skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Association Between Travel Distance and Choice of Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Reduce Patient Choice?

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the distance between a prostate cancer patient's home and treatment facility was related to the choice of treatment received among those opting for surgery or radiation. Methods and Materials: We identified 222,804 patients diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, or high-risk N0M0 prostate cancer and treated with local therapy (surgery or radiation alone, with or without hormone therapy) using the National Cancer Database. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether the choice of radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy varied by distance among patients living in rural and urban areas. Analyses were adjusted for geographic location within the United States, age, race, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, year of diagnosis, income quartile, education quartile, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage. Results: Patients living in urban or rural areas were less likely to receive radiation compared with surgery if they lived farther from the treatment facility. Among urban patients living ≤5 miles from the treatment facility, 53.3% received radiation, compared with 47.0%, 43.6%, and 33.8% of those living 5 to 10, 10 to 15, or >15 miles away, respectively (P<.001 in all cases). Similarly, rural patients were less likely to receive radiation the farther theymore » lived from the treatment facility (≤25 miles: 62.3%; 25-50 miles: 55.5%; 50-75 miles: 38.4%; >75 miles: 23.8%; P<.05 in all cases). These trends were also present when each risk group was analyzed separately. Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer in both urban and rural settings were less likely to receive radiation therapy rather than surgery the farther away they lived from a treatment center. These findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment centers may be an important determinant of whether patients are able to choose radiation rather than surgery for localized prostate cancer.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ; ;  [2]
  1. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22645646
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 96; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; LIVER; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PROSTATE; RADIATION HAZARDS; RADIOTHERAPY; RURAL AREAS; SURGERY; URBAN AREAS

Citation Formats

Muralidhar, Vinayak, E-mail: vmuralidhar@partners.org, Rose, Brent S., Chen, Yu-Wei, Nezolosky, Michelle D., and Nguyen, Paul L. Association Between Travel Distance and Choice of Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Reduce Patient Choice?. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.05.022.
Muralidhar, Vinayak, E-mail: vmuralidhar@partners.org, Rose, Brent S., Chen, Yu-Wei, Nezolosky, Michelle D., & Nguyen, Paul L. Association Between Travel Distance and Choice of Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Reduce Patient Choice?. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.05.022.
Muralidhar, Vinayak, E-mail: vmuralidhar@partners.org, Rose, Brent S., Chen, Yu-Wei, Nezolosky, Michelle D., and Nguyen, Paul L. 2016. "Association Between Travel Distance and Choice of Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Reduce Patient Choice?". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.05.022.
@article{osti_22645646,
title = {Association Between Travel Distance and Choice of Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Reduce Patient Choice?},
author = {Muralidhar, Vinayak, E-mail: vmuralidhar@partners.org and Rose, Brent S. and Chen, Yu-Wei and Nezolosky, Michelle D. and Nguyen, Paul L.},
abstractNote = {Objective: To determine whether the distance between a prostate cancer patient's home and treatment facility was related to the choice of treatment received among those opting for surgery or radiation. Methods and Materials: We identified 222,804 patients diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, or high-risk N0M0 prostate cancer and treated with local therapy (surgery or radiation alone, with or without hormone therapy) using the National Cancer Database. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether the choice of radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy varied by distance among patients living in rural and urban areas. Analyses were adjusted for geographic location within the United States, age, race, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, year of diagnosis, income quartile, education quartile, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage. Results: Patients living in urban or rural areas were less likely to receive radiation compared with surgery if they lived farther from the treatment facility. Among urban patients living ≤5 miles from the treatment facility, 53.3% received radiation, compared with 47.0%, 43.6%, and 33.8% of those living 5 to 10, 10 to 15, or >15 miles away, respectively (P<.001 in all cases). Similarly, rural patients were less likely to receive radiation the farther they lived from the treatment facility (≤25 miles: 62.3%; 25-50 miles: 55.5%; 50-75 miles: 38.4%; >75 miles: 23.8%; P<.05 in all cases). These trends were also present when each risk group was analyzed separately. Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer in both urban and rural settings were less likely to receive radiation therapy rather than surgery the farther away they lived from a treatment center. These findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment centers may be an important determinant of whether patients are able to choose radiation rather than surgery for localized prostate cancer.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.05.022},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 96,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month =
}
  • Purpose: Although the association between higher hospital volume and improved outcomes has been well-documented in surgery, there is little data about whether this effect exists for radiation-treated patients. We investigated whether treatment at a radiation facility that treats a high volume of prostate cancer patients is associated with improved survival for men with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identity patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2004 to 2006. The radiation case volume (RCV) of each hospital was based on its number of radiation-treated prostate cancer patients. We used propensity-score based analysismore » to compare the overall survival (OS) of high-risk prostate cancer patients in high versus low RCV hospitals. Primary endpoint is overall survival. Covariates adjusted for were tumor characteristics, sociodemographic factors, radiation type, and use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Results: A total of 19,565 radiation-treated high-risk patients were identified. Median follow-up was 81.0 months (range: 1-108 months). When RCV was coded as a continuous variable, each increment of 100 radiation-managed patients was associated with improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.98; P<.0001) after adjusting for known confounders. For illustrative purposes, when RCV was dichotomized at the 80th percentile (43 patients/year), high RCV was associated with improved OS (7-year overall survival 76% vs 74%, log-rank test P=.0005; AHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96, P=.0005). This association remained significant when RCV was dichotomized at 75th (37 patients/year), 90th (60 patients/year), and 95th (84 patients/year) percentiles but not the 50th (19 patients/year). Conclusions: Our results suggest that treatment at centers with higher prostate cancer radiation case volume is associated with improved OS for radiation-treated men with high-risk prostate cancer.« less
  • Purpose: This study assesses the effect of physiological abdominal compression from prone positioning by comparing respiratory-induced tumor movements in supine and prone positions. Methods: 19 lung cancer patients underwent repeated supine and prone free-breathing 4DCT scans. The effect of patient position on motion magnitude was investigated for tumors, lymph nodes (9 cases), and subgroups of central (11 cases), peripheral (8 cases) and small peripheral tumors (5 cases), by evaluating the population average excursions, absolute and relative to a carina-point. Results: Absolute motion analysis: In prone, motion increased by ~20% for tumors and ~25% for lymph nodes. Central tumors moved moremore » compared to peripheral tumors in both supine and prone (~22%, and ~4% respectively). Central tumors movement increased by ~12% in prone. For peripheral tumors the increase in prone position was ~25% (~40% and 29% changes on along RL and AP directions). Motion relative to carina-point analysis: Overall, tumor excursions relative to carina-point increased by ~17% in prone. Lymph node relative magnitudes were lower by ~4%. Likewise, the central tumors moved ~7% less in prone. The subgroup of peripheral tumors exhibited increased amplitudes by ~44%; the small peripheral tumors had even larger relative displacements in prone (~46%). Conclusion: Tumor and lymph node movement in the patient population from this study averaged to be higher in prone than in supine position. Results from carina analysis also suggest that peripheral tissues have more physiologic freedom of motility when placed in the prone position, regardless of size. From these observations we should continue to avoid prone positioning for all types of primary lung tumor, suggesting that patients should receive radiotherapy for primary lung cancer in supine position to minimize target tissue mobility during normal respiratory effort. Further investigation will include more patients with peripheral tumors to validate our observations.