Travel, Treatment Choice, and Survival Among Breast Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Analysis

Colleen F Longacre; Hannah T Neprash; Nathan D Shippee; Todd M Tuttle; Beth A Virnig

doi:10.1089/whr.2020.0094

Travel, Treatment Choice, and Survival Among Breast Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Analysis

Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2021 Jan 11;2(1):1-10. doi: 10.1089/whr.2020.0094. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Colleen F Longacre¹, Hannah T Neprash¹, Nathan D Shippee¹, Todd M Tuttle², Beth A Virnig¹

Affiliations

¹ Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
² Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Abstract

Background: Travel distance to care facilities may shape urban-rural cancer survival disparities by creating barriers to specific treatments. Guideline-supported treatment options for women with early stage breast cancer involves considerations of breast conservation and travel burden: Mastectomy requires travel for surgery, whereas breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) requires travel for both surgery and RT. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of travel distance on surgical decisions and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Materials and Methods: We included 61,169 women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer between 2004 and 2013 from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Driving distances to the nearest radiation facility were calculated by using Google Maps. We used multivariable regression to model treatment choice as a function of distance to radiation and Cox regression to model survival. Results: Women living farthest from radiation facilities (>50 miles vs. <10 miles) were more likely to undergo mastectomy versus BCS (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-1.79). Among only those who underwent BCS, women living farther from radiation facilities were less likely to receive guideline-concordant RT (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.32-2.23). These guideline-discordant women had worse overall (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.42-1.57) and breast-cancer specific survival (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.29-1.60). Conclusions: We report two breast cancer treatments with different clinical and travel implications to show the association between travel distance, treatment decisions, and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Differential access to guideline-concordant treatment resulting from excess travel burden among rural patients may contribute to rural-urban survival disparities among cancer patients.

Keywords: breast cancer; patient decision making; radiation treatment; travel distance.