Appendix Table A. Studies describing timeliness of care, the relationship between timeliness and one or more outcomes, and/or an intervention to improve timeliness of care in lung cancer.

Author / Country / Study period / Study design / n / Advanced stage* / Cell type†
UNITED STATES
Dransfield et al. [1]
2006 / US
VA facility / 1999-2003 / Retrospective review of patients managed through a lung mass clinic. / 180 / 10%ठ/ NSCLC
Finlay et al. [2]
2002 / US / 1992-1996 / Retrospective case-control study of Asian patients treated at single center. / 42 / 73% / 82% NSCLC
16% SCLC
2% Other
Liu et al. [3]
2004 / US
Hawaii / 1995-2001 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center, identified through a cancer registry. / 1394 / 70% / NSCLC
Quarterman et al. [4] 2003 / US
VA facility / 1989-1999 / Retrospective review of stage I and II surgical patients treated at single center. / 84 / 0%‡ / NSCLC
Riedel et al. [5]
2006 / US
VA facility / 1999-2003 / Retrospective comparison of patients managed through a multidisciplinary clinic and patients managed through conventional subspecialty referral patterns. / 345 / 54% / 81% NSCLC
11% SCLC
8% Other
CANADA
Bardell et al. [6]
2006 / Canada / 1984-2000 / Retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical resection, identified through cancer registry. / 4366 / NR / NSCLC
Johnston et al. [7]
2004 / Canada / 1992-2000 / Retrospective review of patients referred for radiotherapy, identified through cancer registry. / 2725 / 79% / NR
Liberman et al. [8]
2006 / Canada / 1993-2002 / Retrospective review of surgical patients treated at single center. / 256 / 25%‡ / NSCLC
Simunovic et al. [9]
2005 / Canada / 1993-2000 / Retrospective review of surgical patients identified through hospital discharge and insurance databases. / 7716 / NR / NR
UK and IRELAND
Billing et al. [10]
1996 / UK / 1993 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 38 / 30%‡ / 82% NSCLC
3% SCLC
16% Other
Boszuk et al. [11]
2001 / UK / 1998 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 189 / 76% / NSCLC
Campbell et al. [12]
2002 / Scotland / 1995-1996 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed in region, random sample identified through cancer registry. / 1314 / 65% / 63% NSCLC
14% SCLC
23% Other
Comber et al. [13]
2005 / Ireland / 1999 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed in Ireland, identified through cancer registry. / NR / NR / NR
Corner et al. [14]
2005 / UK / NR / Retrospective review of patients managed at two cancer centers. / 22 / 68% / 68% NSCLC
18% SCLC
14% Other
Cullen et al. [15]
2004 / Ireland / 2001-2002 / Retrospective review of patients treated at single center. / 118 / 81% / 78% NSCLC
14% SCLC
8% Other
Davison et al. [16]
2004 / UK / 2000-2001 / Retrospective review of patients presented during teleconference multidisciplinary meetings. / 62 / NR / NR
Deegan et al. [17]
1998 / UK / 1996 / Prospective review of multidisciplinary team at single center. / 92 / NR / NR
Devbhandari et al. [18] 2007 / UK / 2003-2004 / Prospective review of patients managed at single center. / 247 / 78% / 69% NSCLC
13% SCLC
18% Other
Dische et al. [19]
1996 / UK / 1993-1994 / Retrospective review of patients undergoing radiotherapy at 14 centers. / 484 / NR / NSCLC
Other
Fergusson et al. [20]
1996 / Scotland / 1991-1992 / Prospective review of patients managed by multidisciplinary team. / 622 / NR / 62% NSCLC
20% SCLC
18% Other
Gregor et al. [21]
2001 / Scotland / 1995 / Retrospective review of patients identified through cancer registry. / 3855 / 64% / 58% NSCLC
24% SCLC
18% Other
Kesson et al. [22]
1998 / Scotland / 1991-1992 / Retrospective review of patients in single city, random sample identified through cancer registry. / 262 / NR / 53% NSCLC
14% SCLC
33% Other
Krishnasamy et al. [23] 2001 / UK, Ireland / 1995 / Retrospective review of patients identified through cancer registry, able to return completed questionnaire. / 209 / NR / 65% NCSLC
28% SCLC
7% Other
Laroche et al. [24]
1998 / UK / 1995 / Randomized trial of centralized diagnostic process for patients with suspected lung cancer, evaluated at single center / 275 / 20%ठ/ 66% NSCLC
10% SCLC
24% Other
Leary et al. [25]
2005 / UK / 2001-2004 / Retrospective audit of patients treated at single cardiothoracic center, followed by nurse-led intervention. / NR / NR / NR
Lee et al.[26]
2002 / UK / 1997-1998 / Retrospective review of patients with possible lung cancer admitted to single facility. / 90 / NR / NR
