Timeliness of Care and Lung Cancer Tumor-Stage Progression: How Long Can We Wait?

Multilevel factors associated with delays in screening, diagnosis, and treatment for lung cancer-A mixed methods systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Factors affecting time to lung cancer care may occur at multiple levels of influence. Mixed-methods reviews provide an approach for collectively synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative data. Prior reviews on timeliness of lung cancer care have included only either quantitative or qualitative data, been agnostic of the multilevel nature of influencing factors, or focused on a single factor such as gender or socioeconomic inequalities.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to update the literature on systematic reviews and identify multilevel factors associated with delays in lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

DESIGN

The proposed systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis specific for mixed methods systematic reviews. Reporting will be consistent with PRISMA guidelines.

METHODS

Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, and SCOPUS will be searched using validated search terms for lung cancer and factors, health disparities and time/delay. Eligible studies will include original articles with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs that investigate health disparities in, risk factors for, or barriers to timely screening, confirmatory diagnosis, or treatment among patients with lung cancer or those at risk for lung cancer. Title, abstract, and full-text screening, study quality assessment, and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers. A convergent integrated approach with thematic synthesis will be applied to synthesize the extracted and generated analytical themes.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this review will inform the design of an intervention to address delays in lung cancer screening for high-risk persons, diagnosis of suspected lung cancer, and treatment of confirmed cases.

Timeliness of surgery for early-stage lung cancer: Patient factors and predictors

Objectives

Time-to-treatment initiation is an important consideration for patients undergoing thoracic surgery for early-stage lung cancer because delays have the potential to adversely affect outcomes. This study seeks to quantify time-to-treatment initiation for patients with clinical stage I lung cancer, explore patient factors and predictors that lead to an increased time-to-treatment initiation, and compare surgeon perception of appropriate time-to-treatment initiation to the results.

Methods

Time-to-treatment initiation was determined for patients enrolled in the Mount Sinai Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment study who underwent surgical resection for clinical stage I lung cancer between March 2016 and December 2021. The following dates were determined: (1) date of first suspicious radiologic imaging, (2) date of first biopsy, and (3) date of surgery. A total of 15 thoracic surgeons who participated in the Mount Sinai Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment were assessed on their perception on time-to-treatment initiation.

Results

For 638 patients, median time from first suspicious imaging findings to biopsy was 40 days, biopsy to surgery was 37 days, and suspicious imaging to surgery was 84 days. Significant factors that resulted in longer time-to-treatment initiation in the multivariate analysis were African American or Black race (P = .005), vascular disease (P = .01), and median household income less than $75,000 (P = .04). Although the surgeon's perception was that the average time from biopsy to surgery was 28 days, it was longer for 63.5% of participants; surgeon perception of maximum time between diagnosis and surgery was 84 days and longer for 28.7% of participants.

Conclusions

Patient factors such as race, income, and comorbidities were found to have differences in time-to-treatment initiation. Delays to surgery exceeded the expectations of thoracic surgeons.

The Effect of Pandemic on Lung Cancer Waiting Time - Tertiary Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer are crucial to improve the survival and the outcomes in patients who are diagnosed with lung cancer. Many factors can affect the waiting time for lung cancer treatment, however, the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was one of the major factors that universally slowed down clinical activities in the last three years. We are aiming with this study to demonstrate how this pandemic and other factors affected the lung cancer waiting times for diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study including 670 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer within the NHS Lothian region of Edinburgh - Scotland between March 2019 and November 2023. One hundred patients underwent curative lung resection. Patients were categorised into three groups for sub analysis. The first group included patients diagnosed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the second group included patients diagnosed during the pandemic in 2020, and the third group represents those diagnosed after the mass vaccination program was established and until November 2023.

RESULTS

The average waiting time between the referral from the GP to the date of surgery in the three groups was 88.5 days, 81 days, and 83.5 days, respectively. On the other hand, the waiting times elapsing between the first surgical clinic appointment and the date of the surgery itself were 17.6 days, 18.6 days, and 21.5 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Unexpectedly waiting times elapsing between the referral to surgery and the date of surgery amongst lung cancer patients showed improvement during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is likely due to prioritizing cancer patients. Nevertheless, actions should be considered to decrease the waiting times in general.

'Don't freak out if you get a letter saying cancer patient pathways!': Communication work between different demands in cancer care

This article explores healthcare professionals' experiences of their work with patient communication in standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs). The theoretical and methodological framework for this study is institutional ethnography. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 72 healthcare professionals, including general practitioners, specialist physicians and other hospital staff, in five Norwegian hospitals. The study reveals four aspects of communication work that illuminate how the CPP policy mediates the way healthcare professionals interact with patients through communicating continuity, communicating (by dodging) the dreaded C-word, communicating patient participation, and communicating the relevance of time. Healthcare professionals' balancing of their different experiential realities run as a common thread through the four aspects of communication work identified in this study. The CPP policy, with its explicit focus on transparency, speed, and time frames creates challenges in an already delicate situation.

Time between imaging and surgery is not a risk factor for upstaging of clinical stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

The timing of preoperative imaging in patients with lung cancer is a debated topic, as there are limited data on cancer progression during the interval between clinical staging by imaging and pathological staging after resection. We quantified disease progression during this interval in patients with early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to better understand if its length impacts upstaging.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database to identify patients who underwent surgery for clinically staged T1N0M0 NSCLC from January 2015 through September 2022. Tumour upstaging between chest computed tomography (CT) and surgery were analysed as a function of time (<30, 30-59, ≥60 days) for different nodule subtypes. We analysed data across 3 timeframes using Pearson's chi-squared and analysis of variance tests.

