Observational studyRevista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes2025
Assessment of the interval between diagnosis and definitive treatment of lung cancer at a public institution in São Paulo.
Observational study in Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to investigate the interval between the diagnosis and definitive surgical treatment of lung cancer patients at a public institution in São Paulo.
methodA retrospective observational study was conducted, using medical records to collect data on the periods between the first abnormal chest computed tomography (CT) scan, the initial consultation with the specialist, and the subsequent tumor resection.
resultsThe analysis of 20 patients revealed a substantial average waiting period of 425.6 days between diagnosis and definitive treatment. During this interval, an average of 282 days elapsed between diagnosis and the initial specialist consultation, while the period between the first consultation and treatment averaged 143 days. By comparing the initial and final staging, 70% of the patients progressed to a higher stage over this period.
conclusionsThe identified interval is concerning and exposes patients to elevated risks during this waiting period. This prolonged duration poses potential threats to patient health, resulting in decreased quality of life, increased risk of disease progression, reduced chances of cure, and diminished overall survival prospects. Addressing and minimizing this extended interval is crucial for improving patient outcomes and enhancing the effectiveness of lung cancer treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.