Suzanne C Byrne1, Brendan Barrett2, Rick Bhatia3. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada. Electronic address: suzanne.byrne@mun.ca. 2. Clinical Epidemiology and Division of Nephrology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to determine whether gaps in patient flow from initial lung imaging to computed tomography (CT) guided lung biopsy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was associated with a change in tumour size, stage, and thus prognosis. METHODS: All patients who had a CT-guided lung biopsy in 2009 (phase I) and in 2011 (phase II) with a pathologic diagnosis of primary lung cancer (NSCLC) at Eastern Health, Newfoundland, were identified. Dates of initial abnormal imaging, confirmatory CT (if performed), and CT-guided biopsy were recorded, along with tumour size and resulting T stage at each time point. In 2010, wait times for diagnostic imaging at Eastern Health were reduced. The stage and prognosis of NSCLC in 2009 was compared with 2011. RESULTS: In phase 1, there was a statistically significant increase in tumour size (mean difference, 0.67 cm; P < .0001) and stage (P < .0001) from initial image to biopsy. There was a moderate correlation between the time (in days) between the images and change in size (r = 0.33, P = .008) or stage (r = 0.26, P = .036). In phase II, the median wait time from initial imaging to confirmatory CT was reduced to 7.5 days (from 19 days). At this reduced wait time, there was no statistically significant increase in tumour size (mean difference, 0.02; P > .05) or stage (P > .05) from initial imaging to confirmatory CT. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in patient flow through diagnostic imaging resulted in an increase in tumour size and stage, with a negative impact on prognosis of NSCLC. This information contributed to the hiring of additional CT technologists and extended CT hours to decrease the wait time for diagnostic imaging. With reduced wait times, the prognosis of NSCLC was not adversely impacted as patients navigated through diagnostic imaging.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to determine whether gaps in patient flow from initial lung imaging to computed tomography (CT) guided lung biopsy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was associated with a change in tumour size, stage, and thus prognosis. METHODS: All patients who had a CT-guided lung biopsy in 2009 (phase I) and in 2011 (phase II) with a pathologic diagnosis of primary lung cancer (NSCLC) at Eastern Health, Newfoundland, were identified. Dates of initial abnormal imaging, confirmatory CT (if performed), and CT-guided biopsy were recorded, along with tumour size and resulting T stage at each time point. In 2010, wait times for diagnostic imaging at Eastern Health were reduced. The stage and prognosis of NSCLC in 2009 was compared with 2011. RESULTS: In phase 1, there was a statistically significant increase in tumour size (mean difference, 0.67 cm; P < .0001) and stage (P < .0001) from initial image to biopsy. There was a moderate correlation between the time (in days) between the images and change in size (r = 0.33, P = .008) or stage (r = 0.26, P = .036). In phase II, the median wait time from initial imaging to confirmatory CT was reduced to 7.5 days (from 19 days). At this reduced wait time, there was no statistically significant increase in tumour size (mean difference, 0.02; P > .05) or stage (P > .05) from initial imaging to confirmatory CT. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in patient flow through diagnostic imaging resulted in an increase in tumour size and stage, with a negative impact on prognosis of NSCLC. This information contributed to the hiring of additional CT technologists and extended CT hours to decrease the wait time for diagnostic imaging. With reduced wait times, the prognosis of NSCLC was not adversely impacted as patients navigated through diagnostic imaging.
Authors: Benjamin J Kopecky; Christian Frye; Yuriko Terada; Keki R Balsara; Daniel Kreisel; Kory J Lavine Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Amelia W Maiga; Stephen A Deppen; Rhonda Pinkerman; Carol Callaway-Lane; Pierre P Massion; Robert S Dittus; Eric S Lambright; Jonathan C Nesbitt; David Baker; Eric L Grogan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G Linford; R Egan; A Coderre-Ball; N Dalgarno; C J L Stone; A Robinson; D Robinson; S Wakeham; G C Digby Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Rudolf M Huber; Milena Cavic; Anna Kerpel-Fronius; Lucia Viola; John Field; Long Jiang; Ella A Kazerooni; Coenraad F N Koegelenberg; Anant Mohan; Ricardo Sales Dos Santos; Luigi Ventura; Murry Wynes; Dawei Yang; Javier Zulueta; Choon-Taek Lee; Martin C Tammemägi; Claudia I Henschke; Stephen Lam Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Nicole B Gabler; Cosette M Wheeler; Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip E Castle; Ethan A Halm; Mitchell D Schnall; Celette S Skinner; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Anil Vachani; Shivan J Mehta; Katharine A Rendle; Stacey A Fedewa; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nick Woznitza; Anand Devaraj; Samuel M Janes; Stephen W Duffy; Angshu Bhowmik; Susan Rowe; Keith Piper; Sue Maughn; David R Baldwin Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 2.279