Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404753›Full record

SynthesisThorax2022

Association between time-to-treatment and outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

Helen Hall, Adam Tocock, Sarah Burdett, David Fisher, William M Ricketts, John Robson, Thomas Round, Sarita Gorolay, Emma MacArthur, Donna Chung and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Thorax, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying actionable mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Helen HallLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7305-8367
Adam TocockBarts Health Knowledge and Library Services, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sarah BurdettMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8687-2851
David FisherMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
William M RickettsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0475-0744
John RobsonCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Thomas RoundSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Sarita GorolayXX Place Health Centre, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London, UK.
Emma MacArthurCentre for Cancer Outcomes, North Central and North East London Cancer Alliances, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Donna ChungCentre for Cancer Outcomes, North Central and North East London Cancer Alliances, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sam M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6634-5939
Michael D PeakeCentre for Cancer Outcomes, North Central and North East London Cancer Alliances, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Neal NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, UCL, London, UK n.navani@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6412-7516

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28706Cancer Research UK C11558/A25623Department of Health DRF-2016-09-054Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06Medical Research Council MR/T02481X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational 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.

methodsMedline, 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.

resultsThirty-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.

conclusionThere 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.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsHumansTime-to-TreatmentTreatment Outcomenon-small cell lung cancer

Identifiers

PMID34404753
PMCPMC9340041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.