RESULTS

During the study period, 622 patients underwent surgery for clinically staged T1N0M0 NSCLC. CT-to-surgery interval was <30 days in 228 (36.7%), 30-59 days in 242 (38.9%) and ≥60 days in 152 (24.4%) with no differences in patient or nodule characteristics observed between these groups. T-stage increased in 346 patients (55.6%) between CT imaging and surgery. Among these patients, 126 (36.4%) had ground-glass nodules, 147 (42.5%) had part-solid nodules and 73 (21.1%) had solid nodules. CT-to-surgery interval length was not associated with upstaging of any nodule subtype (full-cohort, P = 0.903; ground-glass, P = 0.880; part-solid, P = 0.858; solid, P = 0.959).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-centre experience suggests no significant association between tumour upstaging and time from imaging to lung resection in patients with clinical stage IA NSCLC. Further studies are needed to better understand the risk factors for upstaging.

Does waiting for surgery matter? How time from diagnostic MRI to resection affects outcomes in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

OBJECTIVE

Maximal safe resection is the standard of care for patients presenting with lesions concerning for glioblastoma (GBM) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently, there is no consensus on surgical urgency for patients with an excellent performance status, which complicates patient counseling and may increase patient anxiety. This study aims to assess the impact of time to surgery (TTS) on clinical and survival outcomes in patients with GBM.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 145 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed IDH-wild-type GBM who underwent initial resection at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2014 and 2016. Patients were grouped according to the time from diagnostic MRI to surgery (i.e., TTS): ≤ 7, > 7-21, and > 21 days. Contrast-enhancing tumor volumes (CETVs) were measured using software. Initial CETV (CETV1) and preoperative CETV (CETV2) were used to evaluate tumor growth represented as percent change (ΔCETV) and specific growth rate (SPGR; % growth/day). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the date of resection and were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 145 patients (median TTS 10 days), 56 (39%), 53 (37%), and 36 (25%) underwent surgery ≤ 7, > 7-21, and > 21 days from initial imaging, respectively. Median OS and PFS among the study cohort were 15.5 and 10.3 months, respectively, and did not differ among the TTS groups (p = 0.81 and 0.17, respectively). Median CETV1 was 35.9, 15.7, and 10.2 cm3 across the TTS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Preoperative biopsy and presenting to an outside hospital emergency department were associated with an average 12.79-day increase and 9.09-day decrease in TTS, respectively. Distance from the treating facility (median 57.19 miles) did not affect TTS. In the growth cohort, TTS was associated with an average 2.21% increase in ΔCETV per day; however, there was no effect of TTS on SPGR, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), postoperative deficits, survival, discharge location, or hospital length of stay. Subgroup analyses did not identify any high-risk groups for which a shorter TTS may be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

An increased TTS for patients with imaging concerning for GBM did not impact clinical outcomes, and while there was a significant association with ΔCETV, SPGR remained unaffected. However, SPGR was associated with a worse preoperative KPS, which highlights the importance of tumor growth speed over TTS. Therefore, while it is ill advised to wait an unnecessarily long time after initial imaging studies, these patients do not require urgent/emergency surgery and can seek tertiary care opinions and/or arrange for additional preoperative support/resources. Future studies are needed to explore subgroups for whom TTS may impact clinical outcomes.

The Effect of Timeliness of Care on Lung Cancer Survival - A Population-Based Approach

Background

Timeliness of care is an important dimension of healthcare quality but it's unclear whether it improves clinical outcomes in lung cancer (LC) patients.

Objectives

This study aims to analyze treatment patterns, time-to-treatment (TTT) and the impact of treatment timeliness (TT) in overall survival (OS) of patients diagnosed with LC in 2009-2014 in a population-based registry from Southern Portugal.

Materials and Methods

We estimated median TTT for overall population, treatment type and stage. The impact of treatment and TT on five-year OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression modelling to determine the hazard ratio (HR) of death associated with treatment and TT.

Results

From the 11,308 cases diagnosed, 61.7% received treatment. Treatment rate decreased with increasing stage from 88% in stage I to 66.1% in stage IV. Overall median TTT was 49 days (IQR: 28-88) and 43.3% received TT. Surgery had a longer TTT than radiotherapy and systemic treatment. Patients in earlier stages had lower TT rates and longer TTT compared to more advanced, 24.7% and 80 days in stage I versus 51.3% and 42 days in stage IV (p < 0.0001). OS was 14.9% for total population and 19.6% and 7.1% for patients with and without treatment registered, respectively. TT had no observed impact on OS for stages I/II but a negative effect for stages III/IV. Relative to treated, the adjusted mortality risk was higher in untreated patients (HR = 2.240; 95%CI: 2.293-2.553). Contrary to treatment, TT had a negative impact on survival, with 11.3% in timely vs. 21.5% in untimely treated. Compared to untimely treated, the risk of death in TT patients was 46.6% higher (HR = 1.465; 95%CI: 1.381-1.555).

Conclusions

LC survival is highly dependent on early diagnosis and adequate treatment. Time-to-treatment was longer than recommended for all treatment types but particularly for surgery. Overall TT results were paradoxical, as better survival was observed in patients untimely treated. The factors associated with TT were not possible to analyze and its impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. However, it is important to assess quality-of-care to improved LC management.

