Geographic and racial disparities in the quality of surgical care among patients with nonmetastatic uterine cancer

Mary Katherine Anastasio,Lisa Spees,Sarah A Ackroyd,Ya-Chen Tina Shih,Bumyang Kim,Haley A Moss,Benjamin B Albright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.09.002

2024-09-06

Abstract:Background: While utilization of minimally invasive surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy have increased considerably over time for surgical management of early-stage uterine cancer, practice varies significantly in the United States, with disparities among low-volume centers and patients of Black race. A significant number of counties in the US are without a gynecologic oncologist, and almost half of counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates lack a local gynecologic oncologist. Objective: To evaluate relationships of distance traveled and proximity to gynecologic oncologists with receipt of and racial disparities in the quality of surgical care in patients undergoing hysterectomy for nonmetastatic uterine cancer. Study design: Patients who underwent hysterectomy for nonmetastatic uterine cancer in Kentucky, Maryland, Florida, and North Carolina were identified in 2012-2018 State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery Services Database files. County-to-county distances were used for distances traveled and to nearest gynecologic oncologist. Factors associated with receipt of minimally invasive surgery and lymph node dissection were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models including assessment for interactions of travel for surgery with patient race. Results: Among 21,837 cases, 45.5% lived in a county without a gynecologic oncologist; 55.5% overall traveled to another county for surgery, including 88% of those lacking a local gynecologic oncologist. Patients lacking local access to a gynecologic oncologist in their county who did not travel for surgery were more likely to receive open surgery and no lymph node dissection, and those in counties without access in any surrounding county were even more likely. Among patients in counties without a gynecologic oncologist, those who traveled for surgery had similar likelihood of minimally invasive surgery (71%) but greater likelihood of lymph node dissection (64.7% vs 57.2%) compared to non-travelers. Among counties without a gynecologic oncologist, longer distance traveled was associated with receipt of lymph node assessment. Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients were less likely to undergo minimally invasive surgery (57.0% vs 74.1%). In adjusted regression models controlling for a diagnosis of fibroids, Black race was an independent risk factor for receipt of open surgery. There was a significant interaction of Black race and travel for surgery, with Black patients who lived in counties without a gynecologic oncologist who did not travel facing incrementally lower likelihood of receiving minimally invasive surgery (OR=0.57 vs non-Black patients who traveled for surgery; OR=0.60 as interaction term; p<0.001 for both). Similar disparities in surgical quality by race were noted for Black patients who lived in counties with a gynecologic oncologist who traveled out of county for surgery. Conclusions: Patients, particularly those of Black race, who lack local access to gynecologic oncologist specialty care benefit from traveling to specialty centers to ensure access to high-quality surgery for nonmetastatic uterine cancer. Further work is needed to ensure equitable and universal access to high-quality care through patient travel or specialist outreach.