Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer

Ashanya Malalasekera, Sharon Nahm, Prunella L. Blinman, Steven C. Kao, Haryana M. Dhillon, Janette L. Vardy
European Respiratory Review 2018 27: 180045; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0045-2018
Ashanya Malalasekera
1Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ashanya Malalasekera
Sharon Nahm
2Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Prunella L. Blinman
2Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven C. Kao
1Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
3Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Haryana M. Dhillon
4Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janette L. Vardy
1Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
4Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Time intervals and corresponding published guidelines in lung cancer care. GP: general practitioner; LCS: lung cancer specialist; IOM: Institute of Medicine; ACCP: American College of Chest Physicians; BTS: British Thoracic Society; NHS: National Health Service; SLCG: Swedish Lung Cancer Group; RAND: Research and Development; NOLCP: National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway; SEHD: Scottish Executive Health Department; DLCG: Danish Lung Cancer Group; NSCLC: nonsmall cell lung cancer; SCLC: small cell lung cancer; SMAC: Standing Medical Advisory Committee.

  • FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) flow diagram.

  • FIGURE 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3

    Comparison of primary end-points against guidelines. a) Distribution of general practitioner (GP)–lung cancer specialist (LCS) intervals (time from first GP referral until first LCS visit) by study region; b) distribution of treatment intervals (time from confirmed diagnosis to treatment start) by study region. Shape of datapoint signifies mean or median study sample size (n), colour of datapoint signifies sample size category. BTS: British Thoracic Society; NHS: National Health Service; NSCLC: nonsmall cell lung cancer; RAND: Research and Development.

  • FIGURE 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4

    Frequency of factors contributing to delays to lung cancer care (total number of times category quoted). LCS: lung cancer specialist.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
  • TABLE 1

    Impact of fast-track intervention systems on time intervals

    First author, year [ref.]Study design, intervention and settingSample size without intervention/control group (group C) nSample size with intervention (group I) nGP–LCS interval daysTreatment interval daysOther intervals from figure 1 daysNew intervals described daysAuthor conclusionsStatistical significance
    Brocken, 2011 [34]Retrospective study comparing delays in a RODP (including PET-CT) for suspected lung cancer patients with delays described in literature and guideline recommendations (the Netherlands, 1999–2009)280Median (IQR) 7 (5–9) days
    n=236
    Median (IQR) for group I 19 (6.5–27) days
    n=215
    Median (IQR) primary care interval 18 (6–46) days; median (IQR) secondary care interval 36 (26–46) daysMedian (IQR) interval from LCS to diagnosis (“diagnostic delay”) 2 (1–17.5) daysThe RODP including PET-CT resulted in timely care, with strongest effect on diagnostic and secondary care intervalsN/T
    Prades, 2011 [35]Mixed–methods study including prospective data analysing a cancer fast-track programme's impact on reducing the time that elapsed between clinical suspicion of breast, colorectal and lung cancer and treatment start (Spain, 2006–2009)3481 (for year 2009)Mean total interval 36.7 daysApproximately half of all new patients with breast, lung or colorectal cancer were diagnosed via the fast track programme, although the cancer detection rate declined across the periodN/T
    Murphy, 2015 [36]Prospective cluster randomised trial assessing use of electronic health record-based trigger algorithms to identify patients at risk of diagnostic delays (USA, 2015)Unknown (total sample 19)Unknown (total sample 19)Median interval from scan to diagnosis 65 days in group I versus 93 days in group C (p=0.59)No statistical difference was observed in the time to diagnostic evaluation between the intervention and control groupsNonsignificant
    Leiro-Fernandez, 2014 [37]Prospective analysis of effectiveness of an email alert system to a pulmonologist attached to a lung cancer rapid diagnostic unit (Spain, 2008–2010)47Median (IQR) interval from scan to diagnosis 13 (7.3–30) daysThis strategy for radiological suspicion of lung cancer improves diagnostic efficacy and the communication between GPs, radiologists and pulmonologistsN/T
    Iachina, 2017 [38]Retrospective cohort study evaluating effect of hospital transfers on the delay in diagnosis and treatment using 2009 national fast track cancer care pathways initiative (Denmark, 2008–2012) and data from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry11 273Mean±sd for group I 16.9±10.64 daysMean±sd secondary care interval 38.4±15.42 daysTransfer between hospitals during the care pathway might cause delay from diagnosis to treatment as well as in the total time from referral to treatment in patients with NSCLCN/T
    Alsamarai, 2013 [39]Retrospective cohort study analysing effect of the CCCP at a Veterans Affairs hospital (USA, 2005–2010)163189Median (range) 28 (0–265) days; mean 40 days for total sample
    n=352

