Cancer Surgery Wait Times Rose Across Six Tumor Types From 2012 to 2023

The median time from diagnosis to the start of first treatment lengthened for every one of six common cancers between 2012 and 2023, according to a retrospective study of 2,731,059 patients in the National Cancer Database. The analysis, published in JAMA Surgery, covered nonmetastatic stage I-III breast, colon, lung, pancreatic, gastric, and esophageal cancers treated with upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy.

The increases were statistically significant across the board. Breast cancer wait times rose from 34 to 45 days, colon from 20 to 31, lung from 41 to 53, pancreatic from 23 to 32, gastric from 35 to 49, and esophageal from 38 to 48. The share of patients waiting 60 days or more also increased for each cancer type.

Longer waits were not evenly distributed. After risk adjustment, the researchers found that Medicaid insurance, lowest-quartile income, Black race, longer travel distance, and treatment at academic institutions were among the factors associated with delays. The authors and a Stanford commentary in the same journal argued that timeliness has become a weak point as cancer care grows more centralized and multidisciplinary.

The study did not directly measure whether longer waits led to worse survival. But it pointed to existing literature linking delayed surgical care to higher mortality across several cancer types, which the authors said should frame how the findings are interpreted.

Advertisement

Where the Delays Concentrate: Academic Hubs, Geography, and Payer Status

Six Cancers, One Consistent Trend

The fact that diagnosis-to-first-treatment time rose for all six tumor types, with the trend statistically significant for every cancer, suggests a system-level pressure rather than a disease-specific bottleneck. The data do not explain the cause, but the authors and commentary emphasize the growing complexity, centralization, and multidisciplinary nature of cancer care.

Academic Centers and the Complexity Trade-Off

Treatment at academic institutions was associated with longer waits than at community hospitals for all six cancers, even after risk adjustment. The study could not measure why. The Stanford commentary offers one interpretation: specialization and regionalization can improve quality, but if capacity and scheduling coordination do not grow in parallel, they create queues. The West and Northeast also showed longer waits for all six cancers, and robotic surgery was linked to longer waits for non-breast malignancies.

Equity Gaps in the Queue

The delays were not evenly shared. Medicaid insurance predicted longer waits in five of six cancers, lowest-quartile income in all six, Black race in five of six, and greater travel distance in four of six. This suggests that patients with fewer resources may face both longer waits and additional geographic barriers, compounding disparities in timely cancer treatment.

The Survival Question the Database Cannot Answer

The National Cancer Database analysis did not link treatment delay to survival in this cohort. However, the authors contextualize the findings with prior studies: delayed surgical care has been associated with a 20% to 30% higher risk of 90-day and 5-year mortality in lung cancer, a 10% to 15% greater likelihood of mortality in breast cancer, a 15% increased relative risk of overall mortality in gastric cancer, and a nearly twofold greater mortality in locally advanced esophageal cancer. Those associations are not proof that the observed wait-time increases caused harm, but they raise the stakes for monitoring timeliness.

How Health Systems and Patients Can Respond to Longer Cancer Treatment Waits

For Health Systems

  • Track diagnosis-to-first-treatment time as a core quality metric alongside survival and procedural volume, because the study found rising waits in every cancer type even as cancer care became more centralized.
  • Compare academic-center scheduling with community hospital pathways; academic facilities had longer waits for all six cancers, so workflow bottlenecks may be addressable without sacrificing specialization.
  • Stratify wait-time data by payer, race, income, and travel distance. Medicaid, Black, and lowest-income patients were delayed in five to six of the six cancers, so aggregate averages can hide disparities.
  • Build referral and scheduling capacity to reduce geographic barriers, since greater travel distance predicted longer waits in four of six cancers.

For Patients and Caregivers

  • Ask the oncology team for an estimated time from diagnosis to first therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatment will change that timeline; for breast and colon cancer, neoadjuvant therapy was linked to longer waits, while for lung, gastric, and esophageal cancers it was linked to shorter waits.
  • If travel distance is large, ask whether a closer facility can safely manage the next step; the study found longer travel distance associated with longer waits.
  • Discuss whether the clinical urgency matches the wait. The study did not prove harm from these delays, but prior literature tied surgical delays to worse survival in several of these cancers.