PURPOSE: The demand for cancer care has increased among aging North American populations as cancer treatment innovations have proliferated. Gaps between supply and demand may be growing. This study examined whether socioeconomic status has a differential effect on waits for surgical and adjuvant radiation treatment (RT) of breast cancer in Canada and the US. METHODS: Ontario and California cancer registries provided 929 and 984 breast cancer cases diagnosed between 1998 and 2000 in diverse urban and rural places. Residence-based socioeconomic data were taken from censuses. Cancer care variables were reliably abstracted from health records: stage, receipt of surgery and RT, and waits from diagnosis to initial and initial to adjuvant treatment. Median waits were compared within- and between-country with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test. Categorically long, age-adjusted wait comparisons used the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. RESULTS: There were significant associations between lower socioeconomic status and longer surgical waits, lower access to adjuvant RT and to longer RT waits across diverse places in California. None were observed in Ontario. The two cohorts did not practically differ on access to surgery or on surgical waits. Compared with their counterparts in California, low-income Ontarians, particularly those in small urban places, gained greater access to RT, while high-income Americans had shorter waits for RT. CONCLUSIONS: This historical study contextualized Canada's "waiting-list problems" with evidence on breast cancer care, where lower income Americans seemed to have waited as long as similar Canadians. Many more low-income Americans seemed to experience the longest wait of all for adjuvant care. They simply did not receive it. In contrast to stark American socioeconomic inequity, this study evidenced remarkable equity in Canadian breast cancer care.
PURPOSE: The demand for cancer care has increased among aging North American populations as cancer treatment innovations have proliferated. Gaps between supply and demand may be growing. This study examined whether socioeconomic status has a differential effect on waits for surgical and adjuvant radiation treatment (RT) of breast cancer in Canada and the US. METHODS: Ontario and California cancer registries provided 929 and 984 breast cancer cases diagnosed between 1998 and 2000 in diverse urban and rural places. Residence-based socioeconomic data were taken from censuses. Cancer care variables were reliably abstracted from health records: stage, receipt of surgery and RT, and waits from diagnosis to initial and initial to adjuvant treatment. Median waits were compared within- and between-country with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test. Categorically long, age-adjusted wait comparisons used the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. RESULTS: There were significant associations between lower socioeconomic status and longer surgical waits, lower access to adjuvant RT and to longer RT waits across diverse places in California. None were observed in Ontario. The two cohorts did not practically differ on access to surgery or on surgical waits. Compared with their counterparts in California, low-income Ontarians, particularly those in small urban places, gained greater access to RT, while high-income Americans had shorter waits for RT. CONCLUSIONS: This historical study contextualized Canada's "waiting-list problems" with evidence on breast cancer care, where lower income Americans seemed to have waited as long as similar Canadians. Many more low-income Americans seemed to experience the longest wait of all for adjuvant care. They simply did not receive it. In contrast to stark American socioeconomic inequity, this study evidenced remarkable equity in Canadian breast cancer care.
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; Mah-Jabeen Soobader; S V Subramanian; Rosa Carson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; John Adams; Lorna Kwan; Marianne Laouri; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karin Gwyn; Melissa L Bondy; Deborah S Cohen; Mary Jo Lund; Jonathan M Liff; Elaine W Flagg; Louise A Brinton; J William Eley; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S D Walter; S E Birnie; L D Marrett; S M Taylor; D Reynolds; J Davies; J J Drake; M Hayes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; David H Rehkopf; S V Subramanian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Karen Y Fung; Eric J Holowaty; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal; Madhan K Balagurusamy Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Karen Y Fung; Eric J Holowaty; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ali Johnson; Judy R Rees; Molly Schwenn; Bruce Riddle; Castine Verrill; Maria O Celaya; Dawn A Nicolaides; Sai Cherala; Melanie Feinberg; Ann Gray; Lisa Rutstein; Matthew S Katz; Johannes C Nunnink Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; Eric Ross; Yu-Ning Wong; Sameer A Patel; Marcia Boraas; Neal S Topham; Brian L Egleston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer Li; Sylvie D. Cornacchi; Forough Farrokhyar; Neil Johnston; Shawn Forbes; Susan Reid; Nicole Hodgson; Sarah Lovrics; Kristen Lucibello; Peter Lovrics Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 2.089