    Mean for n=163 versus n=189:
    46 days versus 43 days (p=0.6)
    Mean system interval in group C versus group I 126 days versus 101 days (p=0.015)Mean interval from scan to diagnosis in group C 76 days versus group I 53 days (p=0.016)A centralised, hospital-based CCCP can significantly reduce times to diagnosis of cancers that are early stage/incidentally found and reduce system interval by 25 daysSignificant reduction for system and scan to diagnosis intervals; not for treatment interval
    Cattaneo, 2015 [40]Report on effect of RACLAP in one medical centre
    RACLAP includes rapid thoracic nurse consultation, navigation and triage referral system (USA, 2010)
    121Median interval from scan to diagnosis 16 daysRACLAP provided rapid and evidence-based evaluation and management of patients resulting in a short time to diagnosisN/T
    Murray, 2003 [41]Multisite prospective randomised pilot study to test feasibility of two-step rapid diagnostic system (Royal Marsden Hospital) compared to conventional diagnostic workup in three local district hospital chest clinics (UK, 1998–2001)4543Median total interval in group C versus group I 49 days versus 21 days (p=0.0025)There are several advantages to investigations and diagnosis in the intervention arm, particularly in time to treatment initiation, patient satisfaction and rate of radical treatmentsSignificant reduction in total interval
    Lo, 2007 [42]Retrospective cohort study of waiting times pre- and post-implementation of TTT programme: streamlined referral system from GPs to LCS (Canada, 2004–2005)52430Median for group C 17 days versus group I 4 daysMedian times from scan to diagnosis in group C versus group I 39 versus 6; “suspicion” to LCS referral in group C versus group I 20 versus 6; LCS visit to CT in group C versus group I 52 versus 3; “suspicion” to diagnosis in group C versus group I 128 versus 20TTT programme was effective in shortening the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis and reduced time intervals at each step in the processN/T
    Dransfield, 2006 [43]Retrospective cohort study of timeliness for patients referred to specialised lung mass clinic (USA, 1999–2003)31 (resected), 125 (nonresected)Median time from LCS to diagnosis in resected patients versus nonresected patients 70 days versus 8 days (p<0.001)
    Median time from LCS to resection in resected patients 104 days
    Since the inception of the lung mass clinic, the resection rate at Birmingham VA Medical Center has improvedSignificant reduction only for LCS to diagnosis
    Laroche, 1995 [44]Prospective review of a new quick access “two-stop” multidisciplinary investigation service at Papworth Hospital (UK, 1995)209Median (range) time from LCS to surgical resection 35 (7–81) daysThe two-stop investigation service led to higher rates of histological confirmation, routine CT scanning and review of every patient with confirmed lung cancer by a thoracic surgeon. This resulted in a substantial increase in the successful surgical resection rateN/T
    Spurgeon, 2000 [45]Retrospective tracking cohort study assessing impact of TWW system (UK, 1997–1998)Unknown (total sample 767)Unknown (total sample 767)Median (IQR) before and after 12 (7–22) days versus 7 (3–13) days, respectivelyMedian (IQR) secondary care interval in group C versus group I 47 (28–77) days versus 39 (21–61) days, respectivelyWaiting times for urgent appointments were significantly less than the waiting times for nonurgent appointments for all 10 types of cancerN/T
    Jiwa, 2004 [46]Retrospective review of impact of urgent (TWW or marked “urgent”) system (UK, 1990)Unknown (total sample 6)Unknown (total sample 6)Mean primary care interval 40 days; mean diagnostic interval 95 daysMean time from GP referral to diagnosis 55 daysPatients referred as “urgent” were diagnosed soonestNonsignificant
    Neal, 2014 [47]Retrospective cohort study of diagnostic intervals between two cancer cohorts, defined before and after the implementation of the 2005 NICE referral guidelines for suspected cancer and by NICE-qualifying presenting symptoms (UK, 2001–2008)18162851Median (IQR) diagnostic interval in group C versus group I 114 (48–238) days versus 112 (45–251) days (p=0.47)Fast-track referrals may prioritise those with advanced disease in lung cancer, who are more likely to have “red flag” symptomsNonsignificant
    Neal, 2007 [48]Retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes of cancer patients referred through the urgent TWW referral guidance with those who were not (UK, 2000–2001)31396Median (IQR) for group C 10 (4–17) days versus group I 10 (6–13) days, respectivelyMedian LCS to diagnosis in group C versus group I 15 (4–28) days versus 18 (8–36) days, respectivelyUrgent guideline referrals had later-stage diagnosis compared with patients diagnosed through other routes. There was some evidence for differences in outcomes for lung cancer between urgent guideline referrals (and all referrals marked as urgent) and those diagnosed through other routesNonsignificant
    Forrest, 2015 [49]Retrospective data linkage study investigating factors impacting timely care in the setting of NHS Cancer Plan diagnostic pathways, including the TWW systemUnknown (total sample 28 733)Unknown (total sample 28 733)Median (IQR) 10 (6–17) days
    (n=14 507)
    Median (IQR) 35 (21–55) days
    (n=14 692)
    Median (IQR) secondary care interval 56 (39–79) daysMedian (IQR) time from GP referral to diagnosis 13 (7–24) days and from LCS to diagnosis 0 (0–0) daysNo detail of proportion of urgent referrals, but 70% of patients referred by GP saw a LCS within target interval of 14 days and 61% within secondary care target interval of 62 daysN/T
