Patterns of Referral for Common Cancer Surgery in the United States.

Kelsey B Montgomery, Elizabeth Ross, Chimaraije Amu-Nnadi, Smita Bhatia, Kristy K Broman
Author Information
  1. Kelsey B Montgomery: Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. kmontgomery@uabmc.edu. ORCID
  2. Elizabeth Ross: Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
  3. Chimaraije Amu-Nnadi: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
  4. Smita Bhatia: Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
  5. Kristy K Broman: Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shifts in healthcare delivery have resulted in most U.S. hospitals participating in integrated health systems, many of which selectively refer complex cancer surgery to high-volume centers. However, this centralization may exacerbate barriers to access and may not be necessary for all cancer types. This study describes the prevalence and pattern of referral for surgery for common cancers and evaluate associated factors.
METHODS: The National cancer Database was used to identify adult patients who underwent curative-intent surgical resection between 2010 and 2020 for 12 common cancers (bladder, breast, colon, kidney, lung, melanoma, oral cavity, pancreas, prostate, rectum, thyroid, and uterus). The primary outcome was receipt of referred surgical cancer care.
RESULTS: Overall, 5,406,813 patients underwent surgical resection for common cancers, with 33.7% referred for surgery after diagnosis elsewhere. Rates of referred surgery varied by disease site, ranging from 13.7% (bladder) to 58.2% (melanoma). On multivariable analysis, patients with melanoma, oral cavity, prostate, rectal, and uterine cancers (referent = breast), higher clinical stages, and increasing year of diagnosis had higher adjusted odds of referred surgical care. Nonacademic facility types, lower facility volume, higher comorbidity burden, and nonprivate insurance were associated with reduced odds of referred surgical care.
CONCLUSIONS: Likelihood of referred surgical cancer care increased over time for 11 of 12 common cancers, with the prevalence of referred care varying significantly based on disease site and sociodemographic factors. Future work evaluating associated clinical outcomes will aid in decisions regarding allocation of referral of surgical cancer care within health systems.