Clinical and chest radiographic features of missed lung cancer and their association with patient outcomes

PURPOSE

To examine clinical and chest radiographic features of missed lung cancer (MLC) and explore their association with patient outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed chest radiographs obtained at least six months before lung cancer (LC) diagnosis in 95 patients to identify the first positive chest radiograph showing MLC. We assessed chest radiographic features of MLC and their association with patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-five (78.9%) patients (39 men, 36 women; mean age, 64.5 ± 10.5 years) had MLC. The median diagnostic delay was 31.3 months (6.6-128.0 months). The median MLC size was 16 mm (5-57 mm), and 54.7%, 68.0%, and 74.7% of MLC were in the left lung, the middle/lower zones, and the outer two-thirds of the lung, respectively. MLC exhibited a round/oval shape, partly/poorly defined margin, irregular/spiculated border, a density less than the aortic knob, and anatomical superimposition in 57.3%, 77.3%, 61.3%, 85.3%, and 88.0% of cases, respectively. Thirty-five (46.7%) patients had stage III + IV LC at diagnosis. Thirty-one (41.3%) patients died. MLC in the inner one-third of the lung, exhibiting a density equal to/greater than the aortic knob, or superimposed by midline structures was significantly associated with stage III + IV LC at diagnosis. The 3-year all-cause mortality significantly increased when MLC was in the upper zone, superimposed by pulmonary vessels, superimposed by pulmonary vessels plus ribs, or superimposed by pulmonary vessels plus in the inner one-third of the lung.

CONCLUSION

MLC with some radiographic features pertaining to their location, density, and superimposed structures was found to portend a worse outcome.

How Much Delay Matters? How Time to Treatment Impacts Overall Survival in Early Stage Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify drivers of time from diagnosis to treatment (TTT) of surgically resected early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and determine the effect of TTT on post-resection survival.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Large database studies that lack relevant comorbidity data have identified longer TTT asa driver of worse overall survival.

METHODS

From January 1, 2014 to April 1, 2018, 599 patients underwent lung resection for clinical stage I and II NSCLC. Random forest classification, regression, and survival were used to estimate likelihood of TTT = 0 (tissue diagnosis obtained at surgery), >0 (diagnosis obtained pre-resection), and effect of TTT on all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Patients with TTT > 0 (n = 413) had median TTT of 42 days (25-75 th percentile: 27-59 days). Patients with TTT = 0 (n = 186) had smaller tumors and higher percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 %). Patients with history of stroke, oncology consultation, invasive mediastinal staging, low and high extremes of FEV 1 % had longer TTT. Higher clinical stage, lack of preoperative stress test, anemia, older age, lower FEV1% and diffusion lung capacity, larger tumor size, and longer TTT were the most important predictors of all-cause mortality. One- and 5-year overall survival decreased when TTT was >50 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative physiologic workup and multidisciplinary evaluation were the predominant drivers of longer TTT. Patients with TTT = 0have more favorable presentation and should be considered in TTT analyses for early stage lung cancer populations. The time needed to clinically stage and optimize patients for resection is not deleterious to overall survival until resection is performed after 50 days from diagnosis.

Defining timeliness in care for patients with lung cancer: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Early diagnosis and reducing the time taken to achieve each step of lung cancer care is essential. This scoping review aimed to examine time points and intervals used to measure timeliness and to critically assess how they are defined by existing studies of the care seeking pathway for lung cancer.

METHODS

This scoping review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1999 and 2019. After duplicate removal, all publications went through title and abstract screening followed by full text review and inclusion of articles in the review against the selection criteria. A narrative synthesis describes the time points, intervals and measurement guidelines used by the included articles.

RESULTS

A total of 2113 articles were identified from the initial search. Finally, 68 articles were included for data charting process. Eight time points and 14 intervals were identified as the most common events researched by the articles. Eighteen different lung cancer care guidelines were used to benchmark intervals in the included articles; all were developed in Western countries. The British Thoracic Society guideline was the most frequently used guideline (20%). Western guidelines were used by the studies in Asian countries despite differences in the health system structure.

CONCLUSION

This review identified substantial variations in definitions of some of the intervals used to describe timeliness of care for lung cancer. The differences in healthcare delivery systems of Asian and Western countries, and between high-income countries and low-income-middle-income countries may suggest different sets of time points and intervals need to be developed.

Integrated Biomarkers for the Management of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules

Rationale: Patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) at risk of cancer undergo high rates of invasive, costly, and morbid procedures. Objectives: To train and externally validate a risk prediction model that combined clinical, blood, and imaging biomarkers to improve the noninvasive management of IPNs. Methods: In this prospectively collected, retrospective blinded evaluation study, probability of cancer was calculated for 456 patient nodules using the Mayo Clinic model, and patients were categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. A combined biomarker model (CBM) including clinical variables, serum high sensitivity CYFRA 21-1 level, and a radiomic signature was trained in cohort 1 (n = 170) and validated in cohorts 2-4 (total n = 286). All patients were pooled to recalibrate the model for clinical implementation. The clinical utility of the CBM compared with current clinical care was evaluated in 2 cohorts. Measurements and Main Results: The CBM provided improved diagnostic accuracy over the Mayo Clinic model with an improvement in area under the curve of 0.124 (95% bootstrap confidence interval, 0.091-0.156; P < 2 × 10-16). Applying 10% and 70% risk thresholds resulted in a bias-corrected clinical reclassification index for cases and control subjects of 0.15 and 0.12, respectively. A clinical utility analysis of patient medical records estimated that a CBM-guided strategy would have reduced invasive procedures from 62.9% to 50.6% in the intermediate-risk benign population and shortened the median time to diagnosis of cancer from 60 to 21 days in intermediate-risk cancers. Conclusions: Integration of clinical, blood, and image biomarkers improves noninvasive diagnosis of patients with IPNs, potentially reducing the rate of unnecessary invasive procedures while shortening the time to diagnosis.

