The influence of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on long-term survival after cancer surgery

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear today whether the poor prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was further worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic and whether this may affect providers and patients, today. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on care delivery and outcomes of patients with PDAC in the United States.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for PDAC, between 2017 and 2020. Changes in the number of diagnoses and treatment patterns were compared annually for the entire cohort. Changes in surgical outcomes and median time from diagnosis to treatment were compared and analyzed. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed.

RESULTS

Of 127,613 patients with PDAC, PDAC diagnoses from 2017 (30,573) to 2019 (33,465) increased but decreased in 2020 (31,218). The number of patients receiving surgery or radiotherapy was stable between 2017 to 2019 (21.75% ± 0.05% and 13.9% ± 0.3%, respectively) but decreased in 2020 (20.7% and 12.4% respectively). Although patients received chemotherapy with increasing frequently from 2016 (60.7%) to 2019 (63.5%), this trend stopped in 2020 (63%). Of 27,490 patients undergoing surgery, the mean time from diagnosis to surgery increased from 2017 (34 days) to 2019 (56 days), with an increase in delay in 2020 (81 days). Moreover, patients who were tested for COVID-19, had a longer median time from diagnosis to surgery even if tested negative (COVID+, 140 days; COVID-, 112 days; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although the oncologic quality of PDAC surgery remained the same during the pandemic, not only did the pandemic lead to an underdiagnosis of PDAC and care delays, but even the suspicion of COVID-19 in patients with a negative test adversely affected their care.

Relationship between patient outcomes and patterns of fragmented cancer care in older adults with gastric cancer: A nationwide cohort study in South Korea

INTRODUCTION

Fragmented cancer care, defined as receipt of care from multiple hospitals, has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes and high expense. However, evidence regarding the effects of hospital choice by patients with cancer on overall survival are lacking. Thus, we investigated the relationship between patterns of fragmented care and five-year mortality in patients with gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Korean National Health Insurance senior cohort of adults aged ≥60 years, we identified patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy during 2007-2014. We examined the distribution of the study population by five-year mortality, and used Kaplan-Meier survival curves/log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model to compare five-year mortality with fragmented cancer care.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 19.5% died within five years. There were more deaths among patients who received fragmented care, especially those who transferred to smaller hospitals (46.6%) than to larger ones (40.0%). The likelihood of five-year mortality was higher in patients who received fragmented cancer care upon moving from large to small hospitals than those who did not transfer hospitals (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.48, P = .001). Moreover, mortality was higher among patients treated in large hospitals or in the capital area for initial treatment, and this association was greater for patients from rural areas.

DISCUSSION

Fragmentation of cancer care was associated with reduced survival, and the risk of mortality was higher among patients who moved from large to small hospitals.

Association of time to resection with survival in patients with colon cancer

PURPOSE

Colon cancer (CC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, for which colectomy represents the standard of care. Yet, the impact of delayed resection on survival outcomes remains controversial. We assessed the association between time to surgery and 10-year survival in a national cohort of CC patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified all adults who underwent colectomy for Stage I-III CC in the 2004-2020 National Cancer Database. Those who required neoadjuvant therapy or emergent resection < 7 days from diagnosis were excluded. Patients were classified into Early (< 25 days) and Delayed (≥ 25 days) cohorts after an adjusted analysis of the relationship between time to surgery and 10-year survival. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 10-years was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusting for age, sex, race, income quartile, insurance coverage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index, disease stage, location of tumor, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as hospital type, location, and case volume.

RESULTS

Of 165,991 patients, 84,665 (51%) were classified as Early and 81,326 (49%) Delayed. Following risk adjustment, Delayed resection was associated with similar 1-year [hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.04, P = 0.72], but inferior 5- (HR 1.24, CI 1.22-1.26; P < 0.001) and 10-year survival (HR 1.22, CI 1.20-1.23; P < 0.001). Black race [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.36, CI 1.31-1.41; P < 0.001], Medicaid insurance coverage (AOR 1.34, CI 1.26-1.42; P < 0.001), and care at high-volume hospitals (AOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.08-1.17; P < 0.001) were linked with greater likelihood of Delayed resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CC who underwent resection ≥ 25 days following diagnosis demonstrated similar 1-year, but inferior 5- and 10-year survival, compared to those who underwent surgery within 25 days. Socioeconomic factors, including race and Medicaid insurance, were linked with greater odds of delayed resection. Efforts to balance appropriate preoperative evaluation with expedited resection are needed to optimize patient outcomes.

Treatment interval in curative treatment of colon cancer, does it impact (cancer free) survival? A non-inferiority analysis

BACKGROUND

In treatment of colon cancer, strict waiting-time targets are enforced, leaving professionals no room to lengthen treatment intervals when advisable, for instance to optimise a patient's health status by means of prehabilitation. Good quality studies supporting these targets are lacking. With this study we aim to establish whether a prolonged treatment interval is associated with a clinically relevant deterioration in overall and cancer free survival.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter non-inferiority study includes all consecutive patients who underwent elective oncological resection of a biopsy-proven primary non-metastatic colon carcinoma between 2010 and 2016 in six hospitals in the Southern Netherlands. Treatment interval was defined as time between diagnosis and surgical treatment. Cut-off points for treatment interval were ≤35 days and ≤49 days.

FINDINGS

3376 patients were included. Cancer recurred in 505 patients (15.0%) For cancer free survival, a treatment interval >35 days and >49 days was non-inferior to a treatment interval ≤35 days. Results for overall survival were inconclusive, but no association was found.

CONCLUSION

For cancer free survival, a prolonged treatment interval, even over 49 days, is non-inferior to the currently set waiting-time target of ≤35 days. Therefore, the waiting-time targets set as fundamental objective in current treatment guidelines should become directional instead of strict targets.

Hospital factors determining overall survival in cancer patients undergoing curative treatment

BACKGROUND

In oncology, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are key indicators. The factors that affect OS and QoL include tumor-related characteristics (stage and grade), patient-related factors (performance status and comorbidities), and cancer-directed therapy (CDT)-related aspects. In addition, external factors such as governance or policy (e.g., inaccessibility to CDT, increased distance to service, poor socioeconomic status, lack of insurance), and hospital-related factors (e.g., facility volume and surgeon volume) can influence OS and QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective of this narrative review was to identify hospital-related factors that affect OS and QoL in patients receiving curative CDT. The authors defined extrinsic factors that can be modified at the hospital level as "hospital-related" factors. Only factors supported by randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA), and population database (PDB) analyses that address the relationship between OS and hospital factors were considered.

RESULTS

The literature review found that high hospital or oncologist volume, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM), optimal time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), and decreased overall treatment time (OTT) increase OS in patients undergoing curative CDT. The use of case management strategies was associated with better symptom management and treatment compliance, but had a mixed effect on QoL. The practice of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cancer patients did not result in an increase in OS. There was insufficient evidence to support the impact of factors such as teaching or academic centers, hospital infrastructure, and treatment compliance on OS and QoL.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that hospital policies should focus on increasing hospital and oncologist volume, adhering to EBM, optimizing TTI, and reducing OTT for cancer patients receiving curative treatment.

