Waiting Times for Treatment of Rectal Cancer in North West England

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days.

CONCLUSION

The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included.

RESULTS

Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.

Is There a Detrimental Effect of Waiting for Radiotherapy for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a possible deleterious effect of waiting time to radiotherapy on the biochemical relapse (BR) of patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients included in this retrospective study had localized prostate adenocarcinoma treated with external-beam irradiation alone. Waiting time was defined as the interval between the first consultation and the first radiation treatment. BR was defined as 3 consecutive rises of prostatic specific antigen (PSA). Patients were split into 3 groups of waiting time: group A were treated within 40 days; group B waited 41 to 80 days; group C waited >80 days to receive radiotherapy. The effect of waiting on BR was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was adjusted for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

There were 289 patients who participated in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 6.1 year. Overall BR rate was 44% at 5 years. The median waiting time increased over the study period from 26 days in 1992 to 123 days in 2000. In adjusted multivariate analysis there was a nonsignificant higher risk of BR with waiting for 41 to 80 days (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-1.6) and for >80 days (HR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-1.5) when compared with patients treated within 40 days after consultation.

CONCLUSION

Delaying the start of radiotherapy showed little effect on the rate of BR in the group of 288 prostate cancer patients analyzed in this study.

The 2-week wait for suspected cancer: time for a rethink?

The 2-week rule, stating that patients with suspected cancer should be seen by a specialist within 2 weeks of referral by their General Practitioner, was introduced in the UK in 2000. Although it has been the subject of much interest in the literature, to date there has been no review of the literature. A thorough literature review was undertaken using the medline database, from January 2000; further references were obtained from the reference lists of relevant papers. Some studies have demonstrated a reduction in the waiting times to see specialists, and in some cases time to treatment, and have commented on the potential psychological benefits to patients. However, concerns have been raised over the often low yield of malignancy and the high proportion of malignancies still being diagnosed outside the 2-week wait system. There is, as yet, no evidence that the initiative impacts on survival.