Timeliness of Multimodal Care for At-Risk Breast Cancer Patients at a Safety Net Institution

INTRODUCTION

Because limited data exist, we sought to evaluate timeliness of multimodal treatments in a safety net breast cancer population.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients treated at a safety net hospital from 2016 to 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Time intervals were defined as primary time (PT) from diagnosis to initiation of primary intervention, secondary time (ST) from completion of primary to initiation of secondary intervention, and tertiary time (TT) from completion of secondary to initiation of tertiary intervention. Variables included primary language, insurance type, and race.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients, 99 (44.4%) primarily spoke Spanish, 29 (13.0%) were of Black race, and 184 (82.5%) had Medicaid or uninsured status. Median (IQR) age at diagnosis was 55 (48-62) years. Primary intervention was surgical in 127/216 (58.8%); secondary intervention was systemic in 38/169 (22.5%); and tertiary intervention was radiation in 67/80 (83.8%). Overall, median days (IQR) for PT were 69 (53, 98), ST were 65 (42, 95), and TT were 69 (43, 88). PT was significantly longer in Black [105 (76, 142) days] patients compared to non-Hispanic White patients [68 (51, 107) days, P = 0.031)] and White Hispanic patients [65 (53,91) days, P = 0.014]. There were no significant differences in PT, ST, or TT by spoken language or insurance type.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients remain at risk due to prolonged time to intervention. Spanish-speaking status was not associated with inferior timeliness or completion of multimodal care at a safety net hospital. Identifying safety net hospital barriers to achieving benchmarks for timely completion of all phases of multimodal care warrants further attention.

Clinical impact of delays in the management of lung cancer patients in the last decade: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Due to the importance of lung cancer early treatment because of its severity and extent worldwide a systematic literature review was conducted about the impact of delays in waiting times on the disease prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of observational studies (2010-2020) including adult patients diagnosed with lung cancer and reporting healthcare timelines and their clinical consequences.

RESULTS

We included 38 articles containing data on waiting times and prognosis; only 31 articles linked this forecast to a specific waiting time. We identified 41 healthcare time intervals and found medians of 6-121 days from diagnosis to treatment and 4-19.5 days from primary care to specialist visit: 37.5% of the intervals indicated better prognosis with longer waiting times.

CONCLUSIONS

All articles emphasized that waiting times must be reduced to achieve good management and prognosis of lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed on the relationship between waiting times and prognosis of lung cancer.

Time to treatment as a quality metric in lung cancer: Staging studies, time to treatment, and patient survival

PURPOSE

Prompt staging and treatment are crucial for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We determined if predictors of treatment delay after diagnosis were associated with prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medicare claims from 28,732 patients diagnosed with NSCLC in 2004-2007 were used to establish the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (ideally ⩽35days) and identify staging studies during that interval. Factors associated with delay were identified with multivariate logistic regression, and associations between delay and survival by stage were tested with Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

Median diagnosis-to-treatment interval was 27days. Receipt of PET was associated with delays (57.4% of patients with PET delayed [n=6646/11,583] versus 22.8% of those without [n=3908/17,149]; adjusted OR=4.48, 95% CI 4.23-4.74, p<0.001). Median diagnosis-to-PET interval was 15days; PET-to-clinic, 5days; and clinic-to-treatment, 12days. Diagnosis-to-treatment intervals <35days were associated with improved survival for patients with localized disease and those with distant disease surviving ⩾1year but not for patients with distant disease surviving <1year.

CONCLUSION

Delays between diagnosing and treating NSCLC are common and associated with use of PET for staging. Reducing time to treatment may improve survival for patients with manageable disease at diagnosis.