the intervention's effectiveness/implementation) using theory-driven qualitative data research methods. Methods: We conducted eight semi-structured virtual interviews with administrators, coordinators, clinicians, and certified tumor registrars from five MCCAN affiliate hospitals that were not CoC-accredited prior to joining MCCAN. Study team members coded interview transcripts and identified themes related to how MCCAN engaged affiliate sites in improving care quality (intervention functions) and implementing CoC standards (implementation functions) and analyzed themes to identify core functions. We then mapped core functions onto existing theories of change and presented the functions to MCCAN leadership to confirm validity and completeness of the functions. Results: Intervention core functions included: providing expertise and templates for achieving accreditation, establishing a culture of quality-improvement among affiliates, and fostering a shared goal of quality care. Implementation core functions included: fostering a sense of community and partnership, building trust between affiliates and Markey, providing information and resources to increase feasibility and acceptability of meeting CoC standards, and mentoring and empowering administrators and clinicians to champion implementation. Conclusion: The MCCAN intervention presents a more equitable strategy of extending the resources and expertise of large cancer centers to assist smaller community hospitals in achieving evidence-based standards for cancer care. Using rigorous qualitative methods, we distilled this intervention into its core functions, positioning us (and others) to adapt the MCCAN intervention to address cancer disparities in other rural contexts.