    Devbhandari, 2008 [50]Prospective tracking cohort study of how bronchoscopy results affected waiting times to lung cancer treatment in patients referred by standard (via urgent GP TWW referral) and nonstandard referral pathways (UK, 2003–2005)149193Median for group C 1 dayRange of medians in group C 8–12 daysRange of median secondary care intervals 45–75 daysRange of median times from LCS to diagnosis 33–57 daysDelays persist despite TWW fast-track system due to hospital barriers
    Treatment, secondary care and LCS diagnosis intervals significantly longer for bronchoscopy-negative groups
    Bowen, 2002 [51]Prospective pilot study evaluating time between occurrence of symptoms and presentation to GP for patients presenting with lung cancer to two NHS trusts with “rapid access clinics” (UK, 2002)37Median (range) interval from first GP visit to first LCS visit 56 (0–175+) daysThere were delays in assessment and referral in primary careN/T
    Hunnibell, 2012[52]Prospective tracking cohort study to investigate timeliness of lung cancer care before and after creation of a CT-VAHCS nurse navigator position (USA, 2007–2010)5766Median system interval in group C versus group I 40 and 45 daysMedian scan to LCS group C versus group I 13 and 10 days, respectivelyCT-VAHCS created and modified several processes to improve timeliness and quality of cancer care as soon as a patient's imaging suggested a new diagnosis of malignancy. The cancer care coordinator effected a measurable improvement in timelinessN/T
    Lal, 2011 [53]Retrospective comparative cohort study of patients referred by GPs to lung cancer clinics for investigation of suspicious imaging before and after introduction of fast-track CT pathway
    (UK, 2006–2007)
    12486Median secondary care interval in group C versus group I 55 and 49 days, respectively (p=0.095)Median referral to decision to treat l in group C versus group I 42 and 35 days, respectively (p<0.05)Fast-tracking outpatients with suspicious chest radiographs straight to CT results in more effective use of clinic appointments, reduced diagnostic delay and more rapid treatment decision timesSignificant reduction only for interval from referral to diagnosis
    Aasebo, 2012 [54]Retrospective cohort study of workup times for patients with lung cancer using the “Lean” quality improvement process (using mechanisms to identify and sustain high-value encounters and eliminate obstacles) to improve patient flow (Norway, 2006–2009)4033Median time to surgery/chemo/XRT=26.5/6/5.5 days, respectively
    Median/mean time to surgery for intervention group 15/17 days (n=14)
    Median scan to diagnosis in group C versus group I 64 versus 16 days, respectively
    Median time from chest radiography to CT in group C versus group I 10 versus 5.5 days, respectively
    It is feasible to improve patient flow for patients with lung cancer by employing the Lean method as a pathway instrumentN/T
    Lewis, 2005 [55]Retrospective comparative cohort study examining the impact of TWW referral pathway for lung cancer over three different time periods, presented here as three separate samples: 1) 1999–2000; 2) 2000–2001; and 3) 2001–2002 (UK, 1999–2002)Sample (1) n=286Sample (2) n=352
    Sample (3) n=404
    Median (range):
    1) 7 (0–124) days
    2) 8 (0–101) days
    3) 9 (0–98) days
    (p=0.0009 for (1) versus (3))
    Median (range) secondary care interval:
    1) 37 (2–228) days;
    2) 41 (2–307) days;
    3) 42 (0–239) days
    (p<0.04 for (1) versus (2) versus (3))
    Median (range) GP referral to diagnosis:
    1) 26 (0–228) days;
    2) 33 (2–307) days;
    3) 27 (0–300) days
    (p<0.00001 for (1) versus (2); p=0.0003 for (2) versus (3))
    Median (range) LCS to diagnosis:
    1) 15 (0–219) days;
    2) 21 (0–294) days;
    3) 15 (0–300) days
    (p<0.00001 for (1) versus (2) versus (3))
    The TWW system failed to reduce waiting times for lung cancer in this study due to urgent referral routes used outside the TWW scheme and a large increase (42%) in referrals. Patients referred outside the TWW appear to be disadvantagedSignificant increase in all waiting times
    Larsen, 2013 [56]Retrospective population-based study of changes in secondary care intervals in two hospital groups (Vejle versus other) after 2008 introduction of urgent referral scheme for cancer (Denmark, 2007–2009)Vejle n=387; other n=3131Vejle n=388; other n=2612Median (IQR) secondary care interval in group C versus group I for Vejle 31 (20–41) days versus 29 (23–65) days
    (p=0.39)
    Median (IQR) secondary care interval in group C versus group I for other 37 (21–64) days versus 33 (16–53) days
    (p=0.008)
    Urgent referral systems had a positive effect on secondary care intervals, although location-specific factors played a roleSignificant reduction in secondary care interval
    Riedel, 2006 [57]Retrospective sequential single-institution (Veterans Affairs) cohort study evaluating the impact of a MTOC (USA 1999–2003) pre- and post-implementation101244Median before (n=89) versus after (n=205) 23 versus 21 days, respectively
    (p=0.38)
    Median diagnostic interval in group C versus group I 47 (n=89) versus 45 days (n=201), respectively
    (p=0.12)
    Median GP visit to LCS visit interval in group C versus group I 22 (n=90) versus 25 days (n=162), respectively
    (p=0.01)
    Median LCS to diagnosis interval in group C versus group I 14 (n= 90) versus 12 days (n=166), respectively
    (p=0.97)
    Median LCS to surgery interval in group C versus group I 40 (n=30) versus 50 days (n=56), respectively
    (p=0.21)
    Retrospective comparison with attendant confounders failed to reveal benefit of a MTOC as an intervention for timely lung cancer careSignificant reduction only for interval from first GP to first LCS visit