[Resection of Lung Cancer in Old Patients - Does Demographic Change Cause a Rethink?]

Due to the demographic change prevailing in Germany, the age pyramid is shifting more and more upwards. According to the WHO, a patient over the age of 75 is considered to be old. Whether or not and to what extent an old patient can tolerate thoracic surgery purely based on his age and comorbidities remains unclear. Under most circumstances the surgeon's experience seems to be crucial in this decision. PATIENTS AND METHODS:  The data analysis included data from 01. 2016-01. 2018 based on the German Thorax Register (Project ID: 2017-03), which was set up under the patronage of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the German Society for Thoracic Surgery (DGT). A total of 1357 patients were included, 658 patients had histologically proven lung cancer stage I-II. These were divided into three groups according to their age; group I (< 65 years), group II (65- ≤ 75) years and group III (> 75 years). We were able to show that group III had essentially no increased postoperative complication rates (all = 48.00 %; group I = 40.90 %; group II = 53.00 %; group III = 52.90 %) and even performed better than group II (65 to ≤ 75) regarding pulmonary complications. (postoperative pneumonia group II = 19.20 %, group III = 12.90 %) The mortality was lowest in patients who were operated on in centers of the German Thorax Register (all = 1.70 %, group I = 1.90 %; group II = 1.70 %; group III = 1.30 %), compared to national german average. (all = 1.99 %; group I = 1.23 %; group II = 2.18 %; group III = 3.78 %) In particular, patients of group III showed the greatest difference. Furthermore, we saw that the majority of anatomical resections performed in centers of the German Thorax Register were resected by VATS (Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery) as opposed to patients operated on in hospitals not affiliated with the German Thorax Register. DISCUSSION:  Considering these results, the question arises whether in Germany all old patients were treated according to current guidelines. Although there is a certain selection bias in group III, operative candidates fit for surgery are operated in the centers of the German Thorax Register. Our results permit us to conclude that this group of patients should be given optimal surgical therapy when indicated. Age alone should not be the sole determining factor in decision-making regarding thoracic surgery.

Diagnosis-to-surgery interval and survival for different histologies of stage I-IIA lung cancer

Background

Guidelines on timeliness of lung cancer surgery are inconsistent. Lung cancer histologic subtypes have different prognosis and treatment. It is important to understand the consequences of delayed surgery for each lung cancer histologic subtype. This study aimed to examine the association between diagnosis-to-surgery time interval and survival for early stage lung cancer and selected histologic subtypes.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with stage I–IIA lung cancer between 2004 and 2015 receiving definitive surgery and being followed up until Dec. 31, 2018, were identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Histologic subtypes included adenocarcinoma, squamous or epidermoid carcinoma, bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, carcinoid carcinoma, and small cell carcinoma. Diagnosis-to-surgery interval was treated as multi-categorical variables (<1, 1–2, 2–3, and ≥3 months) and binary variables (≥1 vs. <1 month, ≥2 vs. <2 months, and ≥3 vs. <3 months). Outcomes included cancer-specific and overall survival. Covariates included age at diagnosis, sex, race, marital status, tumor size, grade, surgery type, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and study period. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to examine the survival differences.

Results

With a median follow-up time of 51 months, a total of 40,612 patients were analyzed, including 40.1% adenocarcinoma and 24.5% squamous or epidermoid carcinoma. The proportion of patients receiving surgery <1, 1–2, 2–3, and ≥3 months from diagnosis were 34.2%, 33.9%, 19.8%, and 12.1%, respectively. Delayed surgery was associated with worse cancer-specific and overall survival for all lung cancers, adenocarcinoma, squamous or epidermoid, bronchioloalveolar, and large cell carcinoma (20–40% increased risk). Dose-dependent effects (longer delay, worse survival) were observed in all lung cancers, adenocarcinoma, and squamous and epidermoid carcinoma. No significant association between surgery delay and survival was observed in adenosquamous, carcinoid, and small cell carcinoma.

Conclusions

Our findings support the guidelines of undertaking surgery within 1 month from diagnosis in patients with stage I–IIA lung cancer. The observed dose-dependent effects emphasize the clinical importance of early surgery. Future studies with larger sample size of less frequent histologic subtypes are warranted to provide more evidence for histology-specific lung cancer treatment guidelines.

Surgical perspective on neoadjuvant immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

With a 5% improvement in 5-year overall survival achieved with current neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, new treatments for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are urgently needed. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is established in metastatic NSCLC and is being evaluated in resectable NSCLC.

METHODS

Publications and conference databases and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for reports on clinical studies of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with early resectable NSCLC.

RESULTS

Potential advantages of neoadjuvant ICI include earlier treatment of micrometastatic disease; activation of a broader, potentially durable immune response by the whole tumor and associated lymph nodes; and pathologic assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response, which may guide adjuvant therapy. Surgical considerations include delays to surgery, potential disease progression preventing curative resection, and perioperative morbidity and mortality. Surrogate endpoints of efficacy (pathologic complete response, major pathologic response) and biomarkers predictive of outcome (programmed death ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden and circulating tumor DNA) can accelerate clinical trial completion and early-stage treatment development; their application in neoadjuvant ICI studies in NSCLC is reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant ICI alone or with chemotherapy showed encouraging safety and efficacy in patients with resectable NSCLC, warranting the ongoing phase 3 studies of neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. Preoperative and intraoperative unresectability following neoadjuvant ICI appear comparable to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To help thoracic surgeons and medical oncologists to distinguish amongst ICI beyond efficacy as phase 3 data emerge, surgery-related endpoints for perioperative morbidity, mortality, and complexity should be defined, standardized, incorporated into trial designs, and reported.

