Author:
Siu Adrian,Steffens Daniel,Ansari Nabila,Karunaratne Sascha,Solanki Henna,Ahmadi Nima,Solomon Michael,Moran Brendan,Koh Cherry
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Rural Australians typically encounter disparities in healthcare access leading to adverse health outcomes, delayed diagnosis and reduced quality of life (QoL) parameters. These disparities may be exacerbated in advanced malignancies, where treatment is only available at highly specialised centres with appropriate multidisciplinary expertise. Thus, this study aims to determine the association between patient residence on oncological, surgical and QoL outcomes following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital from January 2017 to March 2022. On the basis of their postcode of residence, patients were stratified into metropolitan and regional groups. Data encompassing demographics, oncological, surgical and QoL outcomes were compared. Statistical analysis included chi-square test, t-tests and Kaplan–Meier survival curves.
Results
Among the 317 patients, 228 (72%) were categorised as metropolitan and 89 (28%) as regional. Metropolitan patients presented higher rates of recurrence (61.8% versus 40.0%, p = 0.014) and shorter overall mean survival [3.8 years (95% CI: 3.44–4.09) versus 4.2 years (95% CI: 3.76–4.63), p = 0.019] compared with regional patients. No other statistically significant differences were observed in oncological, surgical and QoL outcomes.
Conclusions
Most oncological, surgical and QoL parameters did not differ by geographical location of patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal malignancies at a high-volume quaternary referral centre. Observed differences in recurrence and survival may be attributed to the selective nature of surgical referrals and variable follow-up patterns. Future research should focus on characterising referral pathways and its influence on post-operative outcomes.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference41 articles.
1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) Australia’s health 2022. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/australias-health
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) Rural and remote health. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/rural-remote-australians/rural-and-remote-health
3. Australia Standing Council on Health (2012) National strategic framework for rural and remote health/standing council on health. Rural and Regional Health Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-149260
4. Barclay L, Phillips A, Lyle D (2018) Rural and remote health research: does the investment match the need? Aust J Rural Health 26(2):74–79
5. Disler R, Glenister K, Wright J (2020) Rural chronic disease research patterns in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic integrative review. BMC Public Health 20(1):770