Racial and ethnic differences in colon cancer surgery type performed and delayed treatment among people 45 years old and older in the USA between 2007 and 2017: Mediating effect on survival

BACKGROUND

This study examined the associations of socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, surgery type, and treatment delays with mortality among colon cancer patients. In addition, the study also quantifies the extent to which clinical and SES factors' variations explain the racial/ethnic differences in overall survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 111,789 adult patients ≥45 years old who were diagnosed with colon cancer between 2010 and 2017, identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We performed logistic regression models to examine the association of SES and race/ethnicity with surgery type and first course of treatment delays. We also performed mediation analysis to quantify the extent to which treatment, sociodemographic and clinicopathologic factors mediated racial/ethnic differences in survival.

RESULTS

Non-Hispanic (NH) Blacks [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 1.19, 95% CI:1.13-1.25] were significantly more likely to undergo subtotal colectomy and to experience treatment delays [aOR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.48] compared to NH Whites. Hispanics [aOR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.49-1.69] were more likely to experience treatment delays than NH Whites. Delayed first course of treatment explained 23.56% and 56.73% of the lower survival among NH Blacks and Hispanics, respectively, compared to their NH White counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Race/ethnicity is significantly associated with the surgery type performed and the first course of treatment delays. Variations in treatment, SES, and clinicopathological factors significantly explained racial disparities in overall mortality. These disparities highlight the need for multidisciplinary interventions to address the treatment and social factors perpetuating racial disparities in colon cancer mortality.

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.

Delays in treatment initiation and conclusion in women with stage IA to IIIB cervical cancer: A survival study in a hospital-based cohort from a developing country

AIM

To evaluate the effect of delays in stage IA to IIIB cervical cancer treatment initiation and conclusion on hospital-based survival among Brazilian women.

METHODS

A retrospective follow-up study was conducted in a stage IA to IIIB cervical cancer cohort treated from 2012 and 2014 and followed until December 31, 2017 in Rio de Janeiro. Delay in treatment initiation definition was defined based on the Brazilian law of 60 days for treatment initiation after diagnosis. Delay in treatment conclusion was defined based on the literature and sample distributions: < 120/121-200/> 200 days. The endpoint was death(from all causes or cervical cancer). Death causes and dates were obtained by a record linkage procedure between the hospital cancer registry and the Mortality Information System. Global 36-month survival and HRs were estimated by the KaplanMeier method and proportional Cox regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

From 865 patients, 269(31.1%) died over the median follow-up time of 27 months. Delay on treatment initiation(>60-days) was 92.8%, while the delay in treatment conclusion(>120 days) was 87.5%. Overall survival was 61.3% (<60-days:62.6%; 61-90 days:63.5%). Among stage IIB-IIIB, women treated < 60-days presented 40.1% survival, while 61-90-days had 52.5%, and > 90-days had 53.3%. Delays in treatment conclusion significantly reduced survival[72.2%(<120-days) to 60.7%(>200-days)]. Multivariate analysis showed that delays in treatment initiation did not affect 36-month death risk. Compared to women concluding treatment in < 120-days, those taking 121-200-days or > 200-days showed increases in death risk of 89%(95%CI:1.10-3.24) and 111%(95%CI:1.31-3.39), respectively, regardless of age, stage, treatment protocol, and time to treatment initiation.

CONCLUSION

Delays in cervical cancer treatment conclusion (but not treatment initiation) affected 36-month survival and death risk among Brazilians.

Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing cancer at an early stage increases the likelihood of survival, and more advanced cancers are more difficult to treat successfully. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in timely diagnosis of cancer. PCPs' knowledge of their own patient populations and health systems could help improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer recognition and referral. How PCPs act when faced with patients who may have cancer is likely to depend on how their health systems are organised, and this may be one explanation for the wide variation on cancer survival rates across Europe.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and characterise clusters of countries whose PCPs perceive the same factors as being important in improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

A cluster analysis of qualitative data from an online survey was carried out. PCPs answered an open-ended survey question on how the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Following coding and thematic analysis, we identified the number of times per country that an item in a theme was mentioned. k-means clustering identified clusters of countries whose PCPs perceived the same themes as most important. Post-hoc testing explored differences between these clusters.

SETTING

Twenty-five primary care centres in 20 European countries. Each centre was asked to recruit at least 50 participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care practitioners of each country.

RESULTS

In all, 1,351 PCPs gave free-text answers. We identified eighteen themes organising the content of the responses. Based on the frequency of the themes, k-means clustering identified three groups of countries. There were significant differences between clusters regarding the importance of: access to tests (p = 0.010); access to specialists (p = 0.014), screening (p < 0.001); and finances, quotas & limits (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified three distinct clusters of European countries within which PCPs had similar views on the factors that would improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to understand what it is about the clusters that have produced these patterns, allowing healthcare systems to share best practice and to reduce disparities.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans and Time to Surgery for Breast and Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have been shown to delay timing of breast and colon cancer screening, although the relationship to the timing of cancer surgery is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize timing of surgery for breast and colon cancer patients undergoing cancer operations following routine screening.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from 2007 to 2016 were queried to identify patients who underwent screening mammogram and/or colonoscopy. The calendar quarters of screening and surgery were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression. The time from screening to surgery (time to surgery, TTS) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard function.

RESULTS

Among 32,562,751 patients who had screening mammograms, 0.7% underwent breast cancer surgery within the following year. Among 9,325,238 patients who had screening colonoscopies, 0.9% were followed by colon cancer surgery within a year. The odds of screening (OR 1.146 for mammogram, 1.272 for colonoscopy; p < 0.001) and surgery (OR 1.120 for breast surgery, 1.219 for colon surgery; p < 0.001) increased each quarter for HDHPs compared to low-deductible health plans. Enrollment in an HDHP was not associated with a difference in TTS. Screening in Q3 or Q4 was associated with shorter TTS compared to screening in Q1 (hazard ratio 1.061 and 1.046, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

HDHPs were associated with delays in screening and surgery. However, HDHPs were not associated with delays in TTS. Interventions to improve cancer care outcomes in the HDHP population should concentrate on reducing barriers to timely screening.

The impact of preoperative waiting time in Stage II-III gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the curative option in gastric cancer. However, the growing concern that preoperative waiting jeopardizes survival has not been fully addressed. The present population-based cohort study aimed to clarify the impact of preoperative waiting time (PreWT).

METHODS

We included patients with clinical Stage II-III gastric cancer who received curative surgery from 2008 to 2017 of Taiwan Cancer Registry. PreWT was defined as the time from endoscopic diagnosis to surgery. The prognostic impact on overall survival (OS) was evaluated with Cox and restricted cubic spline regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 3059 patients with a median age of 68 years were evaluated. The median PreWT was 16 days (interquartile range, 11-24 days), and patients with a shorter PreWT were younger, had a more advanced disease and received adjuvant therapies. Despite a shorter OS occurring with prolonged PreWT (median OS by PreWT [days]: 7-13, 2.7 years; 14-20, 3.1 years; 21-27, 3.0 years; 28-34, 4.7 years; 35-31, 3.7 years; 42-48, 3.4 years; 49-118, 2.8 years; p = 0.029), the differences were not significant after adjustment. The Cox and restricted cubic spline regressions showed that prolonged PreWT was not a significant prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.719).

CONCLUSIONS

The population-based study suggests that a PreWT of 49-118 days does not independently correlate with a poor prognosis in Stage II-III gastric cancer. The study provides rationale for a window period for preoperative therapies and patient optimization.