Associations Between Time to Treatment Start and Survival in Patients With Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Time-to-treatment is defined as a quality indicator for cancer care but is not well documented. We investigated whether meeting Norwegian timeframes of 35/42 days from referral until start of chemotherapy or surgery/radiotherapy for lung cancer was associated with survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of 439 lung cancer patients at a regional cancer center were reviewed and categorized according to treatment: (i) surgery; ii) radical radiotherapy; iii) stereotactic radiotherapy; iv) palliative treatment, no cancer symptoms; v) palliative treatment with severe cancer symptoms).

RESULTS

Proportions receiving timely treatment varied significantly at 39%, 48%, 10%, 44% and 89%, respectively (p<0.001). Overall, those starting treatment on time had the shortest median overall survival (10.6 vs. 22.6 months; p<0.001). This was also the case for palliative (5.3 vs. 11.4 months) (p<0.001) but not for curative treatment (not reached vs. 38.3 months) (p=0.038).

CONCLUSION

Timely treatment is not necessarily associated with improved survival.

Is time-to-treatment associated with higher mortality in Korean elderly lung cancer patients?

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in many countries, including South Korea. As treatment delays after diagnosis may correlate with survival, this study aimed to investigate the association between time-to-treatment and one-and five-year overall mortality in patients aged 60 years or above. Survival analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model were conducted after controlling for all independent variables. Of a total of 1,535 individuals who received surgical treatment due to lung cancer, 837 patients received treatment within 30 days and 698 after 30 days of initial diagnosis. Individuals who received surgical treatment after 30 days of diagnosis were more likely to die within 1-year (Hazard Ratio, HR: 1.15, 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 1.01-1.32) and 5-year (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.02-1.33) compared to those who received treatment within 30 days. The increase in mortality risk with time delay persisted when applying other cut-off times, including standards at 2, 3, and 6 months. We also found that the mortality rate of lung cancer patients differs depending on age (74 years or younger), household income (<80 percentile), patient severity, and the residing region. Our findings show that time delay is an important factor that can influence the outcome of lung cancer patients, highlighting the importance of monitoring and providing appropriate and timely treatment.

Racial Disparity and Social Determinants in Receiving Timely Surgery Among Stage I-IIIA Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in a U.S. Southern State

Delayed surgery is associated with worse lung cancer outcomes. Social determinants can influence health disparities. This study aimed to examine the potential racial disparity and the effects from social determinants on receipt of timely surgery among lung cancer patients in Louisiana, a southern state in the U.S. White and black stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer patients diagnosed in Louisiana between 2004 and 2016, receiving surgical lobectomy or a more extensive surgery, were selected. Diagnosis-to-surgery interval >6 weeks were considered as delayed surgery. Social determinants included marital status, insurance, census tract level poverty, and census tract level urbanicity. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized multiple mediation analysis were conducted. A total of 3,616 white (78.9%) and black (21.1%) patients were identified. The median time interval from diagnosis to surgery was 27 days in whites and 42 days in blacks (P < 0.0001). About 28.7% of white and 48.4% of black patients received delayed surgery (P < 0.0001). Black patients had almost two-fold odds of receiving delayed surgery than white patients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.59-2.30). Social determinants explained about 26% of the racial disparity in receiving delayed surgery. Having social support, private insurance, and living in census tracts with lower poverty level were associated with improved access to timely surgery. The census tract level poverty level a stronger effect on delayed surgery in black patients than in white patients. Tailored interventions to improve the timely treatment in NSCLC patients, especially black patients, are needed in the future.

Understanding the patient journey to diagnosis of lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

This research describes the clinical pathway and characteristics of two cohorts of patients. The first cohort consists of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer while the second consists of patients with a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) and no evidence of lung cancer. Linked data from an electronic medical record and the Louisiana Tumor Registry were used in this investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

REACHnet is one of 9 clinical research networks (CRNs) in PCORnet®, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network and includes electronic health records for over 8 million patients from multiple partner health systems. Data from Ochsner Health System and Tulane Medical Center were linked to Louisiana Tumor Registry (LTR), a statewide population-based cancer registry, for analysis of patient's clinical pathways between July 2013 and 2017. Patient characteristics and health services utilization rates by cancer stage were reported as frequency distributions. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate the time from index date to diagnosis by stage in lung cancer cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 30,559 potentially eligible patients were identified and 2929 (9.58%) had primary lung cancer. Of these, 1496 (51.1%) were documented in LTR and their clinical pathway to diagnosis was further studied. Time to diagnosis varied significantly by cancer stage. A total of 24,140 patients with an SPN were identified in REACHnet and 15,978 (66.6%) had documented follow up care for 1 year. 1612 (10%) had no evidence of any work up for their SPN. The remaining 14,366 had some evidence of follow up, primarily office visits and additional chest imaging.

CONCLUSION

In both cohorts multiple biopsies were evident in the clinical pathway. Despite clinical workup, 70% of patients in the lung cancer cohort had stage III or IV disease. In the SPN cohort, only 66% were identified as receiving a diagnostic work-up.