Lewis et al. [27]
2005 / UK / 1999-2002 / Retrospective review of patients referred to single specialty facility. / 1044 / 65% / 80% NSCLC
15% SCLC
5% Other
Lim et al. [28]
1999 / UK / 1996 / Retrospective review of patients referred for chest x-ray at single facility, found to have a mass concerning for malignancy. / 27 / NR / NR
Melling et al. [29]
2002 / UK / 1993 / Retrospective review of patients in single region, identified through cancer registry. / 362 / NR / 51% NSCLC
17% SCLC
32% Other
Murray et al. [30]
2003 / UK / 1998-2001 / Randomized trial of centralized diagnostic process for patients with suspected lung cancer, evaluated at single center. / 88 / 60%‡ / 51% NSCLC
14% SCLC
35% Other
Neal et al. [31]
2007 / UK / 2000-2001 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed within a single National Health Service trust. / 303 / 50%‡ / NR
O’Rourke et al. [32]
2000 / UK / 1999 / Prospective review of patients referred for radiotherapy at single center. / 29 / 52% / 96% NSCLC
3% Other
Spurgeon et al. [33]
2000 / UK / 1997 / Retrospective review of patients identified through acute care hospitals. / 767 / NR / NR
EUROPEAN UNION (excluding the UK and Ireland)
Aragoneses et al. [34] 2002 / Spain / 1993-1997 / Retrospective review of stage I and II surgical patients, identified through cancer registry. / 1082 / 0%‡ / NSCLC
Bjerager et al. [35]
2006 / Denmark / 2003 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed in single county, identified through county registers. / 84 / NR / NR
Buccheri et al. [36]
2004 / Italy / 1989-2002 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 1277 / 77% / 68% NSCLC
11% SCLC
21% Other
Christensen et al. [37] 1997 / Denmark / 1994-1995 / Retrospective review of patients admitted for surgery at single center. / 172 / 60% / NR
Koyi et al. [38]
2002 / Sweden / 1997-1998 / Prospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 134 / 79% / 52% NSCLC 14%SCLC
34% Other
Leo et al. [39]
2007 / France / 2003-2004 / Prospective review of patients managed by a single multidisciplinary team. / 344 / 74% / NR
Maansson et al. [40]
1999 / Sweden / 1980-1984 / Retrospective review of patients in single county, identified through cancer registry. / 39 / NR / NR
Myrdal et al. [41]
2004 / Sweden / 1995-1999 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed in two healthcare regions. / 466 / 60% / NSCLC
Pita-Fernandez et al. [42] 2003 / Spain / 1997-1998 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 378 / 60%‡ / 88% NSCLC
12% SCLC
Ringbaek et al. [43]
1999 / Denmark / 1991-1993 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 467 / 45%§ / 58% NSCLC
12% SCLC
30% Other
Salomaa et al. [44]
2005 / Finland / 2001 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center. / 132 / 67%‡|| / 69% NSCLC
19% SCLC
12% Other
Strojan et al. [45]
1997 / Slovenia / 1981-1993 / Retrospective review of patients treated with radiotherapy for superior sulcus tumors at single center. / 48 / 65% / 58% NSCLC
2% SCLC
40% Other
JAPAN
Ichinohe et al. [46]
2006 / Japan / 1999-2004 / Retrospective review of patients referred to single facility for radiotherapy for Pancoast tumor. / 48 / 92% / 96% NSCLC
4% SCLC
Kanashiki et al. [47]
2003 / Japan / 1991-2001 / Retrospective review of patients diagnosed at single center, detected by mass-screening. / 83 / 49% / 94% NSCLC
4% SCLC
2% Other
Kashiwabara et al. [48] 2003 / Japan / 1993-2001 / Retrospective review of patients detected by mass-screening, including patients who did not consult physician for abnormal x-ray. / 198 / 43% / 92% NSCLC
8% SCLC
Kashiwabara et al. [49] 2002 / Japan / 1993-2000 / Retrospective review of patients detected by mass-screening, including patients with tumors missed on screening one year earlier. / 143 / 34% / 92% NSCLC
8% SCLC
OTHER COUNTRIES
Annakkaya et al. [50]
2007 / Turkey / 2002-2005 / Prospective review of patients treated at single center. / 103 / 78% / 74% NSCLC
26% SCLC
Conron et al. [51]
2007 / Australia / 2002-2004 / Prospective review of patients managed through a single multidisciplinary clinic. / 257 / 49%‡ / 84% NSCLC
5% SCLC
11% Other
Loh et al. [52]
2006 / Malaysia / 1996-2004 / Retrospective review of patients managed at two specialty hospitals. / 122 / 93% / NSCLC
Ozlu et al. [53]
2004 / Turkey / 1992-1999 / Retrospective review of patients referred to two specialty hospitals. / 226 / 65% / 79% NSCLC
16% SCLC
6% Other

NR = Not Reported.