Estimating the influencing factors for T1b/T2 gallbladder cancer on survival and surgical approaches selection

BACKGROUND

The influencing factors, especially time to treatment (TTT), for T1b/T2 gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients remain unknown. We aimed to identify the influencing factors on survival and surgical approaches selection for T1b/T2 GBC.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened GBC patients between January 2011 and August 2018 from our hospital. Clinical variables, including patient characteristics, TTT, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), surgery-related outcomes, and surgical approaches were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 114 T1b/T2 GBC patients who underwent radical resection were included. Based on the median TTT of 7.5 days, the study cohort was divided into short TTT group (TTT ≤7 days, n = 57) and long TTT group (TTT >7 days, n = 57). Referrals were identified as the primary factor prolonging TTT (p < 0.001). There was no significance in OS (p = 0.790), DFS (p = 0.580), and surgery-related outcomes (all p > 0.05) between both groups. Decreased referrals (p = 0.005), fewer positive lymph nodes (LNs; p = 0.004), and well tumor differentiation (p = 0.004) were all associated with better OS, while fewer positive LNs (p = 0.049) were associated with better DFS. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in survival between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open approach in different TTT groups (all p > 0.05). And secondary subgroup analyses found no significance in survival and surgery-related outcomes between different TTT groups of incidental GBC patients (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Positive LNs and tumor differentiation were prognostic factors for T1b/T2 GBC survival. Referrals associating with poor OS would delay TTT, while the prolonged TTT would not impact survival, surgery-related outcomes, and surgical approaches decisions in T1b/T2 GBC patients.

Waiting Time for Breast Cancer Treatment in Korea: A Nationwide Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the waiting time for initial treatment after breast cancer diagnosis and determine the factors influencing treatment delay in South Korea.

METHODS

This nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment data. The participants were classified according to the regions where their biopsy and treatment were performed (Seoul-Seoul, Metro-Metro, Other-Other, Metro-Seoul, Other-Seoul). Waiting time was analyzed according to regional subgroup, year of diagnosis, and type of treatment. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify the factors associated with treatment delay (after 30 days of diagnosis).

RESULTS

A total of 133,514 participants newly diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2017 were included in the study. The median waiting time for initial treatment in the total population increased from 8 days, in 2010, to 14 days, in 2017. In the Seoul-Seoul group, the waiting time increased from 10 days, in 2010, to 16 days, in 2017. Although the median waiting time was approximately 10 days in the Metro-Metro and Other-Other groups, it was 27 and 24 days, in the Metro-Seoul and Other-Seoul group, respectively, in 2017. The proportion of delayed upfront surgery by more than 30 days was higher in the Metro-Seoul (odds ratio [OR], 8.088; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.357-8.893; p < 0.001) and Other-Seoul (OR, 6.210; 95% CI, 5.717-6.750; p < 0.001) groups than in the Metro-Metro (OR, 1.468; 95% CI, 1.352-1.594; p < 0.001) and Other-Other (reference) groups. Previous medical history and treatment at tertiary hospital were observed as factors related to delayed surgery.

CONCLUSION

Waiting times for breast cancer surgery have increased across all regions of Korea, with those traveling to Seoul experiencing particularly long wait times.

Hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival in Norway: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies of hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival are inconclusive. We investigated whether surgical volume was associated with survival of patients operated for colorectal cancer in Norway.

METHODS

Using Cancer Registry of Norway data, we compared excess mortality from colorectal cancer by hospital surgical volume among 26,989 colon and 9779 rectal cancer patients diagnosed 2009-2020 and followed-up to 31.12.2021. Hospitals were divided into terciles according to their three-year average annual surgical volume; colon: low (< 22), middle (22-73), high (> 73); rectal: low (< 17), middle (17-38), high (> 38). We estimated excess hazard ratios (EHR) with flexible parametric models adjusted for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location (within/outside patient's residential health trust).

RESULTS

Low-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage or acutely operated colon cancer patients. Colon cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals had significantly increased crude excess mortality (EHR = 1.30; 95 % CI = 1.14-1.48) but no difference after adjustment for age, year, and stage (EHR = 0.97; 0.85-1.11). High-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage rectal cancer patients and patients operated outside their residential area. Rectal cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals did not have significantly different excess mortality before (EHR = 0.84; 0.64-1.10) or after (EHR = 1.03; 0.79-1.35) adjustment for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location. After accounting for case-mix, hospital surgical volume was not associated with excess mortality from colon (P = 0.40) or rectal cancer (P = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Low hospital surgical volume was not associated with poorer colorectal cancer survival.

Artificial intelligence to investigate predictors and prognostic impact of time to surgery in colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of time to surgery (TTS) for long-term outcomes in colon cancer (CC) remains ill-defined. We sought to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to characterize the drivers of TTS and its prognostic impact.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CC between 2004 and 2018. AI models were employed to rank the importance of several sociodemographic, facility, and tumor characteristics in determining TTS, and postoperative survival.

RESULTS

Among 518 983 patients, 137 902 (26.6%) received intraoperative diagnosis of CC (TTS = 0), while 381 081 (74.4%) underwent elective surgery (TTS > 0) with median TTS of 19.0 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.0-33.0). An AI model, identified tumor stage, receipt of adequate lymphadenectomy, histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and insurance status as the most important variables associated with TTS = 0. Conversely, the type and location of treating facility and receipt of adjuvant therapy were among the most important variables for TTS > 0. Notably, TTS was among the most important variables associated with survival, and TTS > 3 weeks was associated with an incremental increase in mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of factors associated with TTS can help stratify patients most likely to suffer poor outcomes due to prolonged TTS, as well as guide quality improvement initiatives related to timely surgical care.

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.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Mediating Factors Between Race and Time to Treatment in Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous disparities research has demonstrated that underrepresented racial minority patients have worse colorectal cancer outcomes and that they experience unnecessary delays in time to treatment. These delays may explain worse colorectal cancer outcomes for minority patients and serve as a marker of inequalities in our healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantify the mechanisms that contribute to this disparity in treatment delay.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal cancer patients who underwent elective resection from 2004 to 2017. A causal inference mediation analysis using the counterfactual framework was utilized to estimate the extent to which racial disparities among patient factors explain the racial disparities in time to treatment. Mediators included income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at hospitals participating in the National Cancer Database.

PATIENTS

Stage I-III colorectal cancer patients, ≥18 years old, who underwent elective resection from 2004 through 2017 were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary measures were indirect effects of mediators between race and delayed time to treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 504,405 patients (370,051 colon and 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, and 4% were black, Hispanic, and other. In multivariable models, compared to white patients, these patients had 25%, 27%, and 17% greater odds of delayed treatment. Mediation analyses suggested that 43%, 20%, and 31% of the treatment delay among them could be removed if an intervention equalized income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type to that of white patients. Treatment at an academic hospital explained 15% to 32% of the racial disparity and was the most potent mediator.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design and failure to capture all meaningful mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

Black, Hispanic, and other colorectal cancer patients experience treatment delays when compared to white patients. Equalization of the mediators used in this study could reduce treatment delays by 20% to 43% depending on the racial/ethnic group. Future research should identify other causes of racial disparities in treatment delay and intervene accordingly. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 .

