Duc Ha1, Andrew L Ries2, Philippe Montgrain3, Florin Vaida4, Svetlana Sheinkman5, Mark M Fuster3. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States. Electronic address: d5ha@ucsd.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States. 3. Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, United States; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States. 5. Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine emphasizes care timeliness as an important quality metric. We assessed treatment timeliness in stage I-IIIA lung cancer patients deemed eligible for curative intent therapy and analyzed the relationship between time to treatment (TTT) and timely treatment (TT) with survival. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of stage I-IIIA lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy at the VA San Diego Healthcare System between 10/2010-4/2017. We defined TTT as days from chest tumor board to treatment initiation and TT using guideline recommendations. We used multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards regressions for survival analyses. RESULTS: In 177 veterans, the median TTT was 35 days (29 days for chemoradiation, 36 for surgical resection, 42 for definitive radiation). TT occurred in 33% or 77% of patients when the most or least timely guideline recommendation was used, respectively. Patient characteristics associated with longer TTT included other cancer history, high simplified comorbidity score, stage I disease, and definitive radiation treatment. In MVA, TTT and TT [HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.27, 1.01) for least timely definition] were not associated with OS in stage I-IIIA patients, or disease-free survival in subgroup analyses of 122 stage I patients [HR 1.49 (0.62, 3.59) for least timely definition]. CONCLUSION: Treatment was timely in 33-77% of veterans with lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy. TTT and TT were not associated with survival. The time interval between diagnosis and treatment may offer an opportunity to deliver or improve other cancer care.
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine emphasizes care timeliness as an important quality metric. We assessed treatment timeliness in stage I-IIIA lung cancerpatients deemed eligible for curative intent therapy and analyzed the relationship between time to treatment (TTT) and timely treatment (TT) with survival. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of stage I-IIIA lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy at the VA San Diego Healthcare System between 10/2010-4/2017. We defined TTT as days from chest tumor board to treatment initiation and TT using guideline recommendations. We used multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards regressions for survival analyses. RESULTS: In 177 veterans, the median TTT was 35 days (29 days for chemoradiation, 36 for surgical resection, 42 for definitive radiation). TT occurred in 33% or 77% of patients when the most or least timely guideline recommendation was used, respectively. Patient characteristics associated with longer TTT included other cancer history, high simplified comorbidity score, stage I disease, and definitive radiation treatment. In MVA, TTT and TT [HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.27, 1.01) for least timely definition] were not associated with OS in stage I-IIIA patients, or disease-free survival in subgroup analyses of 122 stage I patients [HR 1.49 (0.62, 3.59) for least timely definition]. CONCLUSION: Treatment was timely in 33-77% of veterans with lung cancer deemed eligible for curative intent therapy. TTT and TT were not associated with survival. The time interval between diagnosis and treatment may offer an opportunity to deliver or improve other cancer care.
Authors: Nicola Scott; Melanie Crane; Mayanne Lafontaine; Holly Seale; David Currow Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 1.458
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: K M Monirul Islam; Xiaqing Jiang; Trisari Anggondowati; Ge Lin; Apar Kishor Ganti Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; William R Carpenter; Andrea K Biddle; Amy P Abernethy; Edward F Patz; Kevin A Schulman; Morris Weinberger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Helen Hall; Adam Tocock; Sarah Burdett; David Fisher; William M Ricketts; John Robson; Thomas Round; Sarita Gorolay; Emma MacArthur; Donna Chung; Sam M Janes; Michael D Peake; Neal Navani Journal: Thorax Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 9.102