Access to Surgery for Endometrial Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endometrial cancer stage and surgical treatment in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This descriptive study identified cases from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 from endometrial cancer hysterectomy specimens in the Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, ePath system. Endometrial biopsy records from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2021 were matched to surgical specimens by provincial health card number. Time to surgery and surgical stage were compared before (2017-2019) and during (2020-2021) the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There were 10 446 women treated with hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in Ontario from 2017-2021. In April and May 2020, corresponding with the provincial state of emergency, there was a 56% relative reduction in endometrial biopsies. Despite this 2-month reduction in endometrial biopsy volume, there was no change in surgical volume for endometrial cancer treatment. The median time from endometrial biopsy to surgery was 56 days (IQR 40, 80) during the pandemic (2020-2021) compared to 58 days (IQR 43, 82) prior to the pandemic (2017-2019) (P < 0.001). There was no upstaging of endometrial cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The Ontario healthcare system continued to prioritize service delivery to endometrial cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the increase in virtual care and decrease in operating room time. There were no significant surgical delays or upstaging of endometrial cancer.

Cancer surgery cancellation: incidence, outcomes and recovery in a universal health care system.

BACKGROUND: Cancer surgery cancellation can have negative consequences for the patient, the surgeon and the health care system. There is a paucity of literature on cancer surgery cancellation and its association with wait times, perioperative outcomes, survival and costs of care. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the incidence of same-day cancer surgery cancellation in a universal health care context and its association with short and long-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cancer cohort study in Ontario, Canada (2010-2016). There were 199 599 patients in the control cohort and 3539 patients in the cohort that experienced a cancellation. We assessed the cohorts for differences in survival, perioperative complications and costs of care. RESULTS: The overall cancellation rate was 1.74% and was predicted by cancer type (genitourinary), lower income quintile, and more central region of residence. Wait times in the cancelled cohort were longer than in the control cohort; however, this difference was not associated with worse survival outcomes. Patients in the cancelled cohort had higher complication rates while in hospital (7.3 %) than those in the control cohort (4.9%; p < 0.01). After adjusting for important confounders, the cancelled cohort was more costly ($1100). CONCLUSION: Same-day cancer surgery cancellation rates were low. They were associated with longer wait times, higher complication rates and increased costs of care. Survival was not worse in the cancelled cohort, suggesting that appropriate cancer urgency prioritization occurs. Preventable causes of cancellation should be targeted to improve outcomes in patients with cancer.

Choreographed expansion of services results in decreased patient burden without compromise of outcomes: An assessment of the Ontario experience.

Background: Neuro-oncology care in Ontario, Canada has been historically centralized, at times requiring significant travel on the part of patients. Toward observing the goal of patient-centered care and reducing patient burden, 2 additional regional cancer centres (RCC) capable of neuro-oncology care delivery were introduced in 2016. This study evaluates the impact of increased regionalization of neuro-oncology services, from 11 to 13 oncology centers, on healthcare utilization and travel burden for glioblastoma (GBM) patients in Ontario. Methods: We present a cohort of GBM patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Incidence of GBM and treatment modalities were identified using provincial health administrative databases. A geographic information system and spatial analysis were used to estimate travel time from patient residences to neuro-oncology RCCs. Results: Among the 5242 GBM patients, 79% received radiation as part of treatment. Median travel time to the closest RCC was higher for patients who did not receive radiation as part of treatment than for patients who did (P = .03). After 2016, the volume of patients receiving radiation at their local RCC increased from 62% to 69% and the median travel time to treatment RCCs decreased (P = .0072). The 2 new RCCs treated 35% and 41% of patients within their respective catchment areas. Receipt of standard of care, surgery, and chemoradiation (CRT), increased by 11%. Conclusions: Regionalization resulted in changes in the healthcare utilization patterns in Ontario consistent with decreased patient travel burden for patients with GBM. Focused regionalization did not come at the cost of decreased quality of care, as determined by the delivery of a standard of care.

Variation in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome of Esophageal Cancer in a Regionalized Care System in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Esophageal cancer remains one of the most deadly cancers, ranking sixth highest among cancers leading to the greatest years of life lost. Objective: To determine how patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed and treated in Ontario's regionalized thoracic surgery centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry, in a single-payer health care system with regionalization of thoracic surgery in the province of Ontario, Canada. Exposures: Exposures included incidence of esophageal cancer and stage at diagnosis; time from the first health care visit until treatment; and the use of specialist consultations, endoscopic ultrasonography, positron emission tomography and computed tomography, endomucosal resection, esophagectomy, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, radiation alone, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures included wait times, health care use, treatment, and overall survival. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to February 2021. Results: There were 10 364 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.9] years; 7876 men [76%]) identified during the study period. The incidence of esophageal cancer increased over the study period from 1041 in 2010 to 1309 in 2018, which was driven by a 30% increase in the number of adenocarcinomas. The time from first health care encounter to start of treatment was a median 93 days (interquartile range, 56-159 days). Endoscopic ultrasonography was observed for 12% of patients, and positron emission tomography and computed tomography (CT) in 45%. Use of endoscopic mucosal resection was observed for 8% of patients with stage 0 to I disease. A total of 114 of 547 patients (21%) receiving endoscopic resection had a subsequent esophagectomy. Only 2778 patients (27%) had consultations with a thoracic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiation oncologist, whereas 1514 patients (15%) did not see any of these specialists. Of 3047 patients who had an esophagectomy, those receiving neoadjuvant therapy had better overall survival (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-39 months) than patients who received esophagectomy alone (median survival, 27 months; 95% CI, 24-30 months) or those who received esophagectomy with adjuvant therapy (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-44 months) despite significant early mortality (log-rank P < .001). There was significant variation in treatment modality across hospitals: esophagectomy ranged from 5% to 39%; esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy ranged from 33% to 93%; and esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy ranged from 0 to 34% (P < .001). Perioperative mortality was higher at 30 days for patients receiving esophagectomy at low-volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 2.01-6.66) and medium-volume centers (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.33-3.23) compared with high-volume centers (P < .001). A longer wait time until treatment was associated with better overall survival (median overall survival was 15 to 17 days vs 5 to 8 days for patients who received treatment earlier than 30 days vs 30 days or longer after diagnosis; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that despite regionalization, there was significant regional variability in volumes at designated centers and in the evaluation and treatment course for patients with esophageal cancer across Ontario.