FACTORES MEDIADORES ENTRE LA RAZA Y EL TIEMPO HASTA EL TRATAMIENTO EN EL CNCER COLORECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Investigaciones anteriores sobre disparidades han demostrado que los pacientes de minorías raciales subrepresentados tienen peores resultados de cáncer colorrectal y que experimentan retrasos innecesarios en el tiempo de tratamiento. Estos retrasos pueden explicar los peores resultados del cáncer colorrectal para los pacientes de minorías y servir como un marcador de desigualdades en nuestro sistema de salud.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo cuantificar los mecanismos que contribuyen a esta disparidad en el retraso del tratamiento.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis retrospectivo de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017. Se utilizó un análisis de mediación de inferencia causal utilizando el marco contra factual para estimar hasta qué punto las disparidades raciales entre los factores del paciente explican las disparidades raciales en el tiempo hasta el tratamiento. Los mediadores incluyeron ingresos económicos, educación, comorbilidades, seguro médico y tipo de hospital.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en hospitales que participan en la Base de datos nacional del cáncer.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer colorrectal en estadio I-III, ≥18 años, que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS MEDIDAS:Las principales mediciones fueron el efecto indirecto de los mediadores entre la raza y el retraso en el tratamiento.RESULTADOS:De los 504,405 pacientes (370,051 de colon, 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, 4% eran negros, hispanos, y otros, respectivamente. En modelos multivariables, en comparación con los pacientes blancos, estos pacientes tenían un 25%, 27%, y 17% más de probabilidades de retrasar el tratamiento. Los análisis de medición sugirieron que el 43%, 20%, 31% del retraso del tratamiento entre, respectivamente, podría eliminarse si una intervención igualara los ingresos económicos, la educación, las comorbilidades, el seguro médico y el tipo de hospital a los de los pacientes blancos. El tratamiento en un hospital académico demostró entre el 15% y el 32% de la disparidad racial y fue el mediador más potente.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo; falla en capturar a todos los mediadores significativos.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes negros, hispanos y otros con cáncer colorrectal experimentan retrasos en el tratamiento en comparación con los pacientes blancos. La igualación de los mediadores utilizados en este estudio podría reducir los retrasos en el tratamiento en un 20-43%, según el grupo racial / étnico. Las investigaciones futuras deberían identificar otras causas de disparidades raciales en el retraso del tratamiento e intervenir sobre ellas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Domestic medical travel from non-Seoul regions to Seoul for initial breast cancer treatment: a nationwide cohort study

Purpose

This study was conducted to investigate the trend of domestic medical travel from non-Seoul areas to Seoul for initial breast cancer treatment, and identify factors associated with medical travel in breast cancer patients.

Methods

A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment data of South Korea. Patients were classified according to the regions in which they underwent breast biopsy (Seoul vs. metropolitan cities vs. other regions). Frequencies of biopsy, diagnosis, treatment, and domestic medical travel were analyzed according to regions, and factors associated with medical travel were investigated.

Results

A total of 150,709 breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2017 were included. The total rate of medical travel from non-Seoul regions to Seoul had increased from 14.2% (1,161 of 8,150) in 2010 to 19.8% (2,762 of 13,964) in 2017. Approximately a quarter of patients from other regions traveled to Seoul, and over 40% of patients from Chungbuk, Gyeongbuk, and Jeju regions traveled to Seoul for initial treatment in 2017. The difference in the annual frequencies of upfront surgery between Seoul and non-Seoul regions increased over time. Younger age and regions other than metropolitan cities were significantly related to medical travel. Patients covered by medical aid or past medical histories were significantly less likely to travel to Seoul for initial breast cancer treatment.

Conclusion

Medical travel to Seoul for upfront breast cancer surgery is increasing. Policies for appropriate healthcare delivery need to be established in the near future.

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data

OBJECTIVES

A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.

SETTING

Primary care in 10 jurisdictions.

PARTICIPANT

Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario).

CONCLUSIONS

Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

Impact of the time of surgical delay on survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Background and objectives

Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) often experience a waiting period before radical surgery for numerous reasons; however, the COVID-19 outbreak has exacerbated this problem. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the impact of the unavoidable time of surgical delay on the outcome of patients with MIBC.

Methods

In all, 165 patients from high-volume centers with pT2-pT3 MIBC, who underwent radical surgery between January 2008 and November 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients' demographic and pathological information was recorded. Based on the time of surgical delay endured, patients were divided into three groups: long waiting time (> 90 days), intermediate waiting time (30-90 days), and short waiting time (≤ 30 days). Finally, each group's pathological characteristics and survival rates were compared.

Results

The median time of surgical delay for all patients was 33 days (interquartile range, IQR: 16-67 days). Among the 165 patients, 32 (19.4%) were classified into the long waiting time group, 55 (33.3%) into the intermediate waiting time group, and 78 (47.3%) into the short waiting time group. The median follow-up period for all patients was 48 months (IQR: 23-84 months). The median times of surgical delay in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 188 days (IQR: 98-367 days), 39 days (IQR: 35-65 days), and 16 days (IQR: 12-22 days), respectively. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for all patients was 58.4%, and that in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 35.7%, 61.3%, and 64.1%, respectively (P = 0.035). The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 38.9%, 61.5%, and 65.0%, respectively (P = 0.042). The multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age, time of surgical delay, pT stage, and lymph node involvement as independent determinants of OS and CSS.

Conclusion

In patients with pT2-pT3 MIBC, the time of surgical delay > 90 days can have a negative impact on survival.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown on the Prognosis, Morbidity, and Mortality of Patients Undergoing Elective and Emergency Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Tertiary Center, Saudi Arabia

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic's main concerns are limiting the spread of infectious diseases and upgrading the delivery of health services, infrastructure, and therapeutic provision. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the emergency experience and delay of elective abdominal surgical intervention at King Abdul-Aziz University Hospital from October 2019 to October 2020, with a focus on post-operative morbidity and mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compares two groups of patients with emergent and elective abdominal surgical procedures between two different periods; the population was divided into two groups: the control group, which included 403 surgical patients, and the lockdown group, which included 253 surgical patients. During the lockdown, surgical activity was reduced by 37.2% (p = 0.014), and patients were more likely to require reoperations and blood transfusions during or after surgery (p= 0.002, 0.021, and 0.018, respectively). During the lockdown period, the average length of stay increased from 3.43 to 5.83 days (p = 0.002), and the patients who developed complications (53.9%) were more than those in the control period (46.1%) (p = 0.001). Our tertiary teaching hospital observed a significant decline in the overall number of surgeries performed during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown period. During the lockdown, abdominal surgery was performed only on four patients; they were positive for COVID-19. Three of them underwent exploratory laparotomy; two of the three developed shock post-operative; one patient had colon cancer (ASA score 3), one had colon disease (ASA score 2), and two had perforated bowels (ASA scores 2 and 4, respectively). Two out of four deaths occurred after surgery. Our results showed the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on surgical care as both 30-day mortality and total morbidity have risen considerably.

Time to surgery and survival in breast cancer

Background

This study aimed to investigate the effect of the time from diagnosis to breast cancer surgery on breast cancer patients’ prognosis.

Methods

Of the 1900 patients diagnosed with invasive (stage 1–3) breast cancer who underwent surgery in KUH between 2012 and 2019, 279 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients, including those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were classified as Model 1 subjects, and those who received immediate surgical treatment were classified as Model 2 subjects. We conducted a Cox regression analysis to identify prognostic factors of breast cancer associated with the time from diagnosis to surgery.