Keywords

References

  1. Jacobs RC, Groth S, Farjah F, Wilson MA, Petersen LA, Massarweh NN. Potential impact of ���take the volume pledge��� on access and outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):1079���89. [PMID: 29697444]
  2. Munir MM, Endo Y, Woldesenbet S, et al. Variations in travel patterns affect regionalization of complex cancer surgery in California. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30(13):8044���53. [PMID: 37659977]
  3. Cancer Facts & Figures 2022. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2022.html . Accessed 28 Sept 2023.
  4. Boffa DJ, Rosen JE, Mallin K, et al. Using the national cancer database for outcomes research: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1722���8. [PMID: 28241198]
  5. Mallin K, Browner A, Palis B, et al. Incident cases captured in the national cancer database compared with those in U.S. population based central cancer registries in 2012���2014. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(6):1604���12. [PMID: 30737668]
  6. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):800���4. [DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654]
  7. EOD Data SEER*RSA. https://staging.seer.cancer.gov/eod_public/home/3.0/ . Accessed 28 Sept 2023.
  8. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th edn. New York: Springer; 2010.
  9. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th edn. New York: Springer; 2016.
  10. CoC Accreditation. ACS. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer-programs/commission-on-cancer/coc-accreditation/ . Accessed 14 Sept 2023.
  11. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Published online 2022. http://www.R-project.org/ .
  12. Wang T, Bredbeck BC, Sinco B, et al. Variations in persistent use of low-value breast cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(4):353���62. [PMID: 33533894]
  13. van der Schors W, Kemp R, van Hoeve J, et al. Associations of hospital volume and hospital competition with short-term, middle-term and long-term patient outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a retrospective population-based study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e057301. [PMID: 35473746]
  14. Baumrucker CC, Spring SR, Cohen BL, Millen JC, Macedo FI, Franceschi D. The effect of hospital volume on outcomes of patients with occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(4):2128���35. [PMID: 32914387]
  15. Henneman D, van Leersum NJ, Ten Berge M, et al. Failure-to-rescue after colorectal cancer surgery and the association with three structural hospital factors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3370���6. [PMID: 23732859]
  16. Healy MA, Peacock O, Hu CY, et al. High rate of positive circumferential resection margin in colon cancer: a national appraisal and call for action. Ann Surg. 2022;276(6):1023���8. [PMID: 33630474]
  17. In H, Neville BA, Lipsitz SR, Corso KA, Weeks JC, Greenberg CC. The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status: observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence. Ann Surg. 2012;255(5):890���5. [PMID: 22504278]
  18. Broman KK, Hughes T, Dossett L, et al. Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: an international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial II (MSLT-2). Cancer. 2021;127(13):2251���61. [PMID: 33826754]
  19. Broman KK, Hughes TM, Bredbeck BC, et al. International center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node positive melanoma at major referral centers. Ann Surg. 2023;277(5):e1106���15. [PMID: 35129464]
  20. Broman KK, Richman J, Bhatia S. Evidence and implementation gaps in management of sentinel node-positive melanoma in the United States. Surgery. 2022;172(1):226���33. [PMID: 35120732]
  21. Parikh RR, Kim S, Stein MN, Haffty BG, Kim IY, Goyal S. Trends in active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer: do guidelines influence modern practice? Cancer Med. 2017;6(10):2410���8. [PMID: 28925011]
  22. Friedlander DF, Krimphove MJ, Cole AP, et al. Facility-level variation in pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy and effect on overall survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(6):1929���36. [PMID: 31848818]
  23. L��ppenberg B, Sood A, Dalela D, et al. Variation in locoregional prostate cancer care and treatment trends at commission on cancer designated facilities: a national cancer data base analysis 2004 to 2013. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(6):e955���68. [PMID: 28558991]
  24. Huston-Paterson HH, Mao Y, Kim J, Tseng CH, Yeh MW, Wu JX. Disparities in initial thyroid cancer care by hospital treatment volume: analysis of 52,599 cases in California. Thyroid. 2023;33(10):1215���23. [PMID: 37498775]
  25. Montgomery KB, Fazendin JM, Chen H, Broman KK. Contemporary trends in extent of surgery for differentiated thyroid cancer with extrathyroidal extension. Am J Surg. 2024;228:173���9. [PMID: 37722937]
  26. Hoag JR, Resio BJ, Monsalve AF, et al. Differential safety between top-ranked cancer hospitals and their affiliates for complex cancer surgery. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(4):e191912. [PMID: 30977848]
  27. Boffa DJ, Mallin K, Herrin J, et al. Survival after cancer treatment at top-ranked US cancer hospitals vs affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(5):e203942. [PMID: 32453382]
  28. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128���37. [PMID: 11948273]
  29. Boudourakis LD, Wang TS, Roman SA, Desai R, Sosa JA. Evolution of the surgeon-volume, patient-outcome relationship. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):159���65. [PMID: 19561457]
  30. Learn PA, Bach PB. A decade of mortality reductions in major oncologic surgery: the impact of centralization and quality improvement. Med Care. 2010;48(12):1041���9. [PMID: 20966781]
  31. Sheetz KH, Dimick JB, Nathan H. Centralization of high-risk cancer surgery within existing hospital systems. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(34):3234���42. [PMID: 31251691]
  32. Broman K, Richman J, Ross E, Zengul F, Weech-Maldonado R, Bhatia S. Hub and spoke framework for study of surgical centralization within United States health systems. Am J Surg. 2023;226(4):524���30. [PMID: 37156679]
  33. Ho V, Short MN, Ku-Goto MH. Can centralization of cancer surgery improve social welfare? Forum Health Econ Policy. 2012;15(2):1���25. [PMID: 31419857]
  34. Pekala KR, Yabes JG, Bandari J, et al. The centralization of bladder cancer care and its implications for patient travel distance. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(12):834.e9-834.e20. [PMID: 34162498]
  35. Logan CD, Ellis RJ, Feinglass J, et al. Association of travel distance, surgical volume, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy with survival among patients with resectable lung cancer. JTCVS Open. 2023;13:357���78. [PMID: 37063116]
  36. Sheetz KH, Chhabra KR, Smith ME, Dimick JB, Nathan H. Association of discretionary hospital volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery with patient outcomes and access, 2005���2016. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(11):1005���12. [PMID: 31411663]
  37. Stitzenberg KB, Sigurdson ER, Egleston BL, Starkey RB, Meropol NJ. Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4671���8. [PMID: 19720926]
  38. Stitzenberg KB, Meropol NJ. Trends in centralization of cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(11):2824���31. [PMID: 20559740]
  39. Zaorsky NG, Khunsriraksakul C, Acri SL, et al. Medical service use and charges for cancer care in 2018 for privately insured patients younger than 65 years in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(10):e2127784. [PMID: 34613403]
  40. Mariotto AB, Enewold L, Zhao J, Zeruto CA, Yabroff KR. Medical care costs associated with cancer survivorship in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(7):1304���12. [PMID: 32522832]
  41. Hyer JM, Tsilimigras DI, Diaz A, et al. High social vulnerability and ���textbook outcomes��� after cancer operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(4):351���9. [PMID: 33508426]
  42. Goel N, Lubarsky M, Hernandez AE, et al. Unmet social needs and breast cancer screening utilization and stage at presentation. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(2):e2355301. [PMID: 38353954]
  43. Hershman DL, Vaidya R, Till C, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation and health care use in patients enrolled in SWOG cancer clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(3):e244008. [PMID: 38546646]
  44. Douthit N, Kiv S, Dwolatzky T, Biswas S. Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA. Public Health. 2015;129(6):611���20. [PMID: 26025176]
  45. Syed ST, Gerber BS, Sharp LK. Traveling towards disease: transportation barriers to health care access. J Community Health. 2013;38(5):976���93. [PMID: 23543372]
  46. Buzza C, Ono SS, Turvey C, et al. Distance is relative: unpacking a principal barrier in rural healthcare. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(Suppl 2):648���54. [PMID: 21989617]
  47. Segel JE, Lengerich EJ. Rural-urban differences in the association between individual, facility, and clinical characteristics and travel time for cancer treatment. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1���10. [DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-8282-z]

