Impact of geographical health disparities on outcomes following pelvic exenteration at a centralised quaternary referral centre

Abstract

IntroductionPelvic exenteration (PE) is an ultra-radical procedure performed for primary or recurrent malignancies confined to the pelvis. Health outcomes for rural Australian populations are generally inferior compared to those from metropolitan centres, however, the effect of geographical location on outcomes following PE is poorly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate how geographical location affects oncological, quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes following PE. MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PE between 1994 and 2022 at a single centre were included. Patient post codes were linked with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure to stratify patients into five groups based on the geographical location of their residence. Primary outcome measures included patient survival, QoL and oncological outcomes. ResultsA total of 953 patients were included, of which 626 (65.7%) were from major cities, 227 (23.8%) inner regional, 84 (8.8%) outer regional, 9 (0.9%) remote, and 7 (0.7%) very remote areas. Rural patients were more likely to undergo PE for primary rectal cancer (p = 002) and less likely for recurrent, non-rectal carcinoma (p = 0.027). Rural patients less frequently had health insurance (p < 0.001) but were more likely to have undergone neoadjuvant radiotherapy (p = 0.022). No difference in length-of-admission, in-hospital complication rates, QoL at 36 months or survival was observed between groups. ConclusionsDespite geographical disparities, rural populations undergoing PE achieved equally favourable outcomes as populations from metropolitan areas. Enhancing access to specialised care may facilitate better outcomes of patients residing in regional and remote areas.