Results

The univariate results indicated a sharp drop in both groups’ survival rates when the time to surgery was delayed for more than 8 weeks (Model 1 p = 0.000; Model 2 p = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of Model 1increased (HR = 6.84, 95% CI 1.06–44.25) in response to a delay in surgery of more than 8 weeks. Smoking and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system had a negative effect on breast cancer prognosis, while hormone therapy had a positive effect.

Conclusion

For all patients, a delay in breast cancer surgery of more than 8 weeks was inversely associated with survival.

Association of treatment delay and stage with mortality in breast cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan

Breast cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death globally. In this retrospective study, we investigated the effects of the diagnosis-to-first-treatment interval (DFTI) and other related factors on cancer-specific survival in patients with breast cancer. We included 49,426 patients newly diagnosed as having breast cancer during 2011-2017. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality with various DFTIs; the HRs of the 31-60-, 61-90-, and ≥ 91-day DFTI groups did not differ significantly compared with the reference group (DFTI ≤ 30 days). After stratifying the patients according to initial tumor stage and age, we found that patients aged 55-64 and ≥ 65 years with stage II breast cancer treated ≥ 91 days after diagnosis had a 3.34- and 2.93-fold higher mortality risk (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.29-8.69 and 1.06-8.10, respectively). Patients aged ≥ 65 years with stage IV breast cancer treated within 61-90 or ≥ 91 days after diagnosis had a 7.14- and 34.78-fold higher mortality risk (95% CIs 1.28-39.82 and 3.08-393.32, respectively). In conclusion, DFTI is associated with mortality in patients with stage II and IV breast cancer, especially at an older age.

Improved survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients after introducing patient navigation: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score weighted historic control

OnkoNetwork is a patient navigation program established in the Moritz Kaposi General Hospital to improve the timeliness and completeness of cancer investigations and treatment. The H2020 SELFIE consortium selected OnkoNetwork as a promising integrated care initiative in Hungary and conducted a multicriteria decision analysis based on health, patient experience, and cost outcomes. In this paper, a more detailed analysis of clinical impacts is provided in the largest subgroup, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling new cancer suspect patients with subsequently confirmed NSCLC in two annual periods, before and after OnkoNetwork implementation (control and intervention cohorts, respectively). To control for selection bias and confounding, baseline balance was improved via propensity score weighting. Overall survival was analyzed in univariate and multivariate weighted Cox regression models and the effect was further characterized in a counterfactual analysis. Our analysis included 123 intervention and 173 control NSCLC patients from early to advanced stage, with significant between-cohort baseline differences. The propensity score-based weighting resulted in good baseline balance. A large survival benefit was observed in the intervention cohort, and intervention was an independent predictor of longer survival in a multivariate analysis when all baseline characteristics were included (HR = 0.63, p = 0.039). When post-baseline variables were included in the model, belonging to the intervention cohort was not an independent predictor of survival, but the survival benefit was explained by slightly better stage distribution and ECOG status at treatment initiation, together with trends for broader use of PET-CT and higher resectability rate. In conclusion, patient navigation is a valuable tool to improve cancer outcomes by facilitating more timely and complete cancer diagnostics. Contradictory evidence in the literature may be explained by common sources of bias, including the wait-time paradox and adjustment to intermediate outcomes.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Activities: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review

Aim The aim of this article is to investigate the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on our surgical department, which is situated in Athens, Greece, as well as to review published literature on the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on surgical activities in our department.  Material and methods We retrospectively reviewed the surgical procedures that were performed in the surgical department of a tertiary University hospital in Athens, Greece, before and during the pandemic. Furthermore, we performed a literature review evaluating articles on surgical activity and COVID-19 published from the beginning of the pandemic up until the January of 2022 on the PubMed database.  Results In total, 894 patients were included in the study. Of those, 264 (29.5%) underwent surgery during the control period and 630 (70.5%) in the pandemic period. Overall, we performed 20.5% fewer surgeries in the post-sanitary period. In particular, elective surgeries decreased on average by 23.9%, emergency procedures decreased by 8.9%, and oncology surgeries increased by an average of 6.4% after the year 2020. Concerning the review of literature, 51 studies were selected for this review. According to them, the main effect of the pandemic on the surgical sector was reflected in the reduction of total surgeries, mainly due to the postponement of elective surgical procedures, which showed a median reduction of 54% compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. A smaller decrease was observed in the number of emergency and oncological surgeries. Conclusions Reduced surgical activity during the pandemic, due to the health measures imposed, requires courageous corrective interventions to avoid its adverse effects, such as disease progression, increased treatment costs, reduced quality of life, and ultimately the survival of the patients.

Perioperative Management of Robotic-Assisted Gynecological Surgery in a Super Morbidly Obese Patient

We report the perioperative management of a 32-year-old woman with super-morbid obesity (body mass index (BMI) of 60.9 kilograms per meter squared (kg/m²)) who underwent a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy in a hospital that was not specialized for obese patients. She successfully reduced her BMI by 10% using dietary restrictions in five weeks, and her surgery was performed two weeks later by consultation between gynecologists and anesthesiologists. This case demonstrates that the determination of the optimal time for surgery by consultation between physicians is crucial in the care of such a complex patient in hospitals that are not specialized for morbidly obese patients. Weight reduction in the preoperative period should be considered for super-morbid obesity patients with malignant diseases, even if the duration of preoperative optimization is shorter than four to eight weeks.

Dynamic monitoring revealed a slightly prolonged waiting time for total gastrectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing the short-term complications

We aimed to determine the pattern of delay and its effect on the short-term outcomes of total gastrectomy before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Overlaid line graphs were used to visualize the dynamic changes in the severity of the pandemic, number of gastric cancer patients, and waiting time for a total gastrectomy. We observed a slightly longer waiting time during the pandemic (median: 28.00 days, interquartile range: 22.00–34.75) than before the pandemic (median: 25.00 days, interquartile range: 18.00–34.00; p = 0.0071). Moreover, we study the effect of delayed surgery (waiting time > 30 days) on short-term outcomes using postoperative complications, extreme value of laboratory results, and postoperative stay. In patients who had longer waiting times, we did not observe worse short-term complication rates (grade II–IV: 15% vs. 19%, p = 0.27; grade III–IV: 7.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.51, the short waiting group vs. the prolonged waiting group) or a higher risk of a longer POD (univariable: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80–1.49, p = 0.59; multivariable: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.78–1.55, p = 0.59). Patients in the short waiting group, rather than in the delayed surgery group, had an increased risk of bleeding in analyses of laboratory results (plasma prothrombin activity, hemoglobin, and hematocrit). A slightly prolonged preoperative waiting time during COVID-19 pandemic might not influence the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent total gastrectomy.