Grants

  1. K08 CA283001/NCI NIH HHS
  2. KL2 TR003097/NCATS NIH HHS
  3. T32 HS013852/AHRQ HHS
  4. 1K08CA283001/NCI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0caresurgicalreferredcancercancerssurgerycommonCancerassociatedpatientsmelanomahigherdeliveryhospitalshealthsystemsmaytypesprevalencereferralfactorsunderwentresection12bladderbreastoralcavityprostate7%diagnosisdiseasesiteclinicaloddsfacilityReferralBACKGROUND:ShiftshealthcareresultedUSparticipatingintegratedmanyselectivelyrefercomplexhigh-volumecentersHowevercentralizationexacerbatebarriersaccessnecessarystudydescribespatternevaluateMETHODS:NationalDatabaseusedidentifyadultcurative-intent20102020colonkidneylungpancreasrectumthyroiduterusprimaryoutcomereceiptRESULTS:Overall540681333elsewhereRatesvariedranging13582%multivariableanalysisrectaluterinereferent=stagesincreasingyearadjustedNonacademiclowervolumecomorbidityburdennonprivateinsurancereducedCONCLUSIONS:Likelihoodincreasedtime11varyingsignificantlybasedsociodemographicFutureworkevaluatingoutcomeswillaiddecisionsregardingallocationwithinPatternsCommonSurgeryUnitedStatesCentralizationSurgical

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.