    Group C: control group: group I: intervention group; GP: general practitioner; LCS: lung cancer specialist; RODP: rapid outpatient diagnostic programme; PET-CT: positron emission tomography-computed tomography; IQR: interquartile range; N/T: not tested; NSCLC: nonsmall cell lung cancer; CCCP: cancer care coordination programme; RACLAP: rapid access chest and lung assessment programme; TTT: time to treat; TWW: 2-week wait; NICE: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; NHS: National Health Service; CT-VAHCS: Connecticut Veterans Affairs Healthcare System; XRT: radiation therapy; MTOC: multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic.

    Supplementary Materials

    • Figures
    • Tables
    • Supplementary Material

      Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

      APPENDIX_1-7 ERR-0045-2018_supplement

    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 27 Issue 149 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Review: 27 (149)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
    Ashanya Malalasekera, Sharon Nahm, Prunella L. Blinman, Steven C. Kao, Haryana M. Dhillon, Janette L. Vardy
    European Respiratory Review Sep 2018, 27 (149) 180045; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0045-2018

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
    Ashanya Malalasekera, Sharon Nahm, Prunella L. Blinman, Steven C. Kao, Haryana M. Dhillon, Janette L. Vardy
    European Respiratory Review Sep 2018, 27 (149) 180045; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0045-2018
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Abstract
      • Introduction
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Conclusion
      • Supplementary material
      • Acknowledgements
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Subjects

    • Lung cancer
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Lung imaging in cystic fibrosis
    • Disease burden associated with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency
    • Role of air pollutants in airway epithelial barrier dysfunction
    Show more Review

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERR

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising
    • Sponsorship

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN: 0905-9180
    Online ISSN: 1600-0617

    Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society