Association between time-to-treatment and outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

National targets for timely diagnosis and management of a potential cancer are driven in part by the perceived risk of disease progression during avoidable delays. However, it is unclear to what extent time-to-treatment impacts prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, with previous reviews reporting mixed or apparently paradoxical associations. This systematic review focuses on potential confounders in order to identify particular patient groups which may benefit most from timely delivery of care.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for publications between January 2012 and October 2020, correlating timeliness in secondary care pathways to patient outcomes. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; ID 99239). Prespecified factors (demographics, performance status, histology, stage and treatment) are examined through narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles were included. All but two were observational. Timely care was generally associated with a worse prognosis in those with advanced stage disease (6/8 studies) but with better outcomes for patients with early-stage disease treated surgically (9/12 studies). In one study, patients with squamous cell carcinoma referred for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy benefited more from timely care, compared with patients with adenocarcinoma. One randomised controlled trial supported timeliness as being advantageous in those with stage I-IIIA disease.

CONCLUSION

There are limitations to the available evidence, but observed trends suggest timeliness to be of particular importance in surgical candidates. In more advanced disease, survival trends are likely outweighed by symptom burden, performance status or clinical urgency dictating timeliness of treatment.

Optimize the number of cycles of induction chemotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

Background: There is no conclusive on the optimal number of cycles of induction chemotherapy (IC) with the greatest benefit to patient survival. This study aimed to assess the efficiency and acute toxicities of different cycles of IC for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Methods: We reviewed data from patients with LA-NPC treated with IC plus concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to match paired patients. After PSM, survival outcomes of matched patients were compared between two and three cycles of IC groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were carried out to identify potentially independent predictors. Treatment-related acute toxicities between the two groups were compared by Pearson X² test or Fisher's exact test. Results: In total, 189 pairs were selected. The median follow-up time was 60 months (range 5 to 126 months). There was no difference between two and three cycles of IC in terms of 5-year overall survival (87.0% vs. 89.7%, p = 0.991), distant metastasis-free survival (90.1% vs. 86.8%, p = 0.587), locoregional recurrence-free survival (97.0% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.488), or progression-free survival (79.4% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.896). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that T stage, N stage, and clinical stage were independent prognostic factors. Three cycles of IC were associated with a higher incidence of Grade 1-2 acute toxicity than two cycles during IC period. Conclusion: The efficacy of two cycles of IC achieved similar survival outcomes as three cycles and has a lower incidence of treatment-related acute toxicity.

A Randomized Controlled Trial for Doing vs. Omitting Intraoperative Frozen Section Biopsy for Resection Margin Status in Selected Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery (OFF-MAP Trial)

Purpose

Intraoperative frozen section biopsy is used to reduce the margin positive rate and re-excision rate and has been reported to have high diagnostic accuracy. A majority of breast surgeons in the Republic of Korea routinely perform frozen section biopsy to assess margins intraoperatively, despite its long turnaround time and high resource requirements. This study aims to determine whether omitting frozen section biopsy for intraoperative margin evaluation in selected patients is non-inferior to performing frozen section biopsy in terms of resection margin positivity rate.

Methods

This study is a phase III, randomized controlled, parallel-group, multicenter non-inferiority clinical trial. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria and providing written informed consent will be randomized to the “frozen section biopsy” or “frozen section biopsy omission” group after lumpectomy. Patients with clinical stage T1–T3 disease who are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer by core-needle biopsy and plan to undergo breast-conserving surgery will be included in this study. If a daughter nodule, non-mass enhancement, or microcalcification is identified on preoperative imaging, these features must be within 1 cm of the main mass for inclusion in the trial. The target sample size is 646 patients per arm. The primary endpoint will be the resection margin positive rate, and the secondary endpoints include the reoperation rate, operating time, residual cancer after reoperation, residual cancer after re-excision according to the frozen section biopsy result, resection volume, patient quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

This is the first randomized clinical trial utilizing frozen section biopsy for intraoperative margin evaluation and aims to determine the non-inferiority of omitting frozen section biopsy in selected patients compared to performing frozen section biopsy. We expect that this trial will help surgeons perform the procedure more efficiently while ensuring patient safety.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03975179; Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0004606

The wait time to primary surgery in endometrial cancer - impact on survival and predictive factors: a population-based SweGCG study

BACKGROUND

Poor survival rates in different cancer types are sometimes blamed on diagnostic and treatment delays, and it has been suggested that such delays might be related to sociodemographic factors such as education and ethnicity. We examined associations of the wait time from diagnosis to surgery and survival in endometrial cancer (EC) and explored patient and tumour factors influencing the wait time.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this historical population-based cohort study, The Swedish Quality Registry for Gynaecologic Cancer (SQRGC) was used to identify EC patients who underwent primary surgery between 2010 and 2018. Factors associated with a wait time > 32 d were analysed with logistic regression. The 32-d time point was defined in accordance with the Swedish Standardisation Cancer Care programme. Adjusted Poisson regression analyses were used to analyse excess mortality rate ratio (EMRR).

RESULTS

Out of 7366 women, 5535 waited > 32 d for surgery and 1098 > 70 d. The overall median wait time was 44 d. The factors most strongly associated with a wait time > 32 d were surgery at a university hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.66) followed by country of birth (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.55) and year of diagnosis. There were no associations between wait time and histology or age. A wait time < 15 d was associated with higher mortality (adjusted EMRR 2.29,95% CI 1.36-3.84) whereas no negative survival impact was seen with a wait time of 70 d. Age, tumour stage, histology and risk group were highly associated with survival, whereas education, country of origin and hospital level did not have any impact on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery within the first two weeks after EC diagnosis was associated with worsened survival. A prolonged wait time did not seem to have any significant adverse effect on prognosis.HighlightsSurgery within the first two weeks after diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC) was associated with poorer survival.A prolonged wait time to surgery did not worsen prognosis.Delay in time to surgery was associated with sociodemographic factors.

Time from first seen in specialist care to surgery does not influence survival outcome in patients with upfront resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the impact of time to surgery (TTS) on overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and postoperative complication rate in patients with upfront resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA).

METHODS

We retrospectively included patients who underwent upfront surgery for PA between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 from four French centers. TTS was defined as the number of days between the date of the first consultation in specialist care and the date of surgery. DFS for a 14-day TTS was the primary endpoint. We also analyzed survival depending on different delay cut-offs (7, 14, 28, 60 and 75 days).

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients were included. 59 patients (35%) underwent an upfront surgery within 14 days. Patients in the higher delay group (> 14 days) had significantly more vein resections and endoscopic biliary drainage. Adjusted OS (p = 0.44), DFS (p = 0.99), fistulas (p = 0.41), hemorrhage (p = 0.59) and severe post-operative complications (p = 0.82) were not different according to TTS (> 14 days). Other delay cut-offs had no impact on OS or DFS.

DISCUSSION

TTS seems to have no impact on OS, DFS and 90-day postoperative morbidity.

Gastric Cancer Surgery During the Pandemic: What It Costs?

BACKGROUND

From the early days of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to change whole life all around the world. Oncological patients are the most affected populations since these days. Because of decreasing numbers in surgery and endoscopy, gastric cancer patients had difficulties in treatment and diagnoses. Therefore, the early and long-term results may be affected during the pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate pandemia effects on gastric cancer surgery in a single center.

