4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Wait Times for Cancer Surgery in the United States: Trends and Predictors of Delays

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 253, 期 4, 页码 779-785

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318211cc0f

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients frequently voice concerns regarding wait times for cancer treatment; however, little is known about the length of wait times from diagnosis to surgery in the United States. Our objectives were (1) to assess changes in wait times over the past decade and (2) to identify patient, tumor, and hospital factors associated with prolonged wait times for initial cancer treatment. Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base (1995-2005), 1,228,071 patients were identified who underwent resection for nonmetastatic breast, colon, esophageal, gastric, liver, lung, pancreatic, and rectal cancer at 1443 hospitals. Multivariable models were developed to assess factors associated with time to treatment. Results: From 1995 to 2005, the median time from diagnosis to treatment increased for all cancers (P < 0.0001). The time from diagnosis to treatment was significantly longer at National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers and Veterans' Administration institutions versus community hospitals (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patients were significantly more likely to undergo initial treatment > 30 days from diagnosis if older (6 of 8 cancers), black (5 of 8 cancers), had more comorbidities (6 of 8 cancers), had Stage I disease (7 of 8 cancers), or were treated at National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers or Veterans' Affairs institutions (all cancers). Conclusions: Wait times for cancer treatment have increased over the last decade. As case loads increase, wait times for treatment are likely to continue increasing, potentially resulting in additional treatment delay. Additional resources and strategies are needed to reduce wait times for cancer treatment in the United States.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据