Does Delaying Time in Cancer Treatment Affect Mortality? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Korean Lung and Gastric Cancer Patients

The aim of this study is to investigate the association between delays in surgical treatment and five- and one- year mortality in patients with lung or gastric cancer. The National Health Insurance claims data from 2006 to 2015 were used. The association between time to surgical treatment, in which the cut-off value was set at average time (30 or 50 days), and five year mortality was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Subgroup analysis was performed based on treatment type and location of medical institution. A total of 810 lung and 2659 gastric cancer patients were included, in which 74.8% of lung and 71.2% of gastric cancer patients received surgery within average. Compared to lung cancer patients who received treatment within 50 days, the five-year (HR 1.826, 95% CI 1.437–2.321) mortality of those who received treatment afterwards was higher. The findings were not significant for gastric cancer based on the after 30 days standard (HR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.822–1.225). In lung cancer patients, time-to-treatment and mortality risk were significantly different depending on region. Delays in surgical treatment were associated with mortality in lung cancer patients. The findings imply the importance of monitoring and assuring timely treatment in lung cancer patients.

Delay to surgical treatment in lung cancer patients and its impact on survival in a video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy cohort

Patient pathways from first suspicious imaging until final surgical treatment vary and in some instances cause considerable delay. This study aims to investigate the impact of this delay on survival of lung cancer patients. The institutional database was queried to identify patients with primary lung cancer who were treated with primary surgery. Time intervals were defined as date of first suspicious medical images until date of surgical treatment. All patients received PET-CT staging and tissue confirmation prior to treatment planning in a multidisciplinary tumor board. Patients with unknown date of first contact, follow-up CT-scans of pulmonary nodules, or neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. In total, 287 patients treated between 2009 and 2017 were included for further analysis. Median time between first suspicious medical imaging and surgical therapy was 62 (range 23–120) days and did not differ between male and female patients. Patients were then classified into two groups according to the duration of the medical work-up: group A up to 60 days, and group B from 61 to 120 days. Clinical T and N stages were comparable between the groups. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups. In the subgroup of cT2 tumors (87 patients), there was a significant survival benefit for patients in group A (p = 0.043), while nodal stages, stage migration, lymphatic vessel invasion, grading and other potentially survival-influencing clinical parameters were comparable between the groups. Delay between diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer may result in dismal outcome. Efforts need to focus on improving and streamlining patient pathways to shorten the delay until surgical treatment to a minimum. Process improvement might be achieved by stringent interdisciplinary work-up and a patient-centered approach.

Does short-term cessation of smoking before lung resections reduce the risk of complications?

Background

Smoking cessation is a highly important preparation before thoracic surgery. We examined the effects of short-term smoking cessation intervention before pulmonary resection on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for 753 patients who underwent curative surgical resection for thoracic malignancy at 3 institutions. Patients with a smoking history were instructed to quit smoking. After confirming smoking cessation by at least four weeks before surgery, surgical resection was performed. Subjects were classified into three groups based on their smoking status: abstainers (anyone who had stopped smoking for at least 4 weeks but less than 2 months), former smokers (anyone who had abstained from smoking for more than two months prior to surgery), and never smokers (those who had never smoked). We examined the relationship between the preoperative smoking status and PPCs.

Results

Surgery was performed for 660 primary lung cancers and 93 metastatic lung tumors. The smoking statuses were classified as follows: abstainers (n=105, 14%), former smokers (n=361; 48%) and never smokers (n=287, 38%). The incidence of PPCs among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 15%, 8% and 6%, respectively (P=0.01). The mean duration of post-operative chest tube drainage among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 3.2, 2.2 and 2.2 days, respectively (P=0.04). The mean post-operative hospital stay among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 12.1, 10.6 and 10.2 days, respectively (P=0.07). There was no 30-day mortality in the cohort.

Conclusions

Short-term smoking cessation intervention did not enough reduce the PPCs as much as in former or never smokers.

Influence of timeliness and receipt of first treatment on geographic variation in non-small cell lung cancer mortality

Mortality from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) exhibits substantial geographical disparities. However, there is little evidence on whether this variation could be attributed to patients' clinical characteristics and/or socioeconomic inequalities. This study evaluated the independent and relative contribution of the individual- and area-level risk factors on geographic variation in 2-year all-cause mortality among NSCLC patients. In the Hierarchical-related regression approach, we used the Bayesian spatial multilevel logistic regression model to combine individual- and area-level predictors with outcomes while accounting for geographically structured and unstructured correlation. Individual-level data included 3330 NSCLC cases reported to the Victoria Lung Cancer Registry between 2011 and 2016. Area-level data comprised socioeconomic disadvantage, remoteness and pollution data at the postal area level in Victoria, Australia. With the inclusion of significant individual- and area-level risk factors, timely (≤14 days) first definitive treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% credible interval [Crl] = 0.56-0.94) and multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) (OR = 0.74, 95% Crl = 0.59-0.93) showed an independent association with a lower likelihood of NSCLC 2-year all-cause mortality. Timely and delayed (>14 days) first nondefinitive treatment, no treatment, advanced clinical stage, smoking, poor performance status, public hospital insurance and area-level deprivation were independently associated with a higher likelihood of 2- and 5-year all-cause mortality. NSCLC's 2-year all-cause mortality exhibited substantial geographic variation, mainly associated with timeliness and receipt of first definitive treatment, no treatment followed by patient prognostic factors with some contribution from area-level deprivation, MDM and public hospital insurance. This study highlights NSCLC patients should receive the first definitive treatment within the recommended 14-days from diagnosis.

