Effects of Access to and Treatment in Specialist Facilities on Survival From Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Australian Women: A Data Linkage Study

Tracey, Elizabeth; Hacker, Neville F.; Young, Jane; Armstrong, Bruce K.

doi:10.1097/igc.0000000000000213

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Knowing how realistic the proxy measure is would be a benefit, as it may dramatically change the distances/travel times calculated. For example, Tracey et al 57 identified in their study that only 37% of the patients attended the nearest facility, so using this as the proxy would underestimate the distances travelled by patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate whether there is an association between differences in travel time/travel distance to healthcare services and patients' health outcomes and assimilate the methodologies used to measure this.DesignSystematic Review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Transport database, HMIC and EBM Reviews for studies up to 7 September 2016. Studies were excluded that included children (including maternity), emergency medical travel or countries classed as being in the global south.SettingsA wide range of settings within primary and secondary care (these were not restricted in the search).Results108 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were mixed. 77% of the included studies identified evidence of a distance decay association, whereby patients living further away from healthcare facilities they needed to attend had worse health outcomes (eg, survival rates, length of stay in hospital and non-attendance at follow-up) than those who lived closer. 6 of the studies identified the reverse (a distance bias effect) whereby patients living at a greater distance had better health outcomes. The remaining 19 studies found no relationship. There was a large variation in the data available to the studies on the patients' geographical locations and the healthcare facilities attended, and the methods used to calculate travel times and distances were not consistent across studies.ConclusionsThe review observed that a relationship between travelling further and having worse health outcomes cannot be ruled out and should be considered within the healthcare services location debate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (British Columbia study) or with ovarian, rectal, or other cancers (Australian studies) were analyzed [7,[31][32][33].These studies demonstrated that patients with lymphomas living in small and medium urban areas had worse overall survival (OS) than that of patients living in large urban areas [7].…”

Section: Travel Burden and Patient Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Distance as a Barrier to Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Review of the Literature

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The burden of travel from a patient's residence to health care providers is an important issue that can influence access to diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Although several studies have shown that the travel burden can result in delays in diagnosis and treatment of many common cancers, its role appears underestimated in the treatment of patients in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a review of the published data on the role of travel burden influencing four items: delay of diagnosis, adequate treatment of cancer, outcome, and quality of life of cancer patients. Forty‐seven studies published up to December 2014 were initially identified. Twenty studies were excluded because they did not regard specifically the four items of our review. Twenty‐seven studies formed the basis of our study and involved 716,153 patients. The associations between travel burden and (a) cancer stage at diagnosis (12 studies), (b) appropriate treatment (8 studies), (c) outcome (4 studies), and (d) quality of life (1 study) are reported. In addition, in two studies, the relation between travel burden and compliance with treatment was examined. The results of our review show that increasing travel requirements are associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, inappropriate treatment, a worse prognosis, and a worse quality of life. These results suggest that clinical oncologists should remember the specific travel burden problem for cancer patients, who often need health care services every week or every month for many years. Implications for Practice: The influence of travel burden on cancer patients has been previously studied, but this is the first comprehensive review of the available literature. This review shows that travel burden negatively influences stage at diagnosis, appropriate treatment, outcome, and quality of life in cancer patients. The results demonstrate that clinical oncologists should keep in mind the specific travel burden problem for cancer patients who often need health care services every week or every month for many years.

show abstract

“…Most patients diagnosed with OC, survival is theorized to be 100%, who are still alive after 5-years, are presumably living with the disease rather than living disease-free. 5 Our analysis demonstrated that the DFS was 18.3 months (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-SEER database from 1995 to 2007 with epithelial OC who were actively followed-up and age 20 years or older were included for analyzing OS in the United States (40.692 patients) and OS was 65%, 44%, and 36% at 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18,[22][23][24][25][26] We scrutinized the analyzing related to various prognostic factors for OC. In the present study younger women, those diagnosed before the age of 40, had significantly better survival after five years than women diagnosed at older ages (p< 0.05).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Factors Affecting Survival in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A 5-Year Experience in an University Hospital.

Pınar¹

2017

UHOD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim if this study is to explore the impact of the various prognostic factors on overall survival in women with ovarian cancer (OC). Patients diagnosed with gynecologic malignancy in Gynecology Clinic of Baskent University Medicine Faculty between 2010 and 2015 included to study. Patients with ovarian (n= 112) cancers examined retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier, Univariate and Multivariate Cox regression model were performed to estimate for associations of potential variables with survival factors. The mean patient age was 56.4 y, range 20-80. The overall survival was 94.3%, 83.4%, 66.4%, 54.7% and 42.8% at 1, 2 3, 4 and 5 years respectively (60.5 months, range 43-68). 3-year disease-free survival was 25.3% (18.3 months, range 17-20). Multivariate analysis of patients indicated that stage, histology, grade, age at diagnosis, comorbidity, recurrence, BMI, menopausal status and regional distance were independent prognostic factors on survival (p< 0.05). In conclusion, these results will presents a framework to identify fundamental causes in survival for OC.

show abstract

Effects of Access to and Treatment in Specialist Facilities on Survival From Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Australian Women: A Data Linkage Study

Cited by 27 publications

References 16 publications

Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review

Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review

Distance as a Barrier to Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Review of the Literature

Prognostic Factors Affecting Survival in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A 5-Year Experience in an University Hospital.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About