SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of survival of stage I–III colon cancer by travel distance and hospital volume

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes at high-volume colorectal surgery centers; however, the benefit for patients who live far from such centers has not been assessed relative to local, low-volume facilities.

Methods

The 2010–2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with stage I–III colon adenocarcinoma undergoing treatment at a single center. A ‘local, low-volume’ cohort was constructed of 12,768 patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance at the bottom quartile of institution surgical volume and a ‘travel, high-volume’ cohort of 11,349 patients in the top quartile of travel distance at the top quartile of institution surgical volume.

Results

In unadjusted analysis, patients in the travel cohort had improved rates of positive resection margins (3.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), adequate lymph-node harvests (92% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.001), and 30- (2.2% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (3.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic, tumor, and facility characteristics, the cohorts demonstrated equivalent overall survival (HR: 0.972, p = 0.39), with improved secondary outcomes in the ‘travel’ cohort of adequate lymph-node harvesting (OR: 0.57, p < 0.001), and 30- (OR 0.79, p = 0.019) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.80, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

For patients with stage I–III colon cancer, traveling to high-volume institutions compared to local, low-volume centers does not convey an overall survival benefit. However, given advantages including 30- and 90-day mortality and adequate lymph-node harvest, nuanced patient recommendations should consider both these differences and the unquantified benefits to local care, including cost, travel time, and support systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC (1979) Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 301(25):1364–1369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Xu Z, Becerra AZ, Justiniano CF, Boodry CI, Aquina CT, Swanger AA et al (2017) Is the distance worth it? Patients with rectal cancer traveling to high-volume centers experience improved outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 60(12):1250–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM, Wang X, Hartwig MG, D'Amico TA et al (2017) Traveling to a high-volume center is associated with improved survival for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 265(4):743–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lidsky ME, Sun Z, Nussbaum DP, Adam MA, Speicher PJ, Blazer DG 3rd (2017) Going the extra mile: improved survival for pancreatic cancer patients traveling to high-volume centers. Ann Surg 266:333–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin CC, Bruinooge SS, Kirkwood MK, Olsen C, Jemal A, Bajorin D et al (2015) Association between geographic access to cancer care, insurance, and receipt of chemotherapy: geographic distribution of oncologists and travel distance. J Clin Oncol 33(28):3177–3185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Aquina CT, Becerra AZ, Justiniano CF, Xu Z, Boscoe FP, Schymura MJ et al (2016) Surgeon, hospital, and geographic variation in minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg 269(6):1109–1116. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stitzenberg KB, Sigurdson ER, Egleston BL, Starkey RB, Meropol NJ (2009) Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol 27(28):4671–4678

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bos AC, van Erning FN, Elferink MA, Rutten HJ, van Oijen MG, de Wilt JH et al (2016) No difference in overall survival between hospital volumes for patients with colorectal cancer in The Netherlands. Dis Colon Rectum 59(10):943–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, Miller KD, Ma J, Rosenberg PS et al (2017) Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw322

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, Cronin KA, Ma J, Ryerson B et al. (2017) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2014, featuring survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(9).

  11. Huo YR, Phan K, Morris DL, Liauw W (2017) Systematic review and a meta-analysis of hospital and surgeon volume/outcome relationships in colorectal cancer surgery. J Gastrointest Oncol 8(3):534–546

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Moyer VA (2007) Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(6):433–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan MA, Hakeem AR, Scott N, Saunders RN (2015) Significance of R1 resection margin in colon cancer resections in the modern era. Colorectal Dis 17(11):943–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee SY, Kim CH, Kim YJ, Kim HR (2017) Prognostic impact of the length of the longitudinal resection margin in colon cancer. Colorectal Dis 19(7):634–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, Mayer RJ, Macdonald JS, Catalano PJ et al (2003) Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 21(15):2912–2919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salem JF, Gummadi S, Marks JH (2018) Minimally invasive surgical approaches to colon cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 27(2):303–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braga M, Vignali A, Gianotti L, Zuliani W, Radaelli G, Gruarin P et al (2002) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg 236(6):759–766

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Phibbs CS, Luft HS (1995) Correlation of travel time on roads versus straight line distance. Medical care research and review : MCRR 52(4):532–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McGuirk MA, Porell FW (1984) Spatial patterns of hospital utilization: the impact of distance and time. Inquiry 21(1):84–95

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams AP, Schwartz WB, Newhouse JP, Bennett BW (1983) How many miles to the doctor? N Engl J Med 309(16):958–963

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Raman V, Adam MA, Turner MC, Moore HG, Mantyh CR, Migaly J (2019) Disparity of colon cancer outcomes in rural america: making the case to travel the extra mile. J Gastrointest Surg 23(11):2285–2293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University Medical Center, Box 3443, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    M. C. Turner, O. Jawitz, M. A. Adam, E. Srinivasan, D. Niedzwiecki, J. Migaly, D. A. Fisher & C. R. Mantyh

Authors
  1. M. C. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. Jawitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Adam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Niedzwiecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Migaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. A. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. R. Mantyh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. C. Turner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study complies with ethical standards of research.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not obtained as this was a retrospective analysis of deidentified data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, M.C., Jawitz, O., Adam, M.A. et al. Comparison of survival of stage I–III colon cancer by travel distance and hospital volume. Tech Coloproctol 24, 703–710 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02207-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02207-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation