Abstract
Objective
Timely cancer treatment improves survival and anxiety for some sites. Patients with esophageal cancer require specific workup before treatment, which can prolong the time from diagnosis to treatment (treatment interval [TI]). The geographical variation of this interval remains uninvestigated in patients with esophageal cancer.
Methods
This retrospective population-level study conducted in Ontario used linked administrative health care databases. Patients treated for esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2018 were included. The TI was time from diagnosis to treatment. Patients were assigned a geographical Local Health Integration Network on the basis of postal code. Covariates included patient, disease, and diagnosing physician characteristics. Quantile regression modeled TI length at the 50th and 90th percentile and identified associated factors.
Results
Of 7509 patients, 78% were male and most were aged between 60 and 69 years. The 50th and 90th percentile TI was 36 (interquartile range, 22-55) and 77 days, respectively. The difference between the Local Health Integration Network with the longest and shortest TI at the 50th and 90th percentile was 18 and 25 days, respectively. Older age (P < .0001), greater comorbidity (P = .0005), greater material deprivation (P = .001), rurality (P = .03), histology (P = .02), and treatment group (P < .0001) were associated with a longer median TI. Older age (P = .03), greater comorbidity (P = .003), greater material deprivation (P = .005), rurality (P = .04), and treatment group (P < .0001) were associated with a longer 90th percentile TI.
Conclusions
Geographic variability of time to treatment exists across Ontario. Investigation of facility-level differences is warranted. Patient and disease factors are associated with longer wait times. These results might inform future health care policy and resource allocation.
Key Words: esophageal cancer, treatment interval, epidemiology, geographical variability
Abbreviations and Acronyms: AC, adenocarcinoma; ADG, Aggregated Diagnosis Group; CIHI, Canadian Institute for Health Information; ED, Emergency Department; ICES, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; IQR, interquartile range; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network; NACRS, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System; OCR, Ontario Cancer Registry; PCCF, Postal Code Conversion File; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TI, treatment interval
Graphical abstract
Geographical variability exists in the length of the esophageal cancer treatment interval.
Central Message.
Despite adjusting for numerous confounding variables, geographic variability exists in the time to treatment of esophageal cancer.
Perspective.
Esophageal cancer management is a complex, multistep process. In Ontario, health regions coordinate the care of their own patients. We found differences in time to first health care encounter and time to treatment between health regions, despite adjusting for numerous covariates. Older, comorbid, and rurally located patients waited longer than others.
Timely access to cancer treatment has improved survival outcomes for many disease sites,1,2 and reduced anxiety3 and symptom progression while patients await treatment. Patients require time to accommodate staging investigations and specialist visits before treatment begins. Expediting these is crucial in patients with esophageal cancer because of the number of patients who present with locally advanced disease.
Between 2005 and 2010, Ontario Health Cancer Care Ontario regionalized thoracic cancer management. Only hospitals that maintained adequate surgical volumes for lung and esophageal resection, including the appropriate personnel and equipment, received funding to manage these patients.4 They postulated that having 1 institution centralize the workup and treatment of esophageal cancer in that region might reduce the number of missed appointments, repeat investigations, and therefore reduce the overall time between diagnosis and treatment (treatment interval [TI]).5 Since regionalization, little has been reported on wait times for esophageal cancer treatment in Ontario.
Few studies have examined subintervals within the TI. One research group6,7 partitioned the TI of patients with breast, lung, colon, or rectal cancer into time from diagnosis to the first oncologist consult, and time from the first oncologist consult to treatment. These subintervals have not yet been investigated for esophageal cancer in Canada.
A detailed understanding of the esophageal cancer TI might help improve equitable access to necessary investigations and treatments. Knowledge of the subinterval that contributes most to the TI might inform refinements to the patient pathway and resource allocation. In this study, we aimed to describe the lengths of the TI and subintervals, to investigate the geographical variation of the TI across Ontario, and to evaluate factors associated with the length of those intervals in Ontario esophageal cancer patients.
Methods
Study Design
We conducted a population-level cross-sectional study using linked administrative health care databases housed at Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). ICES is an independent, nonprofit research institute funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. As a prescribed entity under Ontario's privacy legislation, ICES is authorized to collect and use health care data for the purposes of health system analysis, evaluation, and decision support. Secure access to these data is governed by policies and procedures that are approved by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. In Canada, health care is delivered under a universal government-funded system. A population of 14.7 million residents makes Ontario the most inhabited Canadian province. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of Queen's University (approval number 6030561; approval date: October 5, 2020).
Data Sources
Patients were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR), a province-wide database that captures >96% of all incident cancers.8 The OCR was linked to other health administrative databases to obtain demographic, disease, billing, and outcomes data. We used the Registered Persons Database, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS), Discharge Abstract Database, Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), Same Day Surgery, Postal Code Conversion File (PCCF), Local Health Integration Network (LHIN),9 Ontario Marginalisation Database, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident Database, Activity Level Reporting, and ICES Physician Database (Table E1). These databases were linked using unique encoded identifiers at ICES.
Study Population
Adult patients diagnosed with incident esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2018 who received treatment were included. Cancer site was identified using topography codes; histology was not restricted (Table E2). Patients were excluded if there was no biopsy procedure, if there was no investigation or consultation between diagnosis and treatment, or if treatment was <4 days or 6 months after diagnosis (Figure 1). Less than 4 days was chosen to exclude patients who presented emergently and had expedited treatment and so were unlikely to have followed the Cancer Care Ontario treatment pathway,10 and has been previously reported.11
Figure 1.
Cohort creation. OHIP, Ontario Health Insurance Plan; ICES, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
TIs
TI length was defined as the number of days from diagnosis to the first treatment. Secondary outcomes were the length of subinterval 1 (time from diagnosis to the first cancer-related event thereafter) and subinterval 2 (time from the first cancer-related event to treatment). The first cancer-related event could be either a specialist visit or an investigation (Table E3).
Date of Diagnosis
We first identified the diagnosis date in the OCR, and then used NACRS, Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), and Ontario Health Insurance Plan billing date to identify the date of an endoscopic biopsy within 2 weeks of the OCR date. For those with a biopsy record on the same day as the OCR, this date was assigned the diagnosis date. For the remainder, the earliest biopsy date was used. For those for whom the biopsy date was >2 weeks before or after the corresponding OCR date, we used that OCR date as the diagnosis date.
Covariates
Age and sex were categorized. Comorbidity information was gathered from 6 to 30 months before the diagnosis date and categorized on the basis of the Johns Hopkins Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADGs). The ADGs were created using the Johns Hopkins ACG System v10.0.1 (build 879). Rurality was dichotomized into urban/rural using the PCCF. LHINs are geographical health regions within Ontario tasked to fund and distribute health care to residents living within their borders.9 During the study period, there were 14 LHINs. Each patient was assigned a LHIN depending on their postal code at diagnosis using the PCCF and LHIN databases. Material deprivation is an objective marker of socioeconomic status12,13 and is widely used in health services research. We used the Ontario Marginalisation Database to assign each patient a dissemination area via the PCCF using their postal code on the day of diagnosis. Each patient was given a score, and then categorized into quintiles, with quintile 1 being the least deprived. Recent immigration was labeled as yes or no depending on whether the number of years from the date of landing to the diagnosis date was 5 years or less. Histology and tumor location were categorized. Stage was defined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition.14 First, we used the OCR to identify the best stage information for each patient. The OCR uses an algorithm that provides the stage from a pathological diagnosis if available. If no such diagnosis exists, the algorithm assigns stage on the basis of radiology results, followed by cancer center patient chart entries. Second, we created a separate stage variable for those with missing OCR stage using individual American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition T, N, and M categories from the Activity Level Reporting. Diagnosing physician characteristics included specialty (if there was more than one specialty then “mainspecialty” was used), years in practice, and academic affiliation. We operationalized health care utilization as the use of the emergency department (ED) and/or a hospital admission between diagnosis and treatment.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline demographic characteristics. We conducted bivariate analyses of each independent variable against the 50th and 90th percentile of the TI and subintervals using nonparametric tests. We used multivariable quantile regression models, adjusting simultaneously for patient factors, disease factors, treatment group, and LHIN. We used stage in the sensitivity analyses described in the following paragraph. All data processing and analyses were performed at ICES Queen's using the SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
We conducted 6 sensitivity analyses on the adjusted quantile regression analysis. The first removed LHIN from the original model to determine if LHIN-based patient characteristic variations had distorted the patient characteristic associations. For the second, third, and fourth, immigration and rurality, separately then combined, were removed from the original model to assess whether those variables influenced the LHIN effects. The fifth removed the treatment group from the original model to assess the independence of the other factors from treatment. Last, we added stage to the original model to assess its effect on those associations.
Results
Of 7822 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, 7509 patients had a recorded biopsy procedure, and 6042 received at least 1 treatment modality. After exclusions, the final study cohort comprised 5759 patients (Table 1). Most patients were male (77.6%), had a total ADG of between 4 and 6 (32.3%), were not recent immigrants (93.5%), lived in an urban area (84.6%), had adenocarcinoma (AC; 71.6%), and had lower esophagus (39.9%) or gastroesophageal junction (39.8%) tumors. Staging was as follows: I: 5.1%, II: 9.6%, III: 14.8%, IV: 23.9%, and missing: 46.7%. Gastroenterologists diagnosed the most cancers (41.3%). Chemoradiotherapy was the most common first treatment modality (26.8%).
Table 1.
Patient, disease, diagnosing physician, health care system, and health care utilization characteristics of Ontario patients with esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2018
| Cohort characteristic | Number of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Age group, y | |
| 18-49 | 296 (5.1) |
| 50-59 | 1105 (19.1) |
| 60-69 | 1923 (33.3) |
| 70-79 | 1596 (27.6) |
| ≥80 | 855 (14.8) |
| Sex | |
| Female | 1293 (22.4) |
| Male | 4482 (77.6) |
| Sum of minor AGDs | |
| 0 | 338 (5.9) |
| 1-2 | 1054 (18.2) |
| 3-4 | 1481 (25.7) |
| 5-6 | 1421 (24.6) |
| ≥7 | 1481 (25.7) |
| Sum of major ADGs | |
| 0 | 2097 (36.3) |
| 1 | 1799 (31.2) |
| 2 | 1048 (18.2) |
| ≥3 | 831 (14.4) |
| Total number of ADGs | |
| 0 | 288 (5.0) |
| 1-3 | 1346 (23.3) |
| 4-6 | 1866 (32.3) |
| 7-9 | 1309 (22.7) |
| ≥10 | 966 (16.7) |
| Recent immigration | |
| No | 5401 (93.5) |
| Yes | 374 (6.5) |
| Material deprivation | |
| Least deprived | 1075 (18.6) |
| 2 | 1155 (20.0) |
| 3 | 1130 (19.6) |
| 4 | 1176 (20.4) |
| Most deprived | 1198 (20.7) |
| Unknown | 41 (0.7) |
| Rurality | |
| Rural | 884 (15.3) |
| Urban | 4885 (84.6) |
| Unknown | 6 (0.1) |
| Calendar year of diagnosis | |
| 2013 | 930 (16.1) |
| 2014 | 892 (15.5) |
| 2015 | 957 (16.6) |
| 2016 | 948 (16.4) |
| 2017 | 1002 (17.4) |
| 2018 | 1046 (18.1) |
| Histology | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 4133 (71.6) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 1195 (20.7) |
| Other | 447 (7.7) |
| Tumor site | |
| Cervical esophagus | 94 (1.6) |
| Upper esophagus | 192 (3.3) |
| Middle esophagus | 564 (9.8) |
| Lower esophagus | 2305 (39.9) |
| Gastroesophageal junction | 2298 (39.8) |
| Other | 322 (5.6) |
| Stage | |
| I | 294 (5.1) |
| II | 552 (9.6) |
| III | 852 (14.8) |
| IV | 1382 (23.9) |
| Unknown | 2695 (46.7) |
| Diagnosing physician main specialty | |
| Gastroenterology | 2384 (41.3) |
| General surgery | 1777 (30.8) |
| Thoracic surgery | 584 (10.1) |
| Other | 554 (9.6) |
| Unknown | 476 (8.2) |
| Diagnosing physician years in practice | |
| 1-9 | 247 (4.3) |
| 10-14 | 835 (14.5) |
| 15-19 | 592 (10.3) |
| 20-24 | 512 (8.9) |
| 25-29 | 452 (7.8) |
| ≥30 | 451 (7.8) |
| Unknown | 2686 (46.5) |
| Diagnosing physician academic affiliation | |
| No | 3462 (60.6) |
| Yes | 1484 (25.7) |
| Unknown | 829 (14.4) |
| LHIN of residence at diagnosis | |
| 01 | 345 (6.0) |
| 02 | 523 (9.1) |
| 03 | 323 (5.6) |
| 04 | 832 (14.4) |
| 05 | 246 (4.3) |
| 06 | 375 (6.5) |
| 07 | 374 (6.5) |
| 08 | 496 (8.6) |
| 09 | 674 (11.7) |
| 10 | 307 (5.3) |
| 11 | 517 (9.0) |
| 12 | 281 (4.9) |
| 13 | 353 (6.1) |
| 14 | 129 (2.2) |
| Treatment group | |
| Endoscopy with or without subsequent treatment | 543 (9.4) |
| Chemotherapy only | 792 (13.7) |
| Radiotherapy only | 1177 (20.4) |
| Surgery with or without subsequent treatment | 571 (9.9) |
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy | 1550 (26.8) |
| Chemotherapy or radiotherapy then surgery | 164 (2.8) |
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy then surgery | 733 (12.7) |
| Other | 245 (4.2) |
| ED visits between diagnosis and treatment | |
| 0 | 4911 (85.0) |
| 1 | 661 (11.4) |
| >1 | 203 (3.6) |
| Hospital admissions between diagnosis and treatment | |
| 0 | 4228 (73.2) |
| 1 | 1323 (22.9) |
| >1 | 224 (3.9) |
ADG, Aggregate diagnostic group; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network; ED, Emergency Department.
Length of TI and Subintervals
The median TI length was 36 days (interquartile range [IQR], 22-55 days) and the 90th percentile was 77 days (Figure 2). The subinterval 1 median length was 2 days (IQR, −3 to 10 days; 90th percentile, 20 days); the subinterval 2 median length was 34 days (IQR, 20-51 days; 90th percentile, 73 days).
Figure 2.
Box and whisker plot depicting the distribution of the Ontario esophageal cancer treatment interval between 2013 and 2018. Upper whisker = maximum observation excluding outliers; lower whisker = minimum observation excluding outliers; upper box bar = 75th percentile; lower box bar = 25th percentile; middle box bar = 50th percentile; dots = outliers (observations outside 1.5 times interquartile range).
Geographical differences were seen (Figures 3 and 4, Table 2). The difference between the LHINs with the longest and shortest TI at the 50th and 90th percentile was 18 and 25 days, respectively. Except LHIN 14, all exhibited similar distributions of width and skew, suggesting similar variability within each LHIN. Both subinterval lengths differed across LHINs (P < .0001).
Figure 3.
Box and whisker plot showing the comparison of the esophageal cancer treatment interval length distribution among LHINs in Ontario between 2013 and 2018. Upper whisker = maximum observation excluding outliers; lower whisker = minimum observation excluding outliers; upper box bar = 75th percentile; lower box bar = 25th percentile; middle box bar = 50th percentile; dots = outliers (observations outside 1.5 times interquartile range). LHIN, Local Health Integration Network.
Figure 4.
Different distributions of the esophageal cancer treatment interval length among Local Health Integration Networks in Ontario between 2013 and 2018. Upper whisker = maximum observation excluding outliers; lower whisker = minimum observation excluding outliers; upper box bar = 75th percentile; lower box bar = 25th percentile; middle box bar = 50th percentile; dots = outliers (observations outside 1.5 times interquartile range).
Table 2.
Lengths of the treatment interval, subinterval 1, and subinterval 2 at the 50th and 90th percentile according to category of associated factors in Ontario patients with esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2018
| Variable | Treatment interval |
Subinterval 1∗ |
Subinterval 2† |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50th (IQR) | 90th | 50th (IQR) | 90th | 50th (IQR) | 90th | |
| Whole cohort | 36 (22-55) | 77 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 34 (20-51) | 73 |
| LHIN | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 01 | 33 (21-49) | 71 | 1 (−3 to 8) | 18 | 32 (17-48) | 65 |
| 02 | 40 (23-57) | 82 | 4 (−2 to 12) | 22 | 35 (20-54) | 79 |
| 03 | 40 (27-59) | 81 | 4 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 38 (25-56) | 77 |
| 04 | 30 (19-48) | 71 | 2 (−5 to 9) | 20 | 30 (17-47) | 65 |
| 05 | 39 (26-55) | 79 | 2 (−4 to 8) | 19 | 37 (23-56) | 76 |
| 06 | 44 (27-63) | 93 | 1 (−2 to 9) | 21 | 38 (24-59) | 89 |
| 07 | 37 (22-55) | 80 | 1 (−6 to 8) | 20 | 37 (22-55) | 79 |
| 08 | 30 (16-49) | 68 | 3 (−2 to 11) | 20 | 28 (14-44) | 65 |
| 09 | 37 (22-56) | 71 | 3 (−4 to 11) | 19 | 34 (21-50) | 71 |
| 10 | 46 (29-63) | 82 | 7 (−1 to 15) | 24 | 38 (22-55) | 75 |
| 11 | 42 (27-58) | 83 | 3 (−2 to 11) | 19 | 39 (24-55) | 77 |
| 12 | 28 (17-41) | 69 | 1 (−3 to 10) | 21 | 26 (14-40) | 70 |
| 13 | 35 (20-53) | 72 | 1 (−3 to 9) | 18 | 34 (20-50) | 66 |
| 14 | 41 (26-60) | 88 | 2 (−4 to 8) | 17 | 38 (26-53) | 77 |
| Age group, y | P = .01 | P < .0001 | P = 1.00 | P = .002 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 18-49 | 30 (15-45) | 67 | 1 (−2 to 7) | 14 | 28 (14-44) | 64 |
| 50-59 | 35 (21-54) | 73 | 3 (−3 to 9) | 19 | 33 (19-49) | 69 |
| 60-69 | 36 (22-54) | 75 | 2 (−4 to 10) | 19 | 35 (21-50) | 71 |
| 70-79 | 38 (23-57) | 80 | 3 (−4 to 11) | 21 | 36 (22-54) | 76 |
| ≥80 | 36 (20-58) | 84 | 3 (−2 to 11) | 21 | 32 (16-53) | 78 |
| Sex | P = .30 | P = .37 | P = .07 | P = .37 | P = 1.00 | P = .25 |
| Female | 37 (22-55) | 75 | 3 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 34 (19-50) | 70 |
| Male | 36 (22-55) | 78 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 19 | 34 (20-51) | 75 |
| Sum of minor ADGs | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P = .0005 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 0 | 32 (17-49) | 67 | 0 (−3 to 7) | 13 | 31 (17-48) | 63 |
| 1-2 | 35 (21-51) | 71 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 17 | 33 (20-49) | 65 |
| 3-4 | 35 (22-53) | 75 | 2 (−2 to 10) | 18 | 33 (19-48) | 70 |
| 5-6 | 38 (23-57) | 80 | 3 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 35 (21-54) | 76 |
| ≥7 | 39 (23-58) | 85 | 3 (−4 to 12) | 24 | 35 (21-54) | 79 |
| Sum of major ADGs | P = .009 | P < .0001 | P = .55 | P = .0006 | P = .11 | P < .0001 |
| 0 | 35 (21-50) | 69 | 2 (−2 to 9) | 16 | 33 (20-48) | 67 |
| 1 | 36 (21-56) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 34 (20-52) | 73 |
| 2 | 38 (23-59) | 82 | 3 (−3 to 12) | 22 | 35 (20-55) | 78 |
| ≥3 | 39 (22-62) | 87 | 2 (−4 to 13) | 24 | 35 (20-56) | 79 |
| Total ADGs | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P = .05 | P < .0001 | P = .0015 | P < .0001 |
| 0 | 33 (18-49) | 65 | 0 (−2 to 7) | 13 | 33 (19-47) | 63 |
| 1-3 | 34 (20-50) | 71 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 16 | 32 (19-48) | 65 |
| 4-6 | 37 (22-55) | 77 | 3 (−2 to 10) | 19 | 34 (20-50) | 73 |
| 7-9 | 37 (23-56) | 78 | 3 (−3 to 12) | 21 | 35 (20-53) | 76 |
| ≥10 | 40 (23-62) | 91 | 2 (−5 to 13) | 25 | 36 (20-57) | 81 |
| Recent immigration | P = .64 | P = .25 | P = .14 | P = .35 | P = .08 | P = .28 |
| No | 36 (22-55) | 77 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 34 (20-51) | 73 |
| Yes | 37 (21-56) | 83 | 1 (−5 to 9) | 19 | 37 (20-54) | 79 |
| Material deprivation | P = .49 | P = .88 | P = .73 | P = .69 | P = .09 | P = .06 |
| Least deprived | 36 (22-54) | 80 | 3 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 34 (20-50) | 73 |
| 2 | 36 (22-53) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 21 | 33 (19-49) | 68 |
| 3 | 36 (22-55) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 19 | 35 (20-52) | 73 |
| 4 | 36 (22-54) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 19 | 33 (21-50) | 74 |
| Most deprived | 37 (22-58) | 80 | 2 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 36 (20-55) | 76 |
| Rurality | P = .46 | P = .16 | P = 1.00 | P = 1.00 | P = .16 | P = .13 |
| Rural | 37 (23-58) | 83 | 3 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 35 (21-54) | 79 |
| Urban | 36 (21-54) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 34 (20-50) | 71 |
| Year of diagnosis | P = .56 | P = .98 | P = .31 | P = .55 | P = .48 | P = .82 |
| 2013 | 36 (21-57) | 79 | 4 (−2 to 11) | 21 | 34 (19-51) | 73 |
| 2014 | 35 (21-53) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 17 | 34 (20-50) | 73 |
| 2015 | 36 (22-55) | 76 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 20 | 34 (20-50) | 77 |
| 2016 | 35 (20-55) | 78 | 2 (−4 to 11) | 21 | 33 (20-51) | 74 |
| 2017 | 38 (23-56) | 78 | 2 (−3 to 11) | 20 | 35 (20-53) | 74 |
| 2018 | 37 (22-54) | 77 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 19 | 33 (21-49) | 71 |
| Histology | P = .02 | P = .11 | P < .0001 | P = .01 | P = .27 | P = .18 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 37 (22-56) | 79 | 3 (−2 to 11) | 21 | 34 (20-51) | 75 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 35 (22-52) | 73 | 1 (−4 to 9) | 18 | 34 (20-50) | 70 |
| Other | 29 (16-51) | 69 | 0 (−7 to 7) | 15 | 32 (18-49) | 68 |
| Tumor site | P = .16 | P = .0006 | P < .0001 | P = .05 | P = .83 | P = .46 |
| Cervical esophagus | 34 (19-47) | 63 | 0 (−7 to 4) | 16 | 34 (19-49) | 66 |
| Upper esophagus | 35 (23-52) | 81 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 17 | 34 (21-49) | 77 |
| Middle esophagus | 37 (21-56) | 72 | 2 (−5 to 10) | 19 | 34 (20-51) | 70 |
| Lower esophagus | 36 (22-55) | 75 | 3 (−2 to 10) | 19 | 34 (20-50) | 72 |
| Gastroesophageal junction | 36 (22-56) | 81 | 2 (−3 to 11) | 21 | 34 (20-52) | 76 |
| Other | 32 (19-53) | 76 | 0 (−8 to 9) | 19 | 32 (18-53) | 75 |
| Stage | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| I | 48 (35-66) | 101 | 7 (0-15) | 27 | 42 (27-61) | 85 |
| II | 43 (29-60) | 79 | 5 (0-13) | 21 | 37 (25-55) | 75 |
| III | 42 (27-57) | 75 | 4 (0-9) | 18 | 37 (24-54) | 72 |
| IV | 28 (17-44) | 63 | 1 (−5 to 8) | 14 | 28 (17-44) | 63 |
| Unknown | 36 (21-56) | 80 | 2 (−4 to 11) | 23 | 34 (19-52) | 77 |
| Specialty | P < .0001 | P = .07 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| Gastroenterology | 37 (22-56) | 79 | 4 (0-12) | 21 | 33 (18-50) | 73 |
| General surgery | 38 (24-56) | 77 | 4 (−1 to 11) | 19 | 34 (21-50) | 70 |
| Thoracic surgery | 33 (18-49) | 77 | −7 (−19 to 0) | 8 | 41 (26-60) | 84 |
| Other | 29 (17-49) | 71 | 2 (−2 to 9) | 19 | 28 (16-45) | 65 |
| Years in Practice | P = .14 | P = .0004 | P = .03 | P = .03 | P = .03 | P = .002 |
| 1-9 | 37 (24-58) | 81 | 3 (−2 to 9) | 19 | 36 (21-52) | 77 |
| 10-14 | 35 (22-51) | 70 | 2 (−4 to 9) | 19 | 34 (21-49) | 68 |
| 15-19 | 38 (23-57) | 75 | 3 (−2 to 10) | 18 | 35 (21-52) | 71 |
| 20-24 | 37 (23-56) | 82 | 4 (−3 to 12) | 21 | 33 (21-51) | 73 |
| 25-29 | 35 (20-53) | 77 | 3 (−2 to 12) | 21 | 31 (18-47) | 70 |
| ≥30 | 37 (22-56) | 76 | 2 (−1 to 13) | 22 | 34 (18-48) | 70 |
| Unknown | 36 (21-56) | 79 | 2 (−4 to 10) | 19 | 34 (20-53) | 76 |
| Academic affiliation | P = .08 | P = .26 | P < .0001 | P = .47 | P = .22 | P = .02 |
| No | 37 (22-55) | 77 | 3 (−1 to 11) | 20 | 34 (20-50) | 70 |
| Yes | 35 (20-55) | 78 | 0 (−9 to 8) | 19 | 35 (20-52) | 77 |
| Treatment group‡ | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| A | 23 (14-36) | 50 | 5 (0-13) | 21 | 16 (7-30) | 48 |
| B | 39 (24-60) | 87 | 0 (−7 to 8) | 17 | 39 (26-57) | 79 |
| C | 29 (16-49) | 73 | 0 (−7 to 7) | 15 | 29 (17-48) | 71 |
| D | 58 (38-82) | 111 | 7 (−4 to 18) | 31 | 50 (34-77) | 101 |
| E | 36 (22-55) | 74 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 18 | 34 (21-50) | 67 |
| F | 40 (26-54) | 63 | 3 (−1 to 10) | 20 | 35 (21-48) | 65 |
| G | 40 (28-52) | 64 | 5 (0-11) | 18 | 35 (26-48) | 59 |
| H | 39 (26-50) | 63 | 8 (0-15) | 35 | 28 (14-42) | 60 |
| ED visits | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P = .10 | P = 1.0000 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 0 | 35 (21-52) | 73 | 2 (−3 to 10) | 20 | 33 (19-48) | 69 |
| 1 | 45 (26-67) | 91 | 2 (−3 to 9) | 20 | 42 (24-62) | 91 |
| >1 | 54 (31-76) | 99 | 1 (−5 to 7) | 19 | 48 (31-72) | 98 |
| Hospital admissions | P = .004 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 0 | 36 (22-54) | 76 | 4 (−3 to 12) | 21 | 33 (20-49) | 70 |
| 1 | 35 (20-56) | 79 | 1 (−3 to 6) | 14 | 35 (20-54) | 76 |
| >1 | 48 (29-73) | 106 | 0 (−5 to 3) | 13 | 48 (32-71) | 109 |
50th, 50th percentile; IQR, interquartile range; 90th, 90th percentile; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network; ADG, Aggregate Diagnostic Group; ED, Emergency Department.
Subinterval 1 = diagnosis to first health care encounter.
Subinterval 2 = first health care encounter to treatment start.
Treatment group: A = endoscopy with or without subsequent treatment; B = chemotherapy only; C = radiotherapy only; D = surgery with or without subsequent treatment; E = chemotherapy and radiotherapy; F = chemotherapy or radiotherapy then surgery; G = chemotherapy and radiotherapy then surgery; and H = other.
Differences remained between LHINs after adjusting for confounding. The biggest change was seen in LHIN 12, which had a 5-day longer median TI (−11 to −6 days longer than the referent group). The remainder demonstrated change of 3 days or less in median TI, suggesting minimal confounding by other covariates in those LHINs.
Bivariate Analysis of Associated Factors
Younger patients (18-49 years) had shorter median TIs than older patients (70-79 years); 30 days (IQR, 15-45) versus 38 days (IQR, 23-57 days; P = .01). Those with a total ADG score of ≥10 waited a median of 40 days (IQR, 23-62 days) versus 33 days (IQR, 18-49 days) for those with no comorbidity. The median TI did not differ statistically on the basis of sex (P = .30), immigration (P = .64), rurality (P = .46), nor deprivation (P = .49).
Those with histology other than AC or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) had a shorter median TI (29 days; IQR, 16-51 days) than those with AC (37 days; IQR, 22-56 days) or SCC (35 days; IQR, 22-52 days). Cancer stage was inversely proportional to the median and 90th percentile of the TI length; stage I, 48 days (IQR, 35-66 days) versus stage IV, 28 days (IQR, 17-44 days; P < .0001).
Patients diagnosed by a thoracic surgeon had a shorter median TI; 33 days (IQR, 18-49 days) compared with those diagnosed by a general surgeon; 38 days (IQR, 24-56 days) or gastroenterologist; 37 days (IQR, 22-56 days). However, those diagnosed by a physician in the “other” category had the shortest median (29 days) and the 90th percentile (71 days) TI. There was no statistical difference in median TI regarding the number of years the diagnosing physician had been in practice (P = .13), however there was a difference at the 90th percentile (P = .0004; 10-14 years, 70 days vs 20-24 years, 82 days). Academic affiliation was not associated with the median (P = .08) or 90th percentile (P = .26) TI length. The median and 90th percentile TI was longer in patients who had one or more ED visits or hospital admissions between diagnosis and treatment; >1 ED visit, 54 days (IQR, 31-76 days) versus 0 ED visits, 35 days (IQR, 21-52 days); >1 admission, 48 days (IQR, 29-73 days) versus 0 admissions, 36 days (IQR, 22-54 days).
Adjusted Regression Analysis of Associated Factors
In the adjusted models (Table 3), age, comorbidity, deprivation, rurality, histology, and LHIN were associated with statistical differences in the median TI length. There was a 9-day difference in the age variable between those with the longest (≥80 years old) and shortest TI (18-49 years old). The remainder of the variables that showed statistical adjusted differences had differences of <5 days.
Table 3.
Unadjusted and adjusted differences of the treatment interval at the 50th and 90th percentile according to category in Ontario patients with esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2018
| Variable | 50th Percentile |
90th Percentile |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted difference (95% CI) | Adjusted difference (95% CI) | Unadjusted difference (95% CI) | Adjusted difference (95% CI) | |
| Adjusted intercept | 38 (35-42) | 55 (45-65) | ||
| Age | P = .03 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P = .03 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 37 (35-38) | 75 (72-78) | ||
| 18-49 | −3 (−7 to 1) | −7 (−10 to −4) | −10 (−19 to −1) | −6 (−14 to 2) |
| 50-59 | −1 (−3 to 1) | −2 (−3 to 0) | 1 (−5 to 7) | 2 (−2 to 6) |
| 60-69 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 70-79 | 3 (0-6) | 2 (1-4) | 7 (2-12) | 4 (0-7) |
| ≥80 | 0 (−3 to 3) | 2 (0-5) | 11 (5-17) | 6 (0-12) |
| Sex | P = .31 | P = .69 | P = .35 | P = .96 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 38 (36-40) | 77 (73-81) | ||
| Female | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Male | −1 (−3 to 1) | 0 (−1 to 2) | 2 (−2 to 6) | 0 (−4 to 4) |
| Sum of minor ADGs | P < .0001 | P = .0005 | P < .0001 | P = .39 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 35 (34-36) | 71 (67-75) | ||
| 0-2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 3-4 | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 4 (−2 to 10) | 2 (−2 to 6) |
| 5-6 | 5 (3-7) | 3 (1-5) | 9 (3-15) | 3 (−1 to 8) |
| ≥7 | 5 (3-7) | 3 (1-6) | 15 (9-21) | 4 (−1 to 9) |
| Sum of major ADGs | P = .02 | P = .70 | P < .0001 | P = .003 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 36 (35-40) | 71 (68-74) | ||
| 0 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 1 | 1 (−1 to 3) | 1 (−1 to 2) | 7 (3-11) | 4 (0-8) |
| 2 | 2 (−1 to 5) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 12 (6-18) | 8 (3-13) |
| ≥3 | 4 (1-7) | 1 (−1 to 3) | 17 (11-24) | 11 (4-17) |
| Material deprivation | P = .33 | P = .001 | P = .78 | P = .005 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 36 (34-38) | 80 (75-85) | ||
| 1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 2 | 0 (−2 to 2) | 1 (−1 to 4) | −4 (−12 to 4) | −3 (−8 to 2) |
| 3 | 1 (−1 to 3) | 3 (1-6) | −2 (−9 to 5) | 1 (−4 to 6) |
| 4 | 1 (−1 to 3) | 3 (1-5) | −2 (−8 to 4) | 2 (−4 to 7) |
| 5 | 3 (−0 to 6) | 4 (2-7) | 0 (−7 to 7) | 5 (0-11) |
| Rurality | P = .45 | P = .04 | P = .15 | P = .04 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 37 (36-38) | 78 (75-80) | ||
| Urban | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Rural | 1 (−2 to 4) | 2 (0 to 4) | 5 (−2 to 12) | 6 (0-11) |
| Recent immigration | P = .62 | P = .15 | P = .27 | P = .78 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 37 (36-38) | 78 (76-80) | ||
| No | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Yes | 1 (−3 to 4) | 2 (−1 to 5) | 5 (−4 to 14) | 1 (−6 to 8) |
| Histology | P = .007 | P = .02 | P = .15 | P = .23 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 38 (37-39) | 80 (78-82) | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | −1 (−3 to 1) | −1 (−3 to 2) | −5 (−10 to 0) | −4 (−9 to 1) |
| Other | −6 (−10 to −2) | −5 (−8 to −2) | −3 (−11 to 5) | −2 (−8 to 5) |
| Tumor location | P = .19 | P = .22 | P = .0007 | P = .10 |
| Unadjusted intercept | 37 (36-38) | 83 (80-86) | ||
| Cervical esophagus | −3 (−11 to 5) | −3 (−9 to 3) | −12 (−26 to 2) | −9 (−23 to 4) |
| Upper esophagus | −2 (−5 to 1) | 0 (−4 to 4) | −8 (−21 to 5) | −3 (−15 to 18) |
| Middle esophagus | 0 (−3 to 3) | 1 (−2 to 4) | −10 (−17 to 3) | −1 (−9 to 6) |
| Lower esophagus | 0 (−2 to 2) | −1 (−2 to 1) | −8 (−12 to −4) | −4 (−8 to 0) |
| Gastroesophageal junction | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Other | −5 (−9 to −1) | −3 (−6 to 0) | −0 (−12 to 12) | 4 (−6 to 13) |
| LHIN | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P = .0002 | P < .0001 |
| Unadjusted Intercept | 39 (36-41) | 78 (72-84) | ||
| 01 | −6 (−10 to −2) | −6 (−10 to −2) | −4 (−14 to 6) | −9 (−17 to 1) |
| 02 | 0 (−3 to 4) | −2 (−5 to 1) | 4 (−6 to 14) | −2 (−11 to 6) |
| 03 | 3 (0-7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−5 to 11) | −1 (−8 to 6) |
| 04 | −7 (−10 to −3) | −8 (−11 to −5) | −7 (−15 to 1) | −12 (−18 to −7) |
| 05 | 0 (−4 to 5) | −2 (−7 to 2) | 0 (−18 to 18) | −1 (−10 to 9) |
| 06 | 5 (1-9) | 4 (0-8) | 14 (2-26) | 7 (−1 to 16) |
| 07 | −1 (−4 to 3) | −2 (−6 to 1) | 3 (−8 to 14) | −3 (−11 to 4) |
| 08 | −4 (−8 to 0) | −4 (−7 to −1) | −1 (−11 to 9) | −3 (−10 to 4) |
| 09 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 10 | 7 (3-11) | 6 (1-11) | 2 (−8 to 16) | −2 (−10 to 5) |
| 11 | 3 (−1 to 7) | 2 (0 to 5) | 5 (−2 to 12) | −1 (−9 to 7) |
| 12 | −11 (−14 to −7) | −6 (−9 to −2) | −7 (−19 to 5) | −2 (−12 to 8) |
| 13 | −5 (−8 to −2) | −8 (−12 to −5) | −7 (−16 to 2) | −12 (−18 to −6) |
| 14 | 1 (−5 to 7) | 1 (−5 to 3) | 11 (−4 to 26) | −9 (−19 to 1) |
| Treatment group∗ | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| Unadjusted Intercept | 41 (39-43) | 64 (60-68) | ||
| A | −17 (−20 to −14) | −16 (−19 to −14) | −9 (−18 to −1) | −16 (−22 to −10) |
| B | 0 (−3 to 3) | 0 (−3 to 3) | 27 (20-34) | 21 (14-27) |
| C | −10 (−13 to −7) | −11 (−13 to −8) | 13 (7-19) | 6 (0-13) |
| D | 15 (12-18) | 15 (12-18) | 45 (35-55) | 37 (29-44) |
| E | −4 (−7 to −2) | −3 (−5 to −1) | 10 (5-15) | 8 (4-12) |
| F | −1 (−6 to 4) | −2 (−7 to 3) | −3 (−13 to 7) | 0 (−9 to 9) |
| G | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| H | −2 (−6 to 2) | −2 (−5 to 2) | 0 (−8 to 8) | −4 (−10 to 2) |
CI, Confidence interval; ADG, Aggregate Diagnostic Group; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network.
Treatment group: A = endoscopy with or without subsequent treatment; B = chemotherapy only; C = radiotherapy only; D = surgery with or without subsequent treatment; E = chemotherapy and radiotherapy; F = chemotherapy or radiotherapy then surgery; G = chemotherapy and radiotherapy then surgery; and H = other.
At the 90th percentile, age, comorbidity, material deprivation, rurality, LHIN, and treatment group were associated with differences in the TI length. Those who underwent endoscopic resection (alone or initially) waited 53 days less for treatment compared with those who underwent surgery (alone or initially). Patients aged ≥80 years waited 12 days longer for treatment than those aged 18-49 years old. Those with 3 or more comorbidities waited 11 days longer than those without any comorbidities. Patients living in the most materially deprived areas waited 6 days longer than those in the least deprived areas, and those in rural locations waited 6 days longer than their urban counterparts. Rurality and material deprivation variables became significant in the adjusted analysis at both percentiles.
Sensitivity Analyses
At the 50th percentile, only the exclusion of LHIN and immigration affected other variables, resulting in rurality no longer being significant compared with the original model (Table E4). At the 90th percentile, in 4 of the 6 sensitivity analyses, deprivation and rurality became insignificant, whereas number of minor comorbidities and disease histology and site became significant. The addition of stage resulted in age and rurality no longer being significant but did not affect other variables (Table E5).
Discussion
The key finding of this study was an absolute difference of 18 and 25 days between the LHINs with the longest and shortest median and 90th percentiles, respectively. Furthermore, we identified those who are older, more comorbid, and diagnosed by a physician other than a thoracic surgeon to be vulnerable patient populations that might be more at risk of a prolonged TI.
In contrast to our results, in one Ontario study15 it was reported that the median time to treatment was 46 days (IQR, 29-66 days) in 79% of their patients. Our cohorts were created differently, which might explain the difference. We labeled the day of diagnosis as the date of endoscopic biopsy if one was available (>80%), and the date of diagnosis in the OCR otherwise, whereas those authors used the OCR date as the day of diagnosis for all. In an older study16 a median wait time from esophageal cancer diagnosis to surgery of 32 days, was reported, but that study's cohort was restricted only to patients who underwent surgery, and the study period was 1984 to 2000, which preceded the provincial regionalization of thoracic cancer services. In contrast, our cohort included patients who had treatment modalities other than surgery. This difference might explain why our median TI was shorter, because the patients in our study who underwent surgery first had a longer TI than those who had another treatment before surgery. A more recent study from the United States17 calculated a median time to surgery of 54 days in patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal carcinoma who underwent surgery from 2004 to 2015. This also corroborates our findings that patients with an early-stage cancer, or patients having surgery as their first treatment modality, have a longer TI than others.
We found variability across LHINs in all time intervals, at the 50th and 90th percentile. The goal of regionalization was to provide optimal patient care for those who require specialist services, regardless of their location in the province.5 An Ontario study from 201318 demonstrated that median wait times for lung cancer treatment did not shorten over the period from 2007 to 2011, but there was a reduction in 30-day mortality after pneumonectomy. All LHINs have a thoracic center located within their borders except one. One LHIN contains 3 thoracic centers. Neither of these 2 LHINs had the shortest or longest TI, suggesting the difference is explained by factors other than regionalization. Our sensitivity analyses (Tables E4 and E5) showed persistent LHIN differences at the 50th and 90th percentiles, suggesting there might be systemic inefficiencies meriting further study. Table E6 shows the distribution of patient factors within each LHIN.
At the 50th percentile, older, more comorbid, nonurban, and patients living in the most deprived areas waited up to 9 days, 3 days, 2 days, and 4 days longer than their counterparts, respectively. These differences were greater at the 90th percentile (12 days, 11 days, 6 days, and 5 days, respectively). Despite being statistically significant, these differences might not be clinically meaningful on survival19 but they likely affect patient anxiety levels3 and symptom progression. These associations are consistent with previously published literature on other cancer sites. Gillis and colleagues20 reported that older patients, those living in rural areas, and those with a lower income had a longer wait time to colorectal cancer surgery in Ontario than others. Kulkarni and colleagues21 also reported that older age and more severe comorbidity burden were associated with a longer wait time for urology cancer treatment. Bardell and colleagues16 also reported that increasing age, decreasing household income, and female sex were predictors of longer wait times between diagnosis and surgery for a cohort comprised of 12 different cancers, but did not stratify their analysis on the basis of cancer type. Possible reasons for differences according to patient characteristics have been postulated. Elderly patients might have more missed or rescheduled appointments, which might contribute to a longer TI.22,23 Those living in rural locations might struggle to keep appointments that require a long travel distance.22,23 Patients living in an area of higher material deprivation, which we used as a surrogate for individual-level socioeconomic status, might miss appointments because of difficulty getting time off work or paying for transport to their appointments.24
Many previous studies have restricted their cohorts to patients with AC or SCC.17,25, 26, 27, 28 It is unclear why histological subtypes other than AC or SCC would have a shorter TI. Rare diagnoses are more likely to be brought to the multidisciplinary team for discussion and this might expedite pretreatment investigations and specialist visits. Patients with a stage IV cancer had a TI that was 20 days shorter than those with a stage I cancer. At the 90th percentile, this difference increased to 38 days. Previous studies conducted in Ontario have shown the same phenomenon in other cancer sites.29, 30, 31, 32, 33 Large population studies from the United States have also shown the same effect in a range of different solid organ cancers.34,35 Possible explanations exist. First, patients with a later stage are more likely to have symptoms from their disease than those with early-stage cancers. At the system level, symptomatic patients might have their investigations and specialist visits expedited because of the concerning symptom severity. Second, there might be a lower sense of urgency with lower-stage cancers, and in a resource-constrained health care system, those with a higher stage will likely take priority for investigations and treatment. Third, possible treatment options vary between stage I and stage IV. Most stage IV patients will undergo palliative treatment that does not include surgery.36 Our results have shown that patients who are receiving radiotherapy alone have a much shorter TI length than those who undergo surgery.
Patients diagnosed by a thoracic surgeon had a shorter TI than those diagnosed by a gastroenterologist or a general surgeon. Those latter patients will be referred to a thoracic surgeon for a consultation; patients diagnosed by a thoracic surgeon might have that consultation at the same time as the diagnosis, thereby skipping a step on the clinical pathway and shortening the interval.
Patients who had one or more ED visits or hospital admissions between diagnosis and treatment had a longer median TI than those who had neither. These patients might have been too sick to undergo their cancer treatment and require treatment of the illness that prompted the ED visit or admission first.
Strengths and Limitations
To our knowledge, this is the first Ontario-wide population-level study to include such an extensive number of risk factors for a prolonged TI including the assessment of its geographical variation. Previous Ontario studies were either performed on a heterogenous cohort of cancer patients16 or did not assess differences in TI length according to geography.15 By partitioning the TI into 2 distinct subintervals, we also identified other potentially modifiable risk factors that were not present on analysis of the overall TI. We used routinely collected health administrative data that allowed us to study the entire esophageal cancer population in Ontario during our time frame. Mandatory submissions from all hospitals in the province to CIHI and NACRS decreases the likelihood of institutions being over-represented. Our definition of the diagnosis date is more refined than in previous studies that used the cancer registry date as the diagnosis date. We used the date of endoscopic biopsy to create a TI definition that was as accurate as possible, and is in line with national efforts to standardize time intervals.7 Last, our results are generalizable to other countries because we have found specific patient groups more at risk of longer intervals that transcend geography. Although the magnitude of differences might be specific to Ontario, the wait time variation is unlikely to be on clinical grounds and is generalizable to regions with similar health care models.
Stage was only 54% complete despite capturing data from several databases. A recent study using the same databases15 had similar completeness. The sensitivity analysis that included stage showed that stage had no effect on the association of the other variables at the 50th percentile. The unknown group had a longer TI than stage IV patients, but shorter than the others (stage I-III) and are likely to be stage IV patients, receive nonsurgical treatment,15 and were equal across all LHINs. There was uncontrolled confounding by using administrative databases. Patient factors not included that might have affected the TI length include a patient's social situation (eg, access to reliable public transportation).
Conclusions
To our knowledge, this population-level study is the first to investigate the esophageal cancer TI length across different LHINs and examine numerous factors. We identified geographical variation despite adjusting for several factors. Patients who are older, more comorbid, or in rural areas are at greater risk for protracted wait times. Future research will be aimed at investigating an association between wait times and survival in our study population.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Parts of this material are on the basis of data and information compiled and provided by CIHI, Ontario Health, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada current to May 2017. The analyses, conclusions, opinions, statements, results, and views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the funding or data sources; no endorsement is intended or should be inferred.
Footnotes
This study received funding from United Hospitals Kingston Foundation. This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.
Appendix E1
Table E1.
Health administrative databases used in this study to obtain demographic, disease, billing, and outcomes data
| Database | Description |
|---|---|
| Ontario Cancer Registry | Cancer information, including site, histology, and diagnosis date |
| Registered Persons Database | Patient demographic data including age, sex, vital status, and dates of last health care encounter |
| Ontario Health Insurance Plan Database | Physician billing database for inpatient and outpatient services, including diagnoses, services provided, and dates |
| Discharge Abstract Database | Mandatory submissions from hospitals to the Canadian Institute for Health Information; includes information on hospital admission such as dates and diagnoses |
| Same Day Surgery Database | Stores information such as date and service for same-day procedures |
| National Ambulatory Care Reporting Database | Receives mandatory submissions from institutions for visits made to hospital and community ambulatory care centers |
| PCCF | Converts a patient's postal code into a dissemination area to ascribe certain characteristics to each patient such as rurality and median household income |
| Activity Level Reporting | Stores information on chemotherapy and radiotherapy dates and services, at regional centers and outreach clinics |
| LHIN | Stores information including population and number and type of hospitals within each LHIN |
| Ontario Marginalisation | This database comprises separate elements (eg, material deprivation) and is used in conjunction with PCCF to assign patients a score |
| IRCC Permanent Resident Database | This includes information on people who applied to land in Ontario such as country of citizenship and date of landing |
| ICES Physician Database | Demographic information on Ontario physicians including age, specialty, location of work, and year of graduation |
PCCF, Postal Code Conversion File; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network; IRCC, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada; ICES, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
Table E2.
ICD-O-3 codes for morphology and topography
| Description | Code |
|---|---|
| Adenocarcinoma | 8140-8141, 8143-8145, 8190-8231, 8260-8263, 8310, 8401, 8480-8490, 8550-8551, 8570-8574, 8576 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 8050-8078, 8083-8084 |
| Other | 80001-80003, 80103, 80203, 80223, 80303, 80313, 81482, 81490, 84903, 85603 |
| C15.0 | Cervical esophagus |
| C15.1 | Thoracic esophagus |
| C15.2 | Abdominal esophagus |
| C15.3 | Upper third of esophagus |
| C15.4 | Middle third of esophagus |
| C15.5 | Lower third of esophagus |
| C15.8 | Overlapping lesion of esophagus |
| C15.9 | Esophagus, NOS |
| C16.0 | Cardia, NOS
|
NOS, Not otherwise specified.
Table E3.
Codes for diagnosis, consultations, investigations, and treatment
| Event | Code | Data source |
|---|---|---|
| Biopsy | 2NA71, 2NC70BN | CCI |
| Z515, Z399, +E702 | OHIP fee | |
| 150 | OHIP diagnosis code | |
| Consultations | ||
| Surgery | A643-A646, C643-C646, W645, W646 | OHIP |
| Medical oncology | A441-A448, A845, C441-C446, C845, W445, W446, W842-W847 | |
| Radiation oncology | A340-A348, A745, C341-C346, C745 | |
| Investigations | ||
| CT (C/A/P) | X125, X406, X407/X126, X409, X410/X231, X232, X233 | OHIP |
| CT (head) | X188, X400, X401, X402, +E874 | |
| PET | J710 | |
| EUS | S236, E800 | |
| PFTs | J301, J303, J304, J305, J306, J308, J310, J311, J324, J327, J340 | |
| Treatment | ||
| Endoscopic resection | S093, Z527, +E674/E675 | OHIP |
| Chemotherapy | G281, G339, G345, G359, G381, G382 | |
| Radiotherapy | 519, 530-542, 548, 549, 575, 592, 594, 596, 597 | ALR |
| Surgery | X310-X313 | OHIP |
| 1NA87-1NA92 | CCI | |
| S089, S090 | OHIP | |
CCI, Canadian Classification of Health Information; OHIP, Ontario Health Insurance Plan; CT, computed tomography; C/A/P, chest, abdomen, pelvis; PET, positron emission tomography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; PFT, pulmonary function test; ALR, Activity Level Reporting.
Table E4.
Comparison of original model with SA
| Original model | SA.1∗ | SA.2† | SA.3‡ | SA.4§ | SA.5‖ | SA.6¶ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted intercept | 38 (35-42) | 37 (34-40) | 38 (34-42) | 38 (35-42) | 38 (34-42) | 35 (31-39) | 41 (37-46) |
| Age | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 |
| 18-49 | −7 (−10 to −4) | −6 (−10 to 13) | −7 (−10 to 5) | −7 (−10 to −5) | −7 (−10 to −5) | −5 (−8 to −2) | −6 (−9 to −3) |
| 50-59 | −1 (−4 to 0) | −2 (−4 to 0) | −2 (−4 to 0) | −2 (−4 to 0) | −2 (−4 to 1) | −2 (−4 to 0) | −1 (−3 to 1) |
| 60-69 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 70-79 | 2 (1-4) | 3 (1-4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (1-4) | 3 (1-4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-3) |
| ≥80 | 2 (0-5) | 3 (1-6) | 2 (−1 to 4) | 2 (0-5) | 2 (−1 to 5) | −1 (−4 to 2) | 3 (0-5) |
| Sex | P = .70 | P = .81 | P = .79 | P = .80 | P = .82 | P = .91 | P = .39 |
| Female | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Male | 0 (−1 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−1 to 2) | 0 (1−2) | 1 (−2 to 2) | 2 (−1 to 2) |
| Sum of minor ADGs | P = .0005 | P = .0005 | P = .004 | P = .0002 | P = .001 | P = .0006 | P = .0007 |
| 0-2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 3-4 | 0 (−2 to 2) | −1 (−3 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) |
| 5-6 | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (2-6) |
| ≥7 | 4 (1-6) | 3 (1-6) | 3 (1-6) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-6) | 3 (1-5) |
| Sum of major ADGs | P = .70 | P = .97 | P = .58 | P = .57 | P = .34 | P = .30 | P = .62 |
| 0 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 1 | 01 (−1 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 1 (−1 to 3) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 0 (−2 to 2) | 1 (−1 to 2) | 1 (−1 to 2) |
| 2 | 1 (−1 to 4) | 0 (−2 to 3) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-4) | 1 (−1 to 3) |
| ≥3 | 1 (−1 to 3) | 1 (−2 to 3) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 1 (−1 to 3) | 2 (−1 to 4) | 2 (−1 to 5) | 1 (−2 to 3) |
| Material deprivation | P = .001 | P = .003 | P = .002 | P = .003 | P = .0008 | P = .009 | P = .002 |
| 1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 2 | 1 (−1 to 4) | 2 (−1 to 4) | 1 (−1 to 3) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 1 (−1 to 4) | 0 (−2 to 3) | 1 (−2 to 3) |
| 3 | 3 (1-6) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-6) | 4 (1-6) | 4 (1-6) | 2 (−1 to 4) | 3 (1-5) |
| 4 | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 2 (0-5) | 2 (0-5) |
| 5 | 4 (2-7) | 4 (2-6) | 4 (2-6) | 4 (2-6) | 4 (2-6) | 4 (2-6) | 4 (2-6) |
| Rurality | P = .04 | P = .09 | P = .10 | P = .05 | P = .02 | ||
| Urban | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||
| Rural | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-4) | 2 (0-4) | ||
| Recent immigration | P = .15 | P = .12 | P = .23 | P = .66 | P = .50 | ||
| No | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||
| Yes | 2 (−1 to 5) | 2 (−1 to 5) | 2 (−1 to 5) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) | ||
| Histology | P = .02 | P = .0001 | P = .02 | P = .01 | P = .02 | P = .0006 | P = .02 |
| Adenocarcinoma | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | −1 (−3 to 2) | −1 (−3 to 1) | −1 (−3 to 2) | −1 (−3 to 1) | −1 (−3 to 1) | −2 (−4 to 1) | −1 (−3 to 1) |
| Other | −5 (−8 to −2) | −6 (−8 to −3) | −5 (−8 to −1) | −5 (−8 to −2) | −5 (−8 to −1) | −6 (−10 to −3) | −4 (−7 to −1) |
| Tumor site | P = .22 | P = .55 | P = .28 | P = .30 | P = .23 | P = .10 | P = .48 |
| Cervical esophagus | −3 (−9 to 3) | −1 (−8 to 6) | −3 (−8 to 3) | −2 (−8 to 4) | −3 (−8 to 3) | −3 (−9 to 3) | −5 (−11 to 1) |
| Upper esophagus | 0 (−4 to 4) | 1 (−3 to 6) | 1 (−3 to 4) | 0 (−3 to 4) | 1 (−3 to 4) | −2 (−7 to 3) | −1 (−4 to 3) |
| Middle esophagus | 1 (−2 to 4) | 0 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 1 (−2 to 4) |
| Lower esophagus | −1 (−2 to 1) | 1 (−1 to 2) | −1 (−2 to 1) | −0 (−2 to 1) | −1 (−2 to 1) | −1 (−3 to 1) | −0 (−2 to 1) |
| Gastroesophageal junction | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Other | −3 (−6 to 0) | −2 (−5 to 1) | −3 (−6 to 1) | −3 (−6 to 0) | −3 (−6 to 1) | −4 (−8 to −1) | −2 (−5 to 1) |
| LHIN | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | |
| 01 | −6 (−10 to −2) | −6 (−10 to −3) | −6 (−10 to −3) | −6 (−10 to −3) | −5 (−9 to −2) | −6 (−9 to −2) | |
| 02 | −2 (−5 to 1) | −1 (−5 to 2) | −1 (−4 to 2) | −1 (−5 to 2) | 1 (−2 to 4) | −4 (−7 to −1) | |
| 03 | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−1 to 8) | 4 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 5 (1-9) | 1 (−3 to 5) | |
| 04 | −8 (−11 to −5) | −8 (−11 to −5) | −8 (−11 to 5) | −8 (−11 to −5) | −5 (−8 to −2) | −8 (−10 to −5) | |
| 05 | −2 (−7 to 2) | −2 (−7 to 2.0) | −2 (−7 to 2) | −2 (−7 to 2) | 1 (−3 to 5) | −2 (−6 to 3) | |
| 06 | 4 (0-8) | 4 (0-8) | 4 (1-8) | 4 (1-8) | 8 (4-12) | 4 (0-8) | |
| 07 | −2 (−6 to 1) | −2 (−6 to 1) | −2 (−6 to 1) | −2 (−5 to 1) | 1 (−2 to 5) | −4 (−7 to −0) | |
| 08 | −4 (−7 to −1) | −4 (−7 to 0) | −4 (−8 to −1) | −4 (−7 to −1) | −3 (−7 to 1) | −4 (−8 to −1) | |
| 09 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |
| 10 | 6 (1-11) | 6 (0-10) | 6 (1-11) | 6 (1-11) | 8 (4-13) | 5 (1-8) | |
| 11 | 3 (0-5) | 3 (−1 to 6) | 3 (0-6) | 3 (0-6) | 5 (2-9) | 1 (−2 to 4) | |
| 12 | −6 (−9 to −2) | −6 (−9 to −2) | −5 (−8 to −2) | −5 (−9 to −2) | −10 (−13 to −6) | −6 (−10 to −3) | |
| 13 | −8 (−12 to −5) | −8 (−12 to −5) | −8 (−11 to −4) | −8 (−11 to −4) | −4 (−8 to −1) | −8 (−11 to −5) | |
| 14 | 1 (−5 to 3) | −1 (−6 to 4) | −1 (−6 to 4) | −1 (−6 to 4) | 3 (−3 to 9) | −2 (−7 to 4) | |
| Treatment group# | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | |
| A | −16 (−19 to 14) | −18 (−20 to 15) | −16 (−18 to 14) | −16 (−19 to 13) | −16 (−18 to −13) | −12 (−15 to −10) | |
| B | 0 (−3 to 3) | 1 (−2 to 4) | 0 (−3 to 3) | 0 (−3 to 3) | 0 (−3 to 3) | 6 (3-9) | |
| C | −11 (−13 to −8) | −11 (−14 to −9) | −11 (−13 to −8) | −11 (−14 to −9) | −11 (−14 to −9) | −5 (−8 to −2) | |
| D | 15 (12-18) | 14 (11-17) | 15 (11-19) | 14 (11-18) | 15 (11-19) | 17 (13-20) | |
| E | −3 (−5 to −1) | −4 (−6 to −2) | −3 (−5 to −1) | −3 (−5 to −1) | −3 (−5 to −2) | 1 (−1 to 3) | |
| F | −2 (−7 to 3) | 0 (−5 to 6) | −2 (−7 to 3) | −2 (−7 to 3) | −2 (−6 to 2) | 1 (−5 to 6) | |
| G | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |
| H | −2 (−5 to 2) | −3 (−7 to 0) | −2 (−6 to 2) | −2 (−6 to 1) | −2 (−6 to 1) | 0 (−4 to 4) | |
| Stage | P < .0001 | ||||||
| I | 3 (−1 to 6) | ||||||
| II | Referent | ||||||
| III | −1 (−4 to 1) | ||||||
| IV | −12 (−15 to −10) | ||||||
| Unknown | −8 (−10 to −5) |
All values are difference (95% CI) in treatment interval length at the 50th percentile. SA, Sensitivity analyses; ADG, Aggregate Diagnosis Group; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network.
SA.1 = removal of LHIN.
SA.2 = removal of immigration.
SA.3 = removal of rurality.
SA.4 = removal of immigration and rurality.
SA.5 = removal of treatment group.
SA.6 = addition of stage.
Treatment group: A = endoscopy with or without subsequent treatment; B = chemotherapy only; C = radiotherapy only; D = surgery with or without subsequent treatment; E = chemotherapy and radiotherapy; F = chemotherapy or radiotherapy then surgery; G = chemotherapy and radiotherapy then surgery; and H = other.
Table E5.
Comparison of original model with SA
| Original model | SA.1∗ | SA.2† | SA.3‡ | SA.4§ | SA.5‖ | SA.6¶ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted intercept | 55 (45-65) | 61 (54-67) | 63 (54-72) | 64 (56-73) | 63 (55-72) | 68 (57-78) | 66 (57-75) |
| Age group, y | P = .03 | P = .09 | P = .05 | P = .01 | P = .03 | P = .0006 | P = .10 |
| 18-49 | −6 (−14 to 2) | −7 (−16 to 1) | −6 (−13 to 2) | −6 (−15 to 2) | −6 (−14 to 3) | −9 (−17 to −1) | −4 (−12 to 4) |
| 50-59 | 2 (−2 to 6) | 1 (−3 to 5) | 2 (−2 to 6) | 2 (−2 to 6) | 2 (−3 to 6) | 3 (−2 to 8) | 2 (−2 to 6) |
| 60-69 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 70-79 | 4 (0-7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 4 (0-8) | 5 (1-9) | 5 (1-9) | 7 (2-11) | 4 (1-8) |
| ≥80 | 6 (0-12) | 5 (−1 to 12) | 6 (0-13) | 7 (1-13) | 7 (1-13) | 7 (1-13) | 4 (−2 to 10) |
| Sex | P = 1.0 | P = .44 | P = .93 | P = .81 | P = 1.0 | P = .42 | P = .70 |
| Female | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Male | 0 (−4 to 4) | −2 (−5 to 2) | 0 (−4 to 4) | −1 (−4 to 3) | 0 (−4 to 3) | 0 (−4 to 3) | −1 (−4 to 3) |
| Sum of minor ADGs | P = .39 | P = .05 | P = .35 | P = .32 | P = .40 | P = .05 | P = .32 |
| 0-2 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 3-4 | 2 (−2 to 6) | 4 (−1 to 8) | 2 (−2 to 7) | 2 (−2 to 7) | 2 (−3 to 6) | 2 (−3 to 6) | 2 (−3 to 6) |
| 5-6 | 3 (−1 to 8) | 5 (0-9) | 3 (−1 to 8) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 4 (−1 to 9) | 3 (−1 to 7) |
| ≥7 | 4 (−1 to 9) | 7 (2-12) | 4 (−1 to 10) | 4 (−1 to 9) | 4 (−1 to 9) | 8 (2-15) | 5 (0-10) |
| Sum of Major ADGs | P = .003 | P = .01 | P = .002 | P = .002 | P = .005 | P = .03 | P = .003 |
| 0 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 1 | 4 (0-8) | 3 (−1 to 6) | 4 (0-8) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 3 (0-7) |
| 2 | 8 (3-13) | 8 (2-14) | 8 (3-13) | 7 (2-12) | 7 (2-13) | 8 (2-15) | 8 (3-13) |
| ≥3 | 11 (4-17) | 9 (3-15) | 10 (4-17) | 11 (5-17) | 10 (4-17) | 8 (0-16) | 9 (3-14) |
| Material deprivation | P = .005 | P = .01 | P = .003 | P = .02 | P = .02 | P = .20 | P = .04 |
| 1 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 2 | −3 (−8 to 2) | −2 (−7 to 3) | −3 (−8 to 2) | −2 (−8 to 3) | −2 (−7 to 3) | 0 (−6 to 7) | −3 (−7 to 2) |
| 3 | 2 (−4 to 7) | 2 (−3 to 7) | 2 (−3 to 6) | 1 (−4 to 6) | 2 (−3 to 6) | 2 (−4 to 7) | −1 (−5 to 4) |
| 4 | 1 (−4 to 6) | 3 (−2 to 9) | 1 (−4 to 6) | 2 (−4 to 7) | 2 (−3 to 7) | 2 (−5 to 8) | 1 (−5 to 6) |
| 5 | 6 (0-11) | 5 (0-9) | 6 (1-10) | 5 (1-10) | 6 (1-10) | 6 (0-12) | 5 (0-9) |
| Rurality | P = .04 | P = .15 | P = .04 | P = .14 | P = .05 | ||
| Urban | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||
| Rural | 6 (0-11) | 3 (−1 to 7) | 6 (0-12) | 5 (−2 to 13) | 5 (0-11) | ||
| Recent immigration | P = .78 | P = .45 | P = .61 | P = .39 | P = .91 | ||
| No | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||
| Yes | 1 (−6 to 8) | 2 (−4 to 8) | 2 (−6 to 10) | 4 (−5 to 12) | 0 (−6 to 7) | ||
| Histology | P = .23 | P = .82 | P = .21 | P = .16 | P = .26 | P = .02 | P = .21 |
| Adenocarcinoma | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | −4 (−9 to 1) | −1 (−6 to 3) | −4 (−9 to 0) | −4 (9 to 0) | −34 (−8 to 1) | −8 (−13 to −2) | −3 (−7 to 1) |
| Other | −2 (−8 to 5) | −1 (8 to 5) | −2 (−8 to 4) | −2 (−8 to 5) | −1 (−8 to 5) | −5 (−12 to 2) | −3 (−10 to 4) |
| Tumor site | P = .10 | P = .08 | P = .21 | P = .05 | P = .10 | P = .008 | P = .08 |
| Cervical esophagus | −10 (−23 to 4) | −10 (−23 to 3) | −10 (−24 to 5) | −9 (−23 to 5) | −11 (−24 to 3) | −10 (−26 to 6) | −5 (−17 to 7) |
| Upper esophagus | −3 (−15 to 18) | −4 (−22 to 13) | −3 (−16 to 10) | −5 (−17 to 8) | −4 (−17 to 8) | −3 (−20 to 14) | −5 (−18 to 8) |
| Middle esophagus | −1 (−9 to 6) | −2 (−8 to 4) | −1 (−8 to 6) | −1 (−7 to 5) | −1 (−8 to 6) | −7 (−13 to 0) | −3 (−9 to 3) |
| Lower esophagus | −4 (−8 to 0) | −5 (−8 to −1) | −4 (−7 to 0) | −4 (−7 to −1) | −4 (−7 to −1) | −7 (−11 to −3) | −4 (−7 to −1) |
| Gastroesophageal junction | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Other | 4 (−6 to 13) | 2 (−9 to 12) | 4 (−6 to 14) | 4 (−6 to 14) | 4 (−6 to 14) | 4 (−7 to 15) | 4 (−7 to 14) |
| LHIN | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | |
| 01 | −9 (−17 to 1) | −10 (−18 to 0) | −10 (−18 to −1) | −9 (−17 to −1) | −5 (−14 to 3) | −9 (−17 to −1) | |
| 02 | −2 (−11 to 6) | −3 (−11 to 5) | −2 (−10 to 6) | −2 (−9 to 5) | 5 (−4 to 14) | −2 (−9 to 6) | |
| 03 | −1 (−8 to 6) | −1 (9 to 7) | −1 (−9 to 7) | −1 (−8 to 6) | 6 (−2 to 14) | 1 (−5 to 8) | |
| 04 | −12 (−18 to −7) | −12 (−19 to −6) | −13 (−19 to −7) | −12 (−18 to −6) | −7 (−13 to 0) | −12 (−17 to −6) | |
| 05 | −1 (−10 to 9) | −0 (−10 to 10) | −1 (−11 to 9) | 0 (−9 to 9) | 2 (−10 to 13) | 1 (−8 to 11) | |
| 06 | 7 (−1 to 16) | 7 (−2 to 16) | 7 (−2 to 15) | 7 (−2 to 16) | 14 (2-26) | 5 (−4 to 13) | |
| 07 | −4 (−11 to 4) | −4 (−11 to 4) | −4 (−12 to 3) | −3 (−13 to 6) | 2 (−8 to 12) | −5 (−13 to 3) | |
| 08 | −3 (−10 to 4) | −2 (−10 to 6) | −4 (−13 to 4) | −2 (−10 to 6) | −1 (−11 to 9) | −3 (−11 to 4) | |
| 09 | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |
| 10 | −2 (−10 to 5) | −3 (−10 to 5) | −2 (−9 to 5) | −1 (−9 to 7) | 4 (−5 to 13) | −1 (−7 to 5) | |
| 11 | −1 (−9 to 7) | −1 (−9 to 6) | −2 (−9 to 6) | −1 (−8 to 7) | 8 (−1 to 17) | −0 (−7 to 6) | |
| 12 | −1 (−12 to 8) | −2 (−13 to 9) | −2 (−11 to 9) | −1 (−12 to 10) | −8 (−21 to 6) | −4 (−14 to 6) | |
| 13 | −12 (−18 to −6) | −12 (−19 to −5) | −12 (−18 to −5) | −11 (−18 to −4) | −7 (−15 to 1) | −11 (−18 to −5) | |
| 14 | −9 (−19 to 1) | −9 (−21 to 3) | −6 (−18 to 5) | −56 (−16 to 4) | 3 (−7 to 13) | −8 (−17 to 1) | |
| Treatment group# | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | P < .0001 | |
| A | −16 (−22 to −10) | −15 (−21 to −8) | −15 (−21 to −10) | −16 (−22 to −9) | −15 (−21 to −9) | −11 (−18 to −5) | |
| B | 21 (14-27) | 19 (13-26) | 21 (15-27) | 20 (13-27) | 20 (13-27) | 27 (21-33) | |
| C | 6 (0-13) | 5 (0-11) | 7 (1-12) | 6 (0-12) | 7 (0-13) | 11 (5-17) | |
| D | 37 (29-44) | 38 (30-46) | 37 (29-45) | 38 (30-46) | 38 (30-47) | 34 (27-42) | |
| E | 8 (4-12) | 7 (3-12) | 8 (4-12) | 8 (4-12) | 8 (4-12) | 11 (6-15) | |
| F | 0 (−9 to 9) | −3 (−12 to 6) | 0 (−8 to 9) | −0 (−9 to 9) | 0 (−9 to 9) | −2 (−8 to 5) | |
| G | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |
| H | −4 (−10 to 2) | −4 (−10 to 2) | −3 (−9 to 2) | −3 (−9 to 3) | −4 (−11 to 3) | −4 (−10 to 3) | |
| Stage | P < .0001 | ||||||
| I | 13 (4-22) | ||||||
| II | Referent | ||||||
| III | −4 (−8 to 1) | ||||||
| IV | −16 (−21 to −11) | ||||||
| Unknown | −1 (−5 to 3) |
All values are difference (95% CI) in treatment interval length at the 90th percentile. SA, Sensitivity analyses; ADG, Aggregate Diagnosis Group; LHIN, Local Health Integration Network.
SA.1 = removal of LHIN.
SA.2 = removal of immigration.
SA.3 = removal of rurality.
SA.4 = removal of immigration and rurality.
SA.5 = removal of treatment group.
SA.6 = addition of stage.
Treatment group: A = endoscopy with or without subsequent treatment; B = chemotherapy only; C = radiotherapy only; D = surgery with or without subsequent treatment; E = chemotherapy and radiotherapy; F = chemotherapy or radiotherapy then surgery; G = chemotherapy and radiotherapy then surgery; and H = other.
Table E6.