*Percentage of patients with advanced stage among patients with lung cancer and stage recorded. Defined as stage III or IV, or “regional spread” or “distant spread”, or “inoperable”. Patients with benign disease were not included in denominator. Not all patients had stage recorded. Not all columns total 100% due to rounding. Patients were clinically staged unless noted otherwise.

†“Other” includes patients with a clinical diagnosis of lung cancer but no tissue diagnosis.

‡Pathologic stage reported.

§Percentage of operated patients only.

||Includes only Stage IIIB and IV.

Table A References

1 Dransfield MT, Lock BJ, Garver RI, Jr. Improving the lung cancer resection rate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health System. Clin Lung Cancer 2006;7:268-72.

2 Finlay GA, Joseph B, Rodrigues CR, et al. Advanced presentation of lung cancer in Asian immigrants: a case-control study. Chest 2002;122:1938-43.

3 Liu DM, Kwee SA. Demographic, treatment, and survival patterns for Native Hawaiians with lung cancer treated at a community medical center from 1995 to 2001. Pac Health Dialog 2004;11:139-45.

4 Quarterman RL, McMillan A, Ratcliffe MB, et al. Effect of preoperative delay on prognosis for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:108-13.

5 Riedel RF, Wang X, McCormack M, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic on the timeliness of care. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:692-6.

6 Bardell T, Belliveau P, Kong W, et al. Waiting times for cancer surgery in Ontario: 1984-2000. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006;18:401-9.

7 Johnston GM, MacGarvie VL, Elliott D, et al. Radiotherapy wait times for patients with a diagnosis of invasive cancer, 1992-2000. Clin Invest Med 2004;27:142-56.

8 Liberman M, Liberman D, Sampalis JS, et al. Delays to surgery in non-small-cell lung cancer. Can J Surg 2006;49:31-6.

9 Simunovic M, Theriault ME, Paszat L, et al. Using administrative databases to measure waiting times for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in Ontario, 1993-2000. Can J Surg 2005;48:137-42.

10 Billing JS, Wells FC. Delays in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of lung cancer. Thorax 1996;51:903-6.

11 Bozcuk H, Martin C. Does treatment delay affect survival in non-small cell lung cancer? A retrospective analysis from a single UK centre. Lung Cancer 2001;34:243-52.

12 Campbell NC, Elliott AM, Sharp L, et al. Impact of deprivation and rural residence on treatment of colorectal and lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2002;87:585-90.

13 Comber H, Cronin DP, Deady S, et al. Delays in treatment in the cancer services: impact on cancer stage and survival. Ir Med J 2005;98:238-9.

14 Corner J, Hopkinson J, Fitzsimmons D, et al. Is late diagnosis of lung cancer inevitable? Interview study of patients' recollections of symptoms before diagnosis. Thorax 2005;60:314-9.

15 Cullen JP, Glynn C, Murtagh E, et al. Auditing a new lung cancer service. Ir Med J 2004;97:281-3.

16 Davison AG, Eraut CD, Haque AS, et al. Telemedicine for multidisciplinary lung cancer meetings. J Telemed Telecare 2004;10:140-3.

17 Deegan PC, Heath L, Brunskill J, et al. Reducing waiting times in lung cancer. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1998;32:339-43.

18 Devbhandari MP, Soon SY, Quennell P, et al. UK waiting time targets in lung cancer treatment: are they achievable? Results of a prospective tracking study. J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;2:5.

19 Dische S, Gibson D, Parmar M, et al. Time course from first symptom to treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer referred for radiotherapy: a report by the CHART Steering Committee. Thorax 1996;51:1262-5.

20 Fergusson RJ, Gregor A, Dodds R, et al. Management of lung cancer in South East Scotland. Thorax 1996;51:569-74.

21 Gregor A, Thomson CS, Brewster DH, et al. Management and survival of patients with lung cancer in Scotland diagnosed in 1995: results of a national population based study. Thorax 2001;56:212-7.

22 Kesson E, Bucknall CE, McAlpine LG, et al. Lung cancer--management and outcome in Glasgow, 1991-92. Br J Cancer 1998;78:1391-5.

23 Krishnasamy M, Wilkie E, Haviland J. Lung cancer health care needs assessment: patients' and informal carers' responses to a national mail questionnaire survey. Palliat Med 2001;15:213-27.

24 Laroche C, Wells F, Coulden R, et al. Improving surgical resection rate in lung cancer. Thorax 1998;53:445-9.

25 Leary A, Corrigan P. Redesign of thoracic surgical services within a cancer network-using an oncology focus to inform change. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2005;9:74-8.