ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2025
Redefining treatment interval in lung cancer surgery in the era of prehabilitation: a systematic review.
Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of peak oxygen uptake using interpretable machine learning on routinely available preoperative assessments before lung resection.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
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
Background: Time-to-surgery is used as a surrogate quality indicator within lung cancer care. However, its definition is not clearly defined in the literature. This study aimed to explore the evidence on optimal time-to-surgery interval with no negative impact on disease progression or oncological outcomes. Methods: A systematic search was performed in January 2025 through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies about lung cancer patients with treatment interval description until surgery were included. Results: Eighty-six studies were included with a clear definition of the treatment interval until surgery. Starting points of the interval varied widely, of which pathological diagnosis was reported most often. Thirty-six studies also included associations of time-to-surgery with oncological outcomes. Overall, 47% of the included studies associated a delay in treatment interval with worse outcomes, 33% found no association, and in 19% the association differed per lung cancer stage or type of outcome. Inconsistency was seen in the definition of timely surgery, ranging from 21 to 90 days, influencing the reported outcome measures and comparability. Most studies chose the tipping point for delayed surgery at or beyond 6 weeks, and the most reported outcome was overall survival (OS). For OS, two thirds of the included study groups associated a delay in time-to-surgery with worse survival, with a very heterogeneous cut-off point between timely and delayed surgery. Conclusions: Within lung cancer care, there is no clear definition of treatment interval until surgery, nor consensus on the definition of timely surgery. The relation between treatment interval and outcomes is inconsistent and requires more structured evidence. We suggest using pathological diagnosis as a starting point, and a 6-week timeframe as a basis to define timely surgery instead of "as soon as possible", without significantly compromising oncological safety. Defining an interval can reframe waiting time into structural preoperative preparation time, unlocking the opportunity to implement prehabilitation and optimize patient outcomes.
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.