ReviewTimeliness of access to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment: A scoping literature review
Introduction
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report in June 2015 calling for greater attention to timeliness of care, which is the least studied and least understood of the IOM’s six fundamental properties of high quality healthcare [1], [2]. The IOM report also proposed an idealized benchmark that new patients should wait no longer than ten days for new specialty care visits, and no more than one day for urgent specialty care such as oncology.
Lung cancer can be difficult to diagnose and is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide [3]. Timely detection, diagnosis, and subsequent treatment for lung cancer is critical to patient outcomes and well-being. Delays in any part of the process, from initial evaluation and referral, to definitive diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and survivorship care, may lead to adverse patient outcomes. In an effort to reduce such delays, experts have established consensus-based standards for maximum acceptable waiting times for referral, diagnosis, and treatment specifically for lung cancer. In 1998, the British Thoracic Society (BTS) formulated a set of recommendations under the BTS Standards of Care Committee and in 2000 the RAND Corporation published target intervals for lung cancer access to care [4], [5]. In 2011, the United Kingdom’s (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published revised guidelines on lung cancer care diagnosis and treatment [6]. They recommended that patients with suspected lung cancer receive a specialist appointment within two weeks and that x-rays be performed within two weeks for patients meeting certain clinical criteria for lung cancer risk. More recently, UK’s National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway proposes patient assessment pathways to be used in reference with BTS and NICE guidelines to help achieve maximum waiting times of 14 days for diagnosis and 28 days for treatment [7]. Unfortunately, these standards are not always upheld, and significant delays in lung cancer care persist [8].
To begin to assess the evidence about these delays and to formulate potential questions and analytic approaches for further research, we conducted a scoping review of the literature. The primary objectives of this review were to examine how wait times experienced by patients with lung cancer have been measured and to summarize existing evidence on delays in timely care. Reviews of the timeliness of lung cancer care were published in 2009 by Olsson et al. [8] and in 2014 by Vinas et al. [9], examining lung cancer care waiting times and the relationship between waiting times and outcomes such as patient survival. We focused our review on literature published since June 2007 and expanded information collected to include costs, healthcare utilization, and disparities.
Section snippets
Methods
We conducted a scoping review of the medical literature using methods outlined by Arskey and O’Malley and Levac et al. [10]. Using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords, we searched PubMed for English-language articles on timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment published from June 2007 to July 2016; the time period following a previously published literature review on timeliness of lung cancer care [8]. The full search term for the current review are provided in the online
Results
The final search resulted in 901 articles, of which 641 were excluded through title review and 173 were excluded through abstract review, leaving 86 articles for full review (Fig. 1). An additional 21 articles were excluded upon full review. Of the 65 articles included in the review, studies took place in 21 different countries with nearly half (48%) conducted in the United States (US), United Kingdom, or Canada (Table S1, online Supplement). Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 56,624 patients with a
Discussion
In this scoping review, we identified 65 articles published between 2007 and 2016 measuring timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in 21 countries. A 2009 systematic review on timeliness of lung cancer care by Olsson et al. summarized wait time intervals reported in 49 studies published between 1995 and 2007 [8]. While 24 of those articles were from the UK or Ireland with only 5 from the US, our updated literature review included 15 US articles and 7 from the UK, suggesting a
Conclusions
This scoping literature review highlighted substantial heterogeneity in reporting on timeliness of access to lung cancer care. Measurement standardization of meaningful wait intervals across this care continuum is needed for improved ability to assess and compare quality, interventions, and patient outcomes, especially since many patients still face longer than recommended wait times for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.
Potential conflict of interest disclosures
Ms. Jacobsen, Ms. Silverstein, and Dr. Quinn have nothing to disclose. Dr. Benneyan reports grants from the National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Thomas reports he has served as an advisor and provided paid educational/promotional activities for Genentech, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and Celgene. Dr. Han and Mr. Waterson report grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation (BMSF) during the conduct of the study.