The Use of Bronchoscopy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: CHEST/AABIP Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the globe and is causing significant morbidity and mortality. Given that the virus is transmitted via droplets, open airway procedures such as bronchoscopy pose a significant risk to health-care workers (HCWs). The goal of this guideline was to examine the current evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the optimal protection of patients and HCWs.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that addressed specific topics on bronchoscopy related to COVID-19 infection and transmission. MEDLINE (via PubMed) was systematically searched for relevant literature and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of studies and to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, suggestions were developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on six PICO questions resulted in six statements: one evidence-based graded recommendation and 5 ungraded consensus-based statements.

INTERPRETATION

The evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. To maximize protection of patients and HCWs, bronchoscopy should be used sparingly in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections. In an area where community transmission of COVID-19 infection is present, bronchoscopy should be deferred for nonurgent indications, and if necessary to perform, HCWs should wear personal protective equipment while performing the procedure even on asymptomatic patients.

Why do delays to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer occur? A mixed methods study of insights from Australian clinicians

AIMS

Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment can impact survival. We explored reasons for delays experienced by patients with lung cancer to identify themes and strategies for improvement.

METHODS

We used national timeframe recommendations and standardized definitions to identify General Practitioners and specialists caring for 34 patients who experienced delays in our previous Medicare data linkage study. Clinicians participated in a survey and interview, including qualitative (exploratory, open-ended questions) and quantitative (rating scales) components. Exploratory content analysis, cross-case triangulation, and descriptive statistics were performed. Krippendorff's coefficient was used to assess level of agreement between clinicians and patients, and among clinicians, on perceived delays.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 out of 50 (54%) eligible clinicians participated (including 11 respiratory physicians and seven medical oncologists). Dominant themes for perceived causes of delay included referral barriers, limited General Practitioner (GP) awareness of subtle clinical presentations, insufficient radiology interpretation, and lack of cancer coordinators. "Unavoidable" delays may occur due to clinical circumstances. Awareness and uptake of referral and timeframe guidelines were low, with clinicians using professional networks over guidelines. There was no consistent agreement on perceived delays between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians (Krippendorff's coefficient .03 [P = .8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies for minimizing avoidable delays include efficient GP to specialist referral and more lung cancer coordinators to assist with patient expectations and waitlist management. Clinicians' reliance on experience, rather than guidelines, indicates need to review guideline utility. Raising awareness of benchmarks and unavoidable barriers may recalibrate perceptions of "delays" to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.

The Timeliness Initiative: Continuous Process Improvement for Prompt Initiation of Radiation Therapy Treatment

Purpose

The ambulatory patient experience is heavily influenced by wait times for provider care. Delayed patient visit start times may negatively affect overall satisfaction, and increased wait times affect the perception of the information, instructions, and treatment given by health care providers. Improving institutional practices overall requires the determination of the essential quality metrics that will make such an achievement possible. A protracted time leading up to the initiation of radiation therapy may promote poor satisfaction and perceived quality of care for both patients and referring providers alike, which may then create a barrier to patients being treated with radiation therapy. This institution piloted and sucessfully completed a study into improving the timeliness of initiation of patient radiation therapy for our patients.

Methods and Materials

This work sought to identify inefficiencies in radiation therapy treatment planning to shorten the time each patient waited for treatment. We examined the time between simulation to the start of the first fraction of treatment. This period includes simulation, contouring, treatment planning, and quality assurance of the plan.

Results

Before the study, the planning process would typically take 2 weeks. Target and organs-at-risk contouring were found to be the main inefficiency delaying treatment start dates. This delineating process includes drawing contours on radiologic images, typically computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. We focused on the time needed for the contouring process to be completed and took steps to increase efficiency. The length of time from simulation to contour approval was decreased by more than 60%, a reduction from an average of more than 4 days to less than 1.5 days. Overall planning time dropped from 2 weeks to less than 5 days.

Conclusions

Process improvements and implementation of task-specific tools improved the timeliness of patient treatments, reducing the overall planning time from simulation to treatments to less than 5 days. Continuous monitoring and modification of these processes revealed that the successes achieved toward better quality of care have been sustained.

Delayed surgery after histologic or radiologic-diagnosed clinical stage I lung adenocarcinoma

Background

The impact of delayed surgery on clinical outcomes after histologic or radiologic diagnosis of clinical stage I adenocarcinoma remains controversial. We evaluated the effects of delayed surgery on outcomes of patients with early-stage lung cancer.

Methods

Associations between time intervals of “histologic diagnosis-to-surgery” (HDS), “radiologic diagnosis-to-surgery” (RDS), and overall survival in clinical stage I adenocarcinoma were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis.

Results

A total of 561 consecutive patients with preoperative histologic confirmation of stage I lung cancer between 2006 and 2016 were included. Median time to HDS and RDS were 20 (2–267) and 58 (38–2,983) days. Higher Charlson comorbidity score, receiving brain magnetic resonance imaging screening, and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approach were significantly associated with increased risk of late HDS (>21 days). Smaller tumor size and non-radiologic solid-dominant pattern were significantly associated with increased risk of late RDS (>60 days). In the overall cohort, worse 5-year overall survival was associated with late HDS compared to early HDS (75.9% vs. 85.5%, P=0.003). No significant differences were found in later late vs. early RDS (83.7% vs. 83.3%, P=0.570). In 286 propensity-score matched patients, late HDS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =2.031, P=0.038], higher Charlson comorbidity score (aHR=1.610, P=0.023), larger tumor size (aHR=2.164, P=0.031), without brain magnetic resonance imaging screening (aHR=2.051, P=0.045), and tumor with angiolymphatic invasion (aHR=4.638, P=0.001) were significantly associated with lower overall survival.