PATIENTS-METHODS

Patients were categorized as the COVID group and the Pre-COVID group. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded from the study. In the COVID period, 50 patients underwent gastric cancer surgery, while 64 were operated on in the pre-COVID period. Patients' demographics and clinical and pathological outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in both periods among patient characteristics such as age, gender, and body mass index. Pre-operative laboratory results were similar between two groups. Although there was no difference in operation types, an increase was detected in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and higher complications during the COVID period. During the pandemic, there was a significant difference in the pathological outcomes. Peritoneal cytology-positive patients were hıgher in the COVID group. More lymphovascular invasions were also detected in the COVID period. Finally, it resulted stage differences between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Because of COVID-19's heavy burden on healthcare system, delays in the diagnosis and treatment of oncological patients may occur. Therefore, this may be affected pathological and survival outcomes of cancer patients. Finally, further investigations are needed.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

The Impact of Surgical Delays on Short- and Long-Term Survival Among Colon Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgical delays on short- and long-term survival among colon cancer patients.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing surgery for stage I, II, or III colon cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). After categorization by wait times from diagnosis to surgery (<1 week, 1-3 weeks, 3-6 weeks, 6-9 weeks, 9-12 weeks, and >12 weeks), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival were compared between patients both overall and after stratification by pathological disease stage.

RESULTS

Among 187 394 colon cancer patients, 24.2% waited <1 week, 30.5% waited 1-3 weeks, 29.0% waited 3-6 weeks, 9.7% waited 6-9 weeks, 3.3% waited 9-12 weeks, and 3.3% waited >12 weeks for surgery. Patients undergoing surgery 3-6 weeks after colon cancer diagnosis exhibited the best 30-day mortality (1.3%), 90-day mortality (2.3%), and 5-year overall survival (71.8%) (P < .001 for all). After risk-adjusting for confounders, all wait times beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 5-year overall survival (6-9 weeks: HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; 9-12 weeks: HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.33; >12 weeks: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.52; P < .001 for all). Subgroup analysis after stratification by disease stage demonstrated that patients with stage III colon cancer were able to wait up to 9 weeks before exhibiting worse 5-year overall survival, compared to 6 weeks for patients with stage I or II disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Colon cancer patients should undergo surgery 3-6 weeks after diagnosis, as all surgical delays beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

What's the magic number? Impact of time to initiation of treatment for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

National guidelines, including the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, recommend initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis; however, the effect of timely treatment initiation on oncologic outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact on oncologic outcomes of initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of stage II/III rectal cancer patients performed using the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium, a collaboration of 6 academic medical centers. Patients with clinical stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent radical resection between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018 were included. The primary exposure was treatment initiation, defined as either resection or initiation of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, within 60 days of diagnosis. The primary outcome was disease recurrence, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,031 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Treatment was initiated within 60 days of diagnosis in 830 patients (80.5%) and after 60 days in 201 patients (20.3%). In multivariable logistic regression, older age, non-White race, and residence greater than 100 miles from the treatment center were significantly associated with delay in treatment beyond 60 days. In survival analysis, 167 patients (16.2%) experienced recurrent disease, and 127 patients (12.3%) died of any cause. In an adjusted model accounting for pathologic staging, treatment sequence, distance to care, age, comorbidities, treatment center, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, neither progression-free survival nor all-cause mortality was significantly associated with timely initiation of therapy with hazard ratios of 1.09 (0.70, 1.69) and 1.03 (0.63, 1.66), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in oncologic outcomes with initiation of treatment beyond 60 days.

Modifications to Treatment Plan of Rectal Cancer in Response to COVID-19 at the Philippine General Hospital

Purpose

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained healthcare resources worldwide. Despite the high number of cases, cancer management should remain one of the priorities of healthcare, as any delay would potentially cause disease progression.

Methods

This was an observational study that included nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients managed at the Philippine General Hospital from March 16 to May 31, 2020, coinciding with the lockdown. The treatment received and their outcomes were investigated.

Results

Of the 52 patients included, the majority were female (57.7%), belonging to the age group of 50 to 69 years (53.8%), and residing outside the capital (59.6%). On follow-up, 23.1% had no disease progression, 17.3% had local progression, 28.8% had metastatic progression, 19.2% have died, and 11.5% were lost to follow up. The initial plan for 47.6% patients was changed. Of the 21 patients with nonmetastatic disease, 2 underwent outright resection. The remaining 19 required neoadjuvant therapy. Eight have completed their neoadjuvant treatment, 8 are undergoing treatment, 2 had their treatment interrupted, and 1 has yet to begin treatment. Among the 9 patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy, only 1 was able to undergo resection on time. The rest were delayed, with a median time of 4 months. One has repeatedly failed to arrive for her surgery due to public transport limitations. There was 1 adjuvant chemotherapy-related mortality.

Conclusion

Delays in cancer management resulted in disease progression in several patients. Alternative neoadjuvant treatment options should be considered while taking into account oncologic outcomes, acceptable toxicity, and limitation of potential COVID-19 exposure.

Thoracıc surgery experience from the largest pandemic hospital in Europe

Background

SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), which was detected in December 2019, whose first cases were observed in Turkey on 11^th March 2020, and which was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on the same day, has become a public health problem worldwide and has required the adaptation of medical practices to the current situation. In the current paper, we present our experience and practices regarding thoracic surgery from the largest pandemic hospital in Europe over the 1-year period of the pandemic.

Methods

Patients who were operated by our thoracic surgery clinic in the largest pandemic hospital in Europe between March 2020 and March 2021 in the COVID-19 pandemic in our country and in the world were evaluated retrospectively.

Results

Eighty-five patients were operated on during the 1-year pandemic, of which 54 (63.5%) were men and 31 (36.5%) were women. The mean patient age was 47.7. Morbidity rate was 12%. The average number of PCR tests performed in the preoperative period for COVID-19 disease was 1.6. Sixteen patients had a history of COVID-19 before surgery. COVID-19 was not seen in any patient in our clinic during the postoperative period. Only one patient died out of those who underwent surgery. That patient died due to multiorgan failure.

Conclusion

Thoracic surgery has one of the highest risks due to direct contact with the lungs, especially in terms of surgery and the postoperative period. We consider that this risk will be minimized by taking measures during all processes. Moreover, we think that surgical treatments should be delayed as little as possible due to the special status of oncology patients. In addition, considering that if all these rules are followed in the COVID-19 pandemic and in other types of pandemics that may occur in the future, there will be no delay or insufficiency in the treatment of patients and healthcare professionals will be able to work safely.

Does delaying curative surgery for colorectal cancer influence long-term disease-free survival? A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Surgical wait list time is a major problem in many health-care systems and its influence on survival is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of wait list time on long-term disease-free survival in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in patients with colorectal cancer scheduled for surgery at a tertiary care center. Wait list time was defined as the time from completion of diagnostic workup to definitive surgery and divided into 2-week intervals from 0 to 6 weeks. The outcome variables were 2-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 602 patients, 364 (60.5%) male, median age 73 years (range = 71) were defined. The median wait list time was 28 days (range = 99). Two and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 521 (86.5%) and 500 (83.1%) respectively. There were no differences in 2-year or 5-year disease-free survival for the whole cohort or by tumor stage between wait list time intervals except for AJCC stage II tumors which showed a higher 5-year disease-free survival for the 2-4 and 4-6-week wait list time interval (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Time from diagnosis to definitive surgery up to 6 weeks is not associated with a decrease in 2-year or 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) in AJCC stage I through III colorectal cancer patients. These are important findings in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a window of opportunity for preoperative optimization and prehabilitation.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waiting times for elective surgery patients: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

A concern has been that health care reorganizations during the first COVID-19 wave have led to delays in elective surgeries, resulting in increased complications and even mortality. This multicenter study examined the changes in waiting times of elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland.

