The impact of lag time to cancer diagnosis and treatment on clinical outcomes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Search strategy and selection criteria

We systematically searched four electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. The search strategy consisted of the index keywords cancer, diagnosis & treatment, wait-time, delay, outcome, and systematic review and/or meta-analysis, along with their associated MeSH and iterative search terms (Supplementary Table 1). We queried these databases for records published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. We chose the former date to avoid capturing changes in treatment modalities for cancer sites that might have affected clinical outcomes, and the latter date to prevent artifacts from the COVID-19 pandemic era impacting our search findings. We did not apply language restrictions. In addition, we manually searched the reference lists of eligible systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses to identify potentially relevant reviews missed in our search.

Eligibility assessment

We imported all records into EndNote X9 reference management software where duplicates were removed. Subsequently, remaining records were uploaded to Rayyan web tool for systematic reviews (17), where additional duplicates were removed. To be included, a review needed to [1] be a systematic review and/or meta-analysis, [2] refer to any clinical outcome associated with a lag time to cancer diagnosis or treatment, and [3] mention lag time to cancer diagnosis or treatment. In the first round, two reviewers (PT and EF; PT and RA; or EF and RA) independently screened the records’ titles and abstracts for eligibility in Rayyan. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Full-text eligibility screening was performed independently by two reviewers (EF and RA) and validated by a third (PT). Reference lists of records included in the full-text eligibility screening were manually searched by two reviewers (EF and RA) and validated by a third (PT) for further records that met the eligibility criteria.

Data abstraction

The included records were divided into two sets and data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (PT and EF for one set, and PT and RA for the second set). One reviewer (PT) then verified all abstracted data. Inconsistencies among reviewers were resolved through discussion. From all included literature, we extracted the following variables: databases searched, number of hits, number of included studies, total number of participants, countries in which studies were conducted, start and endpoints of lag times evaluated, range of the lag time interval, cancer site, cancer type, and outcomes (e.g., mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), disease progression, etc.). We extracted additional information and variables particular to the review type. This included overall qualitative findings from systematic reviews without a meta-analytic component (referred to herein as systematic reviews). For reviews with a meta-analytic component (referred to hereafter as meta-analyses), we further extracted lag time variable type (categorical or continuous), lag time comparator and reference categories, corresponding pooled risk estimates (e.g., risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR)) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI), model parameters, heterogeneity statistics, and results from subgroup (by cancer type, study quality, follow-up period, and confounding adjustment, i.e., for sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, study design, and sociodemographic variables) and/or sensitivity analyses. Findings from meta-analyses were categorized by outcome: morbidity- (e.g., disease progression) or mortality-related.

Definition and representation of lag time intervals

Based on the extracted start and endpoints of lag times, we defined unique lag time intervals that encompassed diagnostic, system, and treatment wait times. We visually represented these lag time intervals on a timeline by including horizontal bars that align the start and endpoints in relation to relevant “milestones” along the cancer care continuum (i.e., symptom onset, first seen by primary care physician, referral to a specialist, diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care). For reviews that referred to a lag time of interest using terms of common usage in the cancer community (e.g., diagnostic delay, treatment delay), we abstracted the start and endpoints of lag time intervals from the original studies and cross-validated these definitions with those used in the included review (18-20). Some reviews did not mention whether the time between the start and endpoints included or excluded other “milestones” along the cancer care continuum (20-24). We used orange shading to differentiate these from lag time intervals that included milestones in between start and endpoints which are shaded in blue (18-20, 23, 25-45).

Findings from systematic reviews

The search strategy and characteristics of each included systematic review are detailed in Supplementary Table 2. We summarize in Table 2 their overall characteristics and findings by cancer site and type as well as the corresponding lag time interval.

Morbidity-related findings

Mortality-related findings

T32 and breast cancer

The three meta-analyses investigating the effect of extended time to ACT (T32) on mortality among patients with breast cancer reported a significantly greater risk of mortality per 1-month extension of T32 (40-42). Although they provided consistent conclusions, differences in the magnitude of the reported risk estimates could be attributed to conflicting inclusion of a registry