Evaluating the Optimal Time Between Diagnosis and Surgical Intervention for Early-Stage Lung Cancer

Abstract

IntroductionThere is no consensus on the optimal timing for lung cancer surgery. We aim to evaluate the impact of timing of surgical intervention. We hypothesize delay in intervention is associated with worse overall survival and higher pathologic upstaging in early-stage lung cancer. MethodsWe identified patients with cT1/2N0M0 nonsmall cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2018. Patients were categorized by time to surgery groups: early (<26 d), average (26-60 d), and delayed (61-365 d). Primary outcome was overall survival and secondary outcome was pathologic upstaging. Multivariate models and survival analyses were used to determine factors associated with time from diagnosis to surgery, pathologic upstaging, and overall survival. ResultsIn multivariate model, advanced age, non-Hispanic Black patients, nonprivate insurance, low median income and education, and treatment at low-volume facilities were less likely to undergo early intervention and compared to the average group were more likely to receive delayed intervention. Pathologic upstaging was more likely in the delayed group (odds ratio 1.11, 1.07-1.14) compared to early group (odds ratio 0.96, 0.93-0.99). Early intervention was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.93, 0.91-0.95), while delayed intervention was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 1.09-1.14). ConclusionsExpeditious surgical intervention is associated with lower rates of pathologic upstaging and improved overall survival in early-stage lung cancer. Delays in surgery are associated with social and economic factors, suggesting disparities in access to surgery. Lung cancer surgery should be performed as quickly as possible to maximize oncologic outcomes.