Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment ("GP-LCS interval"), and diagnosis to treatment ("treatment interval"). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care.We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP-LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions.Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP-LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay.Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care.

No abstract

Backgrounds This study aims to understand the factors that influence whether patients receive potentially curative treatment for early stage lung cancer. A key question was whether indigenous Māori patients were less likely to receive treatment. Methods Patients included those diagnosed with early stage lung cancer in 2011-2018 and resident in the New Zealand Midland Cancer Network region. Logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds ratios of having curative surgery/ treatment. The Kaplan Meier method was used to examine the all-cause survival and Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of death. Results In total 419/583 (71.9%) of patients with Stage I and II disease were treated with curative intent-272 (46.7%) patients had curative surgery. Patients not receiving potentially curative treatment were older, were less likely to have non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had poorer lung function and were more likely to have an ECOG performance status of 2+. Current smokers were less likely to be treated with surgery and more likely to receive treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Those who were treated with surgery had a 2-year survival of 87.8% (95% CI: 83.8%-91.8%) and 5-year survival of 69.6% (95% CI: 63.2%-76.0%). Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has equivalent effect on survival compared to curative surgery (hazard ratio: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.37-1.61). After adjustment we could find no difference in treatment and survival between Māori and non-Māori. Conclusions The majority of patients with stage I and II lung cancer are managed with potentially curative treatment-mainly surgery and increasingly with SABR. The outcomes of those being diagnosed with stage I and II disease and receiving treatment is positive with 70% surviving 5 years.