Difference in the Types of Treated Cancer between Clinics and Small-to-Middle-Sized Hospitals in Rural Communities of Japan

Abstract

Resolution of regional disparities in cancer mortality is global challenge. Establishing an equal system of cancer treatment throughout the country is required under the Cancer Control Act in Japan. The types of treated cancer may reflect practical experience at the institutions and cooperation to other institutions. This study investigated the types treated at the institutions in rural communities of Japan. A questionnaire survey was conducted for 811 public rural institutions (clinics and small-to-middle-sized hospitals [< 200 beds]) in 2013. The survey's items included the types of treated cancer (14 categories: stomach, colon, breast, liver, biliary tract, pancreatic, prostate, esophageal, lung, renal, urinary tract, testicular, hematopoietic, and others) and the first five types were defined as major cancers. The data were analyzed between hospitals and clinics. The response rate was about 60%, and of 177 hospitals and 281 clinics, 54 hospitals (30%) and 10 clinics (3%) reported the types of cancer. The median number of cancer types in hospitals was significantly greater than that of clinics (4 [interquartile range 3.0-7.8]) vs. 1 [1.0-1.8], P < 0.01). The prevalence of hospitals treating at least one of five major cancers was significantly greater than that of clinics (96% vs. 30%, P < 0.01). The prevalence of clinics treating prostate cancer was significantly greater than that of hospitals (31% vs. 70%, P = 0.03). In conclusion, most types of cancer are treated at small-to-middle-sized hospitals, except for prostate cancer, providing basic information about cancer treatment in rural communities of Japan.

A 6-year nationwide population-based study on the current status of gastric endoscopic resection in Korea using administrative data

“…Cancer patients were more likely to visit higher-level institutions compared to those with adenoma, which seems plausible considering that multidisciplinary approach and specialized experience is crucial for the management of cancer. Previous studies have shown similar findings that patients with cancer were more inclined to visit hospitals than clinics to seek out cancer specialists 23 , 24 . Patients visiting higher-level institutions were also older.…”

Gap between desired and self-determined roles of general practitioners: a multicentre questionnaire study in Japan

“…Some responding physicians expected clinic-based GPs to be involved in chemotherapy; in actuality, clinic-based GPs may also help patients with prostate and breast cancers through hormonal therapies [ 30 ]. Although clinic-based GPs did not intend to get involved in ‘the management of adverse effects of chemotherapy’ as a priority, with regard to irAEs, it is important to note that new cancer immunotherapies may produce new adverse events in the form of various types of symptoms and diseases [ 31 ].…”