The dilemma of distance: patients with kidney cancer from regional A ustralia present at a more advanced stage
- 19 February 2014
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in BJU International
- Vol. 113 (S2) , 57-63
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether patients from regional areas undergoing surgery for kidney cancer present with more advanced disease as a result of geographic isolation. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 221 patients undergoing surgery for renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) from J anuary 2004 to J une 2012, from both a metropolitan centre and a large inner regional hospital. Data was collected on age, gender, presentation (incidental or symptomatic), clinical stage and pathological features. The A ustralian S tandard G eographical C lassification‐ R emoteness A rea ( ASGC‐RA ) is a system developed to allow quantitative comparisons between metropolitan and rural A ustralia. A score was assigned to each patient based on their location of residence at the time of surgery: metropolitan, RA 1; inner regional, RA 2; outer regional, RA 3. Statistical significance was specified as P < 0.05 on P earson's chi‐square tests. Results: Patients in each ASGC‐RA group did not differ significantly in age, sex or mode of presentation. Pathological T stage on presentation increased with increasing ASGC‐RA and thus distance from tertiary centres ( P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with ≥ T 3 disease rose from 30% of RA 1 to 73% of RA 3 patients ( P = 0.016) treated at our tertiary centre. Similarly, our regional centre had a larger proportion of patients presenting with ≥ T 3 disease from RA 3 (31% vs 5%, P = 0.003). When the 221 patients with RCC were analysed as a group, clinical T stage was significantly associated with ASGC‐RA ( P < 0.001), symptomatic presentation ( P < 0.001), N stage ( P < 0.001), M stage ( P < 0.001) and F uhrman grade ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data quantifies the detrimental effect of physical distance on the health outcomes of regional A ustralians with kidney cancer. Australia's unique geography and rural culture may preclude any attempts to centralise cancer care to specialised metropolitan units, as has occurred in other countries.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cancer survival and prevalence in Australia: Period estimates from 1982 to 2010Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2013
- Who should receive recruitment and retention incentives? Improved targeting of rural doctors using medical workforce dataAustralian Journal of Rural Health, 2012
- Why are death rates higher in rural areas? Evidence from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's HealthAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2010
- EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2010 UpdateEuropean Urology, 2010
- Geographical classifications to guide rural health policy in AustraliaAustralia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2009
- Mapping oncology services in regional and rural AustraliaAustralian Journal of Rural Health, 2009
- Addressing the health disadvantage of rural populations: How does epidemiological evidence inform rural health policies and research?Australian Journal of Rural Health, 2008
- Prostate cancer: socio‐economic, geographical and private‐health insurance effects on care and survivalBJU International, 2004
- Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areasBritish Journal of Cancer, 2004
- Access to specialist cancer care: is it equitable?British Journal of Cancer, 2002