Traveling Long Distances for Rectal Cancer Care: Institutional Outcomes and Patient Experiences

Mounting evidence supports traveling to high-volume centers for complex surgical procedures, such as a proctectomy, yet the burden of travel and outcomes of patients traveling long distances is not yet clear. Thus, we aimed to evaluate oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and travel burdens for patients treated for rectal cancer at a single tertiary-care institution. A retrospective study of patients treated with proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer was performed comparing long and short travel distance (STD) cohorts. Primary outcome measures included overall mortality, disease recurrence, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included out-of-pocket expenses. The cohorts were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan–Meier plots were created to evaluate overall and disease-free survival. Among 102 patients, 51 (50%) were classified as long travel distance (LTD, mean 57.8 miles) and 51 (50%) were classified as STD (mean 12.8 miles). There was no statistical difference in 5-y mortality (4% LTD versus 4% STD, P = 1.000), disease recurrence (26% LTD versus 18% STD, P = 0.336), or quality of life (0.85 LTD versus 0.87 STD, P = 0.690). The LTD cohort did have significantly lower postresection compliance with surveillance (84% LTD versus 96% STD, P = 0.046). LTD cohort also had significantly more lodging ($77.1 LTD versus $0 STD, P = 0.025) and transportation expenses ($133.6 LTD versus $92.6 STD, P = 0.010). As the surgical management of rectal cancer becomes increasingly centralized, this study found patients who traveled long-distances received comparable care with outcomes similar to those who lived locally. Higher travel costs and lower compliance with surveillance were identified as barriers to care in the long-distance population, but a number of solutions can be implemented to address these issues.