METHODS

Data on elective surgery were gathered from three Finnish public hospitals for years 2017-2020. Surgery incidence and waiting times were examined and the year 2020 was compared to the reference years 2017-2019. The mean annual, monthly, and weekly waiting times were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The most common diagnosis groups were examined separately.

FINDINGS

A total of 88 693 surgeries were included during the study period. The mean waiting time in 2020 was 92.6 (CI 91.5-93.8) days, whereas the mean waiting time in the reference years was 85.8 (CI 85.1-86.5) days, resulting in an average 8% increase in waiting times in 2020. Elective procedure incidence decreased rapidly in the onset of the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 but recovered in May and June, after which the surgery incidence was 22% higher than in the reference years and remained at this level until the end of the year. In May 2020 and thereafter until November, waiting times were longer with monthly increases varying between 7% and 34%. In gastrointestinal and genitourinary diseases and neoplasms, waiting times were longer in 2020. In cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, waiting times were shorter in 2020.

CONCLUSION

The health care reorganizations due to the pandemic have increased elective surgery waiting times by as much as one-third, even though the elective surgery rate increased by one-fifth after the lockdown.

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.

Impact of Preoperative Time Interval on Survival in Patients With Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

A time interval between diagnosis and surgery for gastric cancer is necessary, although its impact on survival remains controversial. We evaluated the impact of preoperative time interval on survival in gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

We enrolled 332 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for clinical stage (cStage) I-III gastric cancer between 2012 and 2015. We separately analyzed early- (cStage I) and advanced-stage (cStages II and III) patients. Early-stage patients were divided according to preoperative time interval: short (≤ 42 days) and long (> 42 days) groups. Advanced-stage patients were also divided into short (≤ 21 days) and long (> 21 days) groups. We compared the survival between the short and long groups in early- and advanced-stage patients.

RESULTS

The median preoperative time interval was 29 days, and no significant differences were found in patient characteristics between the short and long groups in early- and advanced-stage patients. In early-stage patients, the 5-year survival rates of the short and long groups were 86.5% and 88.4%, respectively (P = 0.917). In advanced-stage patients, the 5-year survival rates were 72.1% and 70.0%, respectively (P = 0.552). In multivariate analysis, a longer time interval was not selected as an independent prognostic factor in early- and advanced-stage patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, survival difference was not found based upon preoperative time interval. The results do not affirm the delay of treatment without reason, however, imperative extension of preoperative time interval may be justified from the standpoint of long-term survival.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Delays in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Delays in diagnosis and treatment have been reported for many cancers, with resultant stage migration and worse survival; however, few data exist in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). These data are of particular importance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused disruptions in healthcare processes and may continue to impact cancer care for the foreseeable future. The aim of our study was to characterize the prevalence and clinical significance of diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with HCC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with HCC between January 2008 and July 2017 at 2 US health systems. Diagnostic and treatment delays were defined as >90 days between presentation and HCC diagnosis and between diagnosis and treatment, respectively. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with diagnostic and treatment delays and Cox proportional hazard models to identify correlates of overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 925 patients with HCC, 39.0% were diagnosed via screening, 33.1% incidentally, and 27.9% symptomatically. Median time from presentation to diagnosis was 37 days (interquartile range, 18-94 days), with 120 patients (13.0%) experiencing diagnostic delays. Median time from HCC diagnosis to treatment was 46 days (interquartile range, 29-74 days), with 17.2% of patients experiencing treatment delays. Most (72.5%) diagnostic delays were related to provider-level factors (eg, monitoring indeterminate nodules), whereas nearly half (46.2%) of treatment delays were related to patient-related factors (eg, missed appointments). In multivariable analyses, treatment delays were not associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.35); these results were consistent across subgroup analyses by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage and treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and therapeutic delays exceeding 3 months are common in patients with HCC; however, observed treatment delays do not seem to significantly impact overall survival.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Surgery Delay Within a Coordinated Multihospital Community Health System: When Does Surgical Delay Impact Outcome?

BACKGROUND

Multiple factors influence the time elapsed between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgical extirpation of the primary tumor. The disease-free interval between resection of primary breast cancer and first evidence of recurrence is predictive of mortality. We aimed to determine patient, disease, and treatment factors associated with a delay in time to surgery (TTS) and identify the point when prolonged TTS negatively impacts disease-free survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer registry and electronic medical record data for patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery as first course of treatment during 2006-2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing surgery in ≤30 vs. 31-60 vs. >60 days of initial diagnosis were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate impact of time from breast cancer diagnosis to definitive therapeutic surgery on breast cancer recurrence or death (all-cause).

RESULTS

Overall, 4462 patients were analyzed, 43.4% of whom underwent surgery beyond 30 days. The following factors were associated with TTS >30 days: age <50, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, commercial or health exchange/Medicaid insurance, diagnosis of noninvasive disease (i.e., ductal carcinoma in situ), had breast magnetic resonance imaging before definitive surgery, underwent total mastectomy (especially if immediate reconstruction, particularly if autologous, was performed), and did not receive adjuvant therapies (P < .001 for all). After adjusting for relevant variables, significant predictors of recurrence/death included a TTS >60 days, increased patient age, higher breast cancer stage, and triple-negative biomarker expression.

CONCLUSION

Risk of recurrence or death is not compromised until TTS exceeds 60 days after initial breast cancer diagnosis.

Impact of Surgical Wait Time to Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecologic Disease

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of surgical wait time on healthcare use and surgical outcomes for patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic indications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Urban, academic tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign disease between 2012 and 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were categorized into 2 groups, dichotomized by surgical wait times >30 days or ≤30 days. Healthcare use was measured by the number of discrete patient interactions with the healthcare system through phone calls, secure electronic messaging, and office and emergency room visits. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to assess the association between surgical wait time and healthcare use and perioperative outcomes while controlling for confounders. A total of 277 patients were included in our analysis: 106 (38.3%) had surgical wait times >30 days (median 47 days, range 24-68 days), and 171 (67.1%) had surgical wait times ≤30 days (median 19 days; range 12-26 days). The groups did not differ by age, insurance status, substance use, or comorbid conditions. Patients in the group with surgical wait times >30 days were more likely to have increased healthcare use (69 of 106, 65% vs 43 of 171, 25%; odds ratio 5.55; 95% confidence interval, 3.27-9.41). There were no differences in intraoperative complications (9 of 106, 8% vs 19 of 171, 11%; p = .482) or postoperative complications (28 of 106, 26% vs 32 of 171, 19%; p = .13) between the groups; however, after controlling for potential confounders, patients with surgical wait times >30 days were 3.22 times more likely to be readmitted than patients with surgical wait times ≤30 days (95% confidence interval, 1.27-8.19).

CONCLUSION

A surgical wait time >30 days in patients undergoing a hysterectomy for benign disease is associated with increased healthcare use in the interim. Although patients who experience longer surgical wait times do not experience worse surgical outcomes, they may be at higher risk for readmission after surgery. Targeted interventions to optimize perioperative coordination of care for patients undergoing a hysterectomy for benign disease, especially those within vulnerable populations, are needed to improve quality of care, decrease any redundant or inefficient healthcare use, and reduce any unnecessary delays.