The effect of distance traveled on disease outcomes in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

被引:11
|
作者
Clark, Leslie H. [1 ,2 ]
Staley, S. Allison [1 ]
Barber, Emma L. [1 ,2 ]
Wysham, Weiya Z. [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Kenneth H. [1 ,2 ]
Soper, John T. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Div Gynecol Oncol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
gestational trophoblastic neoplasia; recurrence; survival; travel distance; CANCER CARE; GEOGRAPHIC ACCESS; OVARIAN-CANCER; BREAST; STAGE; ASSOCIATION; DISPARITIES; POPULATION; DIAGNOSIS; PROVIDER;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.008
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia is a rare gynecological malignancy often treated at tertiary referral centers. Patients frequently travel long distances to obtain care for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, which may affect cancer outcomes in these patients. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between distance traveled to obtain care and disease burden at time of presentation as well as recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia from January 1995 to June 2015 at a high-volume tertiary referral center. Patients were included if they met International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2000 criteria for postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia or had choriocarcinoma, placental-site trophoblastic tumor, or epithelioid trophoblastic tumor. Sixty patients were identified. Disease burden at presentation was examined using both the World Health Organization prognostic score and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Patients who traveled more than 50 miles were considered long-distance travelers based on previous literature on the effect of distance traveled on cancer outcomes. Demographic, clinical, and pathological data were obtained by chart review. Bivariable comparisons were performed using the chi(2) test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. The t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare continuous variables when normally or not normally distributed. RESULTS: Most patients presented at stage I (61%) with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (70%). Median distance to care was 40 miles (range, 4-384). Eighteen patients (30%) had no insurance and 42 (70%) had either private or public insurance. Patients traveling more than 50 miles for care were more likely to have high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (46% vs 19%, P =.03), but there was no difference in recurrence (13% vs 11%, P=.89). Patients with high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia lived 63 miles farther (92 vs 28 miles, P <.001) than patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Long-distance travelers had a longer period between antecedent pregnancy and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia diagnosis (10 weeks vs 4.5 weeks, P=.009) and were more likely to receive multiagent chemotherapy (86% vs 61%, P=.03). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, long distance traveled to obtain care for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia was associated with an increased risk of presenting with high-risk disease and requiring multiagent chemotherapy for treatment. Patients with high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia traveled nearly 100 miles to obtain care. There may be a delay in diagnosis in women traveling more than 50 miles to obtain care; however, we found no difference in recurrence risk for long-distance travelers.
引用
收藏
页码:217.e1 / 217.e5
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia, Version 2.2019
    Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R.
    Yashar, Catheryn M.
    Bean, Sarah
    Bradley, Kristin
    Campos, Susana M.
    Chon, Hye Sook
    Chu, Christina
    Cohn, David
    Crispens, Marta Ann
    Damast, Shari
    Dorigo, Oliver
    Eifel, Patricia J.
    Fisher, Christine M.
    Frederick, Peter
    Gaffney, David K.
    Han, Ernest
    Huh, Warner K.
    Lurain, John R., III
    Mariani, Andrea
    Mutch, David
    Nagel, Christa
    Nekhlyudov, Larissa
    Fader, Amanda Nickles
    Remmenga, Steven W.
    Reynolds, R. Kevin
    Sisodia, Rachel
    Tillmanns, Todd
    Ueda, Stefanie
    Wyse, Emily
    McMillian, Nicole R.
    Scavone, Jillian
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2019, 17 (11): : 1374 - 1391
  • [42] Dysgerminoma Masquerading as Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia
    Blackwell, Conner
    McLeish, Shian
    Iglesias, David
    Armbruster, Shannon D.
    CASE REPORTS IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 2023
  • [43] Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia management: an update
    Ngan, Sarah
    Seckl, Michael J.
    CURRENT OPINION IN ONCOLOGY, 2007, 19 (05) : 486 - 491
  • [44] Role of Hysterectomy in Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia
    C. K. Ramesan
    Dhanya Susan Thomas
    Ajit Sebastian
    Vinotha Thomas
    Anitha Thomas
    Rachel George
    Abraham Peedicayil
    Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2021, 12 : 386 - 390
  • [45] Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: Novelties and challenges
    Mendes da Silva, Ana Lucia
    Monteiro, Karollina do Nascimento
    Sun, Sue Yazaki
    Borbely, Alexandre Urban
    PLACENTA, 2021, 116 : 38 - 42
  • [46] GESTATIONAL TROPHOBLASTIC NEOPLASIA - EDITORIAL COMMENT
    不详
    SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY, 1995, 22 (02) : R24 - R24
  • [47] Hydatidiform moles and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
    Salmen, J.
    Rack, B.
    Varga, D.
    Huober, J.
    Janni, W.
    GYNAKOLOGE, 2013, 46 (11): : 817 - 822
  • [48] LATE RECURRENCES OF GESTATIONAL TROPHOBLASTIC NEOPLASIA
    VAUGHN, TC
    SURWIT, EA
    HAMMOND, CB
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1980, 138 (01) : 73 - 76
  • [49] A review on management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
    Sharami, Seyedeh Reyhaneh Yousefi
    Saffarieh, Elham
    JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND PRIMARY CARE, 2020, 9 (03) : 1287 - 1295
  • [50] Role of Hysterectomy in Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia
    Ramesan, C. K.
    Thomas, Dhanya Susan
    Sebastian, Ajit
    Thomas, Vinotha
    Thomas, Anitha
    George, Rachel
    Peedicayil, Abraham
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 12 (02) : 386 - 390