Conclusions

In patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma, delayed surgery after a histologic diagnosis is an independent predictor of overall survival after adjusting for clinical risk factors, suggesting meaningful differences in clinical outcomes between timely vs. delayed surgeries.

The Impact of Delays to Definitive Surgical Care on Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Treatment delay may have detrimental effects on cancer outcomes. The impact of longer delays on colorectal cancer outcomes remains poorly described. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of delays to curative-intent surgical resection on survival in colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing elective resection of primary non-metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma from January 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. Treatment delays were defined as the time from tissue diagnosis to definitive surgery, categorized as < 4, 4 to < 8, and ≥ 8 weeks. Primary outcomes were 5-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were included (83.2% colon;15.8% rectal) with a mean follow-up of 58.4 months (SD29.9). Fourteen percent (14.0%) of patients underwent resection < 4 weeks, 40.0% 4 to < 8 weeks, and 46.1% ≥ 8 weeks. More rectal cancer patients had treatment delay ≥ 8 weeks compared with colonic tumors (69.8% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). Cumulative 5-year DFS and OS were similar between groups (p = 0.558; p = 0.572). After adjusting for confounders, surgical delays were not independently associated with DFS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delays > 4 weeks were not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. Delaying surgery to optimize patients can safely be considered without compromising survival.

Thoracic Surgeons' Beliefs and Practices on Smoking Cessation Before Lung Resection

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a risk factor for complications after lung resection. Our primary aim was to ascertain thoracic surgeons' beliefs and practices on smoking cessation before lung resection.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was emailed to 846 thoracic surgeons who participate in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

RESULTS

The response rate was 23.6% (n = 200). Surgeons were divided when asked whether it is ethical to require that patients quit smoking (yes, n = 96 [48%]) and whether it is fair to have their outcomes affected by patients who do not quit (yes, n = 87 [43.5%]). Most do not require smoking cessation (n = 120 [60%]). Of those who require it, the most common required period of cessation is 2 weeks or more. Most believe that patient factors are the main barrier to quitting (n = 160 [80%]). Risk of disease progression (39% vs 17.5%, p = 0.02) and alienating patients (17.5% vs 8.8%, p = 0.04) were very important considerations of those who do not require smoking cessation versus those who do. Only 19 (9.5%) always refer to a smoking cessation program and prescribe nicotine replacement therapy and even fewer, 9 (4.5%), always refer to a program and prescribe medical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic surgeons are divided on their beliefs and practices regarding smoking cessation before lung resection. Most believe patient factors are the main barrier to quitting and have concerns about disease progression while awaiting cessation. Very few surgeons refer to a smoking cessation program and prescribe nicotine replacement therapy or medical therapy.

Times to Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer in New South Wales, Australia: A Multicenter, Medicare Data Linkage Study

INTRODUCTION

Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival. We examined times to diagnosis and treatment of patients with lung cancer in rural and metropolitan New South Wales (NSW) Australia, benchmarked against recent timeframe recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semistructured interviews of recently diagnosed patients with lung cancer from five NSW cancer centers were used to determine standardized time intervals to diagnosis and treatment, triangulated with Medicare data linkage and medical records. We used descriptive statistics to evaluate the primary end points of median time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS visit (GP-LCS interval) and to treatment start (Secondary Care interval). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to study associations with delays in end points. Post hoc survival analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Data linkage was performed for 125 patients (68% stage IV; 69% metropolitan), with 108 interviewed. The median GP-LCS interval was 4 days, with 83% of patients seeing an LCS within the recommended 14 days. The median Secondary Care interval was 42 days (52% within 42 days). There were no significant differences between time intervals faced by rural and metropolitan patients overall, although metropolitan patients took 18 days less than rural counterparts to commence radiation/chemoradiation (95% CI, -33.2 to -2.54; P = .02). One third of patients perceived delays. Delays did not affect survival.

CONCLUSION

Rural and metropolitan NSW patients face comparable time lines to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Most patients are seen by an LCS within recommended timeframes, but transition through Secondary Care and addressing patient expectations could be improved.

Time to treatment and survival in veterans with lung cancer eligible for curative intent therapy

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine emphasizes care timeliness as an important quality metric. We assessed treatment timeliness in stage I-IIIA lung cancer patients deemed eligible for curative intent therapy and analyzed the relationship between time to treatment (TTT) and timely treatment (TT) with survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of stage I-IIIA lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy at the VA San Diego Healthcare System between 10/2010-4/2017. We defined TTT as days from chest tumor board to treatment initiation and TT using guideline recommendations. We used multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards regressions for survival analyses.

RESULTS

In 177 veterans, the median TTT was 35 days (29 days for chemoradiation, 36 for surgical resection, 42 for definitive radiation). TT occurred in 33% or 77% of patients when the most or least timely guideline recommendation was used, respectively. Patient characteristics associated with longer TTT included other cancer history, high simplified comorbidity score, stage I disease, and definitive radiation treatment. In MVA, TTT and TT [HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.27, 1.01) for least timely definition] were not associated with OS in stage I-IIIA patients, or disease-free survival in subgroup analyses of 122 stage I patients [HR 1.49 (0.62, 3.59) for least timely definition].

CONCLUSION

Treatment was timely in 33-77% of veterans with lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy. TTT and TT were not associated with survival. The time interval between diagnosis and treatment may offer an opportunity to deliver or improve other cancer care.