Role of the funding source
This work was supported partially by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [grant number IIP-1034990]. The findings and conclusions in this article are solely those of the authors; NSF was not involved in the design, writing, or publishing of this paper.
Acknowledgement
We thank Hande Musdal, PhD, for her technical assistance with developing figures.
References (79)
- et al.
Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
J. Clin. Epidemiol.
(2014) - et al.
The effect of a lung cancer care coordination program on timeliness of care
Clin. Lung Cancer
(2013) - et al.
Timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in a rapid outpatient diagnostic program with combined 18FDG-PET and contrast enhanced CT scanning
Lung Cancer
(2012) - et al.
Differences in outcomes between younger and older patients with non-small cell lung cancer
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2008) - et al.
The impact of diagnostic imaging wait times on the prognosis of lung cancer
Can. Assoc. Radiol. J.
(2015) - et al.
Are we achieving the current waiting time targets in lung cancer treatment? Result of a prospective study from a large United kingdom teaching hospital
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2007) - et al.
Treatment delays in non-small cell lung cancer and their prognostic implications
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2011) - et al.
Preoperative evaluation of lung cancer in a community health care setting
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2015) - et al.
Adopting integrated care pathways in non-small-cell lung cancer: from theory to practice
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2012) - et al.
The effects of a multidisciplinary care conference on the quality and cost of care for lung cancer patients
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2015)
Delay between the initial symptoms, the diagnosis and the onset of specific treatment in elderly patients with lung cancer
Clin. Lung Cancer
Time to treatment as a quality metric in lung cancer: staging studies, time to treatment, and patient survival
Radiother. Oncol.
Timeliness of care in veterans with non-small cell lung cancer
Chest
Evaluation of the use of a rapid diagnostic consultation of lung cancer. Delay time of diagnosis and therapy
Arch. Bronconeumol.
Survival after community diagnosis of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer
Am. J. Med.
Timeliness of cancer care from diagnosis to treatment: a comparison between patients with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer
Int. J. Qual. Health Care
Biomarker testing and time to treatment decision in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer
Ann. Oncol.
Time to treat: a system redesign focusing on decreasing the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Timeliness across the continuum of care in veterans with lung cancer
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Delays in the diagnostic pathways for primary pulmonary carcinoma in Southern Norway
Respir. Med.
Waiting times in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Effects of delayed surgical resection on short-term and long-term outcomes in clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of hospitalized patients with smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis
Respir. Med.
Lung cancer diagnostic and treatment intervals in the United States: a health care disparity?
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Patient and physician delay in the diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Turkey
Cancer Epidemiol.
Transforming Health Care Scheduling and Access: Getting to Now
Health care scheduling and access: a report from the IOM
JAMA
GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012
BTS recommendations to respiratory physicians for organising the care of patients with lung cancer. The Lung Cancer Working Party of the British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee
Thorax
Quality of Care for Oncologic Conditions and HIV: A Review of the Literature and Quality Indicators
Lung Cancer. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer
National Optimal Clinical Pathway for Suspected and Confirmed Lung Cancer: Referral to Treatment
Timeliness of care in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review
Thorax
Delays for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancers: a systematic review
Clin. Respir. J.
Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
Implement. Sci.
The Lean method as a clinical pathway facilitator in patients with lung cancer
Clin. Respir. J.
Social inequalities in non-small cell lung cancer management and survival: a population-based study in central Sweden
Thorax
Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: what are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?
Br. J. Cancer
Distress in suspected lung cancer patients following rapid and standard diagnostic programs: a prospective observational study
Psychooncology
Cited by (144)
The molecular mechanisms of various long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) in human lung tumors: Shedding light on the molecular mechanisms
2024, Pathology Research and PracticeConsiderations for selecting second-line treatment in patients with progressive small cell lung cancer and the use of Lurbinectedin in this setting
2024, Cancer Treatment and Research CommunicationsLung cancer from suspicion to treatment: An indicator of healthcare access in Turkey
2023, Cancer Epidemiology