ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Head and Neck Cancer

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1521370

This article is part of the Research TopicMultidisciplinary Management of Oral Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment, and RehabilitationView all 7 articles

Access to Head and Neck Cancer Specialists: A Geospatial Analysis of U.S. Travel Time

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Guidehouse Inc., McLean, United States
  • 2Dana-Farber Cancer Institution/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, United States
  • 3Merck (United States), Kenilworth, New Jersey, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: Head and neck (H&N) cancers, a diverse group of epithelial malignancies, significantly impact patients' quality of life and require complex, multidisciplinary care. Despite the need for specialized care, access to H&N cancer specialists is uneven across the United States, leading to disparities in patient outcomes and health equity. To assess geographic disparities in access to H&N cancer specialists in the U.S. and to identify factors contributing to these disparities, with the goal of informing targeted interventions and policies that promote equitable healthcare access.Methods: This geospatial analysis utilized data from various public databases, including the National Provider Identifier Registry, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and U.S. News and World Report, to examine the distribution of H&N cancer specialists relative to incident cancer cases. The study analyzed county-level data across the United States, incorporating demographic factors such as race/ethnicity, age, education, and socioeconomic status. Travel time to the nearest H&N specialist was estimated using the Travel Time API. The analysis included 1,112 H&N specialists (453 surgical oncologists, 346 medical oncologists, and 308 radiation oncologists) identified through self-reported data and relevant fellowships. The primary outcome was the estimated travel time to the nearest H&N specialist, with secondary measures including a disparity index that combined cancer incidence, social vulnerability, and travel time to highlight regions with the greatest access disparities.Results: Significant regional disparities in access to H&N specialists were identified, with nonmetropolitan areas and regions outside the Northeast showing notably longer travel times. Socioeconomic and demographics factors, including lower household income, lower insurance coverage, and higher median age, were associated with increased travel times. Disparity Index scores highlighted counties in the South and Western regions as having the highest access disparities. Conclusion: Geographic and socioeconomic disparities in access to H&N cancer specialists contribute to health inequities in the U.S. The disparity index developed in this study provides a valuable tool for identifying high-need areas and guiding policy interventions. Addressing these disparities through targeted resource allocation, mobile clinics, and provider incentives is essential for improving access to specialized care and promoting health equity.

Keywords: Geographic disparities, head and neck cancer, health equity, social determinants of health, access to care, Disparity index, Travel time analysis

Received: 01 Nov 2024; Accepted: 03 Feb 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Goodnight, Hanna, Zheng, Habila, Cassese, Fortman, Walbert, Sieling and Black. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Christopher Matthew Black, Merck (United States), Kenilworth, 07033, New Jersey, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Research integrity at Frontiers

94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


Find out more