LHIN of residence at diagnosis
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 345 | 523 | 323 | 832 | 246 | 375 | 374 | 496 | 674 | 307 | 517 | 281 | 353 | 129 | 5775 | |
| Age, y | .04 | |||||||||||||||
| 18-49 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 40 | 18 | 28 | 32 | 24 | 26 | 11 | 21 | 14 | 16 | 6 | 296 | |
| 50-59 | 73 | 88 | 65 | 151 | 47 | 64 | 72 | 82 | 141 | 61 | 94 | 61 | 74 | 32 | 1105 | |
| 60-69 | 115 | 186 | 104 | 272 | 78 | 138 | 120 | 142 | 218 | 104 | 180 | 100 | 114 | 52 | 1923 | |
| 70-79 | 88 | 157 | 78 | 245 | 70 | 100 | 94 | 155 | 184 | 89 | 143 | 63 | 106 | 24 | 1596 | |
| ≥80 | 49 | 73 | 55 | 124 | 33 | 45 | 56 | 93 | 105 | 42 | 79 | 43 | 43 | 15 | 855 | |
| Sex | .02 | |||||||||||||||
| Female | 76 | 107 | 74 | 178 | 62 | 92 | 101 | 135 | 147 | 55 | 102 | 58 | 70 | 36 | 1293 | |
| Male | 269 | 416 | 249 | 654 | 184 | 283 | 273 | 361 | 527 | 252 | 415 | 223 | 283 | 93 | 4482 | |
| Minor ADGs | <.0001 | |||||||||||||||
| 0 | 18 | 34 | 22 | 48 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 24 | 44 | 19 | 24 | 17 | 25 | 8 | 338 | |
| 1-2 | 53 | 98 | 82 | 167 | 28 | 50 | 59 | 75 | 109 | 67 | 101 | 62 | 80 | 23 | 1054 | |
| 3-4 | 95 | 151 | 81 | 215 | 57 | 97 | 86 | 105 | 182 | 80 | 128 | 69 | 96 | 39 | 1481 | |
| 5-6 | 97 | 120 | 79 | 188 | 50 | 113 | 82 | 139 | 151 | 82 | 137 | 79 | 77 | 27 | 1421 | |
| ≥7 | 82 | 120 | 59 | 214 | 91 | 97 | 130 | 153 | 188 | 59 | 127 | 54 | 75 | 32 | 1481 | |
| Major ADGs | .21 | |||||||||||||||
| 0 | 125 | 204 | 136 | 296 | 79 | 147 | 129 | 158 | 219 | 112 | 203 | 98 | 140 | 51 | 2097 | |
| 1 | 101 | 157 | 100 | 253 | 74 | 121 | 110 | 158 | 225 | 97 | 154 | 95 | 111 | 43 | 1799 | |
| 2 | 69 | 91 | 54 | 149 | 54 | 67 | 72 | 98 | 126 | 54 | 80 | 53 | 65 | 16 | 1048 | |
| ≥3 | 50 | 71 | 33 | 134 | 39 | 40 | 63 | 82 | 104 | 44 | 80 | 35 | 37 | 19 | 831 | |
| Material deprivation | <.0001 | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 45 | 99 | 91 | 178 | 25 | 99 | 111 | 84 | 83 | 37 | 148 | 32 | 23 | 20 | 1075 | |
| 2 | 66 | 115 | 69 | 161 | 33 | 93 | 55 | 129 | 132 | 73 | 109 | 61 | 46 | 13 | 1155 | |
| 3 | 64 | 90 | 73 | 147 | 57 | 90 | 57 | 107 | 130 | 59 | 95 | 72 | 67 | 22 | 1130 | |
| 4 | 61 | 103 | 47 | 162 | 74 | 62 | 55 | 95 | 182 | 57 | 80 | 61 | 95 | 42 | 1176 | |
| 5 | 105 | 114 | 42 | 175 | 57 | 30 | 94 | 79 | 147 | 76 | 82 | 52 | 115 | 30 | 1198 |
Immigration and rurality removed because of small cell numbers. ADG, Aggregate Diagnosis Group.
References
- 1.Neal R.D., Tharmanathan P., France B., Din N.U., Cotton S., Fallon-Ferguson J., et al. Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):S92–S107. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hanna T.P., King W.D., Thibodeau S., Jalink M., Paulin G.A., Harvey-Jones E., et al. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;371:m4087. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Visser M.R., van Lanschot J.J., van der Velden J., Kloek J.J., Gouma D.J., Sprangers M.A. Quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients waiting for surgery is seriously impaired. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:571–577. doi: 10.1002/jso.20552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sundaresan S., Langer B., Oliver T., Schwartz F., Brouwers M., Stern H. Standards for thoracic surgical oncology in a single-payer healthcare system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:693–701. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.03.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Darling G.E. Regionalization in thoracic surgery: the importance of the team. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;161:323–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.06.138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Li X., Scarfe A., King K., Fenton D., Butts C., Winget M. Timeliness of cancer care from diagnosis to treatment: a comparison between patients with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:197–204. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Winget M., Turner D., Tonita J., King C., Nugent Z., Alvi R., et al. Across-province standardization and comparative analysis of time-to-care intervals for cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:186. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-7-186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Robles S.C., Marrett L.D., Clarke E.A., Risch H.A. An application of capture-recapture methods to the estimation of completeness of cancer registration. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:495–501. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90052-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Facts about LHINs. https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/system/services/lhin/facts.aspx
- 10.Cancer Care Ontario Esophageal cancer treatment pathway. 2021. https://www.cancercareontario.ca/sites/ccocancercare/files/assets/EsophagealTreatmentPathway-2019-05.pdf Accessed March 2021.
- 11.Hanna N.M., Williams E., Kong W., Fundytus A., Booth C.M., Patel S.V., et al. Incidence, timing, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for esophagogastric cancer: a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:4393–4404. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11520-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Matheson F.I., Dunn J.R., Smith K.L., Moineddin R., Glazier R.H. Development of the Canadian Marginalization Index: a new tool for the study of inequality. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(8 Suppl 2):S12–S16. doi: 10.1007/bf03403823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.van Ingen T., Matheson F.I. The 2011 and 2016 iterations of the Ontario Marginalization Index: updates, consistency and a cross-sectional study of health outcome associations. Can J Public Health. 2022;113:260–271. doi: 10.17269/s41997-021-00552-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Amin M.B., Edge S., Greene F., Byrd D.R., Brookland R.K., Washington M.K., et al. 8th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2017. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Habbous S., Yermakhanova O., Forster K., Holloway C.M.B., Darling G. Variation in diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of esophageal cancer in a regionalized care system in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2126090. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bardell T., Belliveau P., Kong W., Mackillop W.J. Waiting times for cancer surgery in Ontario: 1984-2000. Clin Oncol. 2006;18:401–409. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2006.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Raman V., Jawitz O.K., Voigt S.L., Yang C.J., Wang H., Harpoon D., et al. Effect of time to surgery on outcomes in stage I esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159:1626–1635.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.09.123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sundaresan S., McLeod R., Irish J., Burns J., Hunter A., Meertens E., et al. Early results after regionalization of thoracic surgical practice in a single-payer system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:472–479. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.DE Rosa M., Pasculli A., Rondelli F., Mariani L., Avenia S., Ceccarelli G., et al. Could diagnostic and therapeutic delay affect the prognosis of gastrointestinal primary malignancies in the COVID-19 pandemic era? Minerva Surg. 2021;76:467–476. doi: 10.23736/s2724-5691.21.08736-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gillis A., Dixon M., Smith A., Law C., Coburn N.G. A patient-centred approach toward surgical wait times for colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Can J Surg. 2014;57:94–100. doi: 10.1503/cjs.026512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kulkarni G.S., Urbach D.R., Austin P.C., Fleshner N.E., Laupacis A. Longer wait times increase overall mortality in patients with bladder cancer. J Urol. 2009;182:1318–1324. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Macleod U., Mitchell E.D., Burgess C., Macdonald S., Ramirez A.J. Risk factors for delayed presentation and referral of symptomatic cancer: evidence for common cancers. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl 2):S92–S101. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brenner D.R., Weir H.K., Demers A.A., Ellison L.F., Louzado C., Shaw A., et al. Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2020. CMAJ. 2020;192:E199–E205. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Forbes L.J.L., Warburton F., Richards M.A., Ramirez A.J. Risk factors for delay in symptomatic presentation: a survey of cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:581–588. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Grotenhuis B.A., van Hagen P., Wijnhoven B.P.L., Spaander M.C.W., Tilanus H.W., van Lanschot JJB Delay in diagnostic workup and treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:476–483. doi: 10.1007/s11605-009-1109-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kötz B.S., Croft S., Ferry D.R. Do delays between diagnosis and surgery in resectable oesophageal cancer affect survival? A study based on West Midlands cancer registration data. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:835–840. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Visser E., van Rossum P.S.N., Leeftink A.G., Siesling S., van Hillegersberg R., Ruurda J.P. Impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on survival in esophageal cancer patients – a population-based study in The Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:461–470. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wang J., Liu F., Gao H., Wei W., Zhang X., Liang Y., et al. The symptom-to-treatment delay and stage at the time of treatment in cancer of esophagus. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:87–91. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hym169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Plotogea A., Chiarelli A.M., Mirea L., Prummel M.V., Chong N., Shumak R.S., et al. Factors associated with wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway in Ontario. Springerplus. 2013;2:388. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Webber C., Whitehead M., Eisen A., Holloway C.M.B., Groome P.A. Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment wait times in specialized diagnostic units compared with usual care: a population-based study. Curr Oncol. 2020;27:e377–e385. doi: 10.3747/co.27.6115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Siemens D.R., Schulze K.M., Mackillop W.J., Brundage M.D., Groome P.A. A population-based study of the waiting times for prostatectomy in Ontario. Can J Urol. 2005;12:2568–2574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kwon J.S., Carey M.S., Cook E.F., Qiu F., Paszat L.F. Addressing wait times for endometrial cancer surgery in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29:982–987. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)32691-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.O'Leary E., Elit L., Pond G., Seow H. The wait time creep: changes in the surgical wait time for women with uterine cancer in Ontario, Canada, during 2000-2009. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bilimoria K.Y., Ko C.Y., Tomlinson J.S., Stewart A.K., Talamonti M.S., Hynes D.L., et al. Wait times for cancer surgery in the United States: trends and predictors of delays. Ann Surg. 2011;253:779–785. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318211cc0f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Khorana A.A., Tullio K., Elson P., Pennell N.A., Grobmyer S.R., Malady M.F., et al. Time to initial cancer treatment in the United States and association with survival over time: an observational study. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213209. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Akhtar-Danesh N., Shakeel S., Seow H., Akhtar-Danseh G.G., Finley C. Trends in survival based on treatment modality for esophageal cancer: a population-based study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31:1192–1199. doi: 10.1097/meg.0000000000001498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]