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect on freedom from biochemical failure (bNED) or disease-free survival (DFS) by adding hormone therapy (HT) to dose-escalated radiation therapy (HDRT). Methods and Materials: We used 883 analyzable prostate cancer patients who enrolled on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-06, a Phase I/II dose escalation trial, and whose mean planning target volume dose exceeded 73.8 Gy (mean, 78.5 Gy; maximum, 84.3 Gy). We defined biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition. Results: A total of 259 men started HT 2 to 3 months before HDRT, but not longer than 6more » months, and 66 men with high-risk prostate cancer received HT for a longer duration. At 5 years, the biochemical failure rates after HDRT alone were 12%, 18%, and 29% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for covariates revealed that pretreatment PSA level was a significant factor, whereas risk group, Gleason score, T-stage, and age were not. When the patients were stratified by risk groups, the Cox proportion hazards regression model (after adjusting for pretreatment PSA, biopsy Gleason score, and T stage) did not reveal a significant effect on bNED or DFS by adding HT to HDRT Conclusion: The addition of HT did not significantly improve bNED survival or DFS in all prostate cancer patients receiving HDRT, but did approach significance in high-risk patient subgroup. The result of this study is hypothesis generating and requires testing in a prospective randomized trial.« less
  • Purpose: To determine if differences in patient positioning methods have an impact on the incidence and modeling of grade >=2 acute rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients who were treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Methods: We compared two databases of patients treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a database of 79 patients who were treated with 7 field IMRT and daily image guided positioning based on implanted gold markers (IGRTdb), and a database of 302 patients who were treated with 5 field IMRT and daily positioning using a trans-abdominal ultrasound system (USdb). Complete planning dosimetry was availablemore » for IGRTdb patients while limited planning dosimetry, recorded at the time of planning, was available for USdb patients. We fit Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model to IGRTdb only, and Univariate Logistic Regression (ULR) NTCP model to both databases. We perform Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis to determine the predictive power of NTCP models. Results: The incidence of grade >= 2 acute rectal toxicity in IGRTdb was 20%, while the incidence in USdb was 54%. Fits of both LKB and ULR models yielded predictive NTCP models for IGRTdb patients with Area Under the Curve (AUC) in the 0.63 – 0.67 range. Extrapolation of the ULR model from IGRTdb to planning dosimetry in USdb predicts that the incidence of acute rectal toxicity in USdb should not exceed 40%. Fits of the ULR model to the USdb do not yield predictive NTCP models and their AUC is consistent with AUC = 0.5. Conclusion: Accuracy of a patient positioning system affects clinically observed toxicity rates and the quality of NTCP models that can be derived from toxicity data. Poor correlation between planned and clinically delivered dosimetry may lead to erroneous or poorly performing NTCP models, even if the number of patients in a database is large.« less
  • Purpose: Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is a recommended alternative to mastectomy (MT) for early-stage breast cancer. Limited access to radiation therapy (RT) may result in higher rates of MT. We assessed the association between distance to the nearest RT facility and the use of MT, in a modern cohort of women. Methods and Materials: Women with stage 0-II breast cancer eligible for BCT diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 were identified from the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS). Distances from patient census tracts to the nearest RT facility census tract were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify explanatory variables thatmore » influenced MT use. Results: Of the 27,489 eligible women, 32.1% (n=8841) underwent MT, and 67.8% (n=18,648) underwent BCS. Thirty-two percent of patients lived in a census tract that was >5 miles from an RT facility. MT use increased with increasing distance to RT facility (31.1% at ≤5 miles, 33.8% at >5 to <15 miles, 34.9% at 15 to <40 miles, and 51% at ≥40 miles, P<.001). The likelihood was that MT was independently associated with increasing distance to RT facility on multivariate analysis (P<.001). Compared to patients living <5 miles away from an RT facility, patients living 15 to <40 miles away were 1.2 times more likely to be treated with MT (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.35, P<.01), and those living ≥40 miles away were more than twice as likely to be treated with MT (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.48-3.17, P<.001). However, in patients younger than 50 years (n=5179), MT use was not associated with distance to RT facility (P=.235). Conclusions: MT use in a modern cohort of women is independently associated with distance to RT facility. However, for young patients, distance to RT is not a significant explanatory variable for MT use.« less