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.

The Development of a Surgical Oncology Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. By mid-March, London had emerged as the epicenter in the United Kingdom, accounting for 45% of the COVID-19-related mortality. A cancer COVID-19-free "cold hub," through National Health Service partnership with independent institutions, was established to maintain a throughput of surgical oncology patients with an accessible triage system for oncologic specialties. The high population density, commuter volume, and rising COVID-19 incidence heightened the challenge of segregating a vulnerable population that was already at high risk for surgical morbidity and mortality.The aim of this review is to report the experience of developing a multicenter COVID-19-free cold hub with the aim of providing safe surgery for surgical oncology patients. We discuss the timeline, structure, and infection control policy and suggest practical points that may guide other health care systems.The surgical oncology hub treated 1542 patients between March 1 and July 1, 2020. There were no cases of COVID-19-related mortality in a 30-day follow-up. Key strategies for the restructuring of the cancer service included the following: (1) formation of an accessible referral pathway, (2) creation and structuring of cold hub hospitals, (3) development of protocols for infection control and preoperative testing, (4) rapid reorganization of services based on initial feedback, and (5) clear communication and leadership.It has been shown that a surgical oncology cold hub with an accessible referral system and an effective system of preoperative screening system can minimize COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality, in a region with heavy disease prevalence. This structure represents a safe, ethical, and viable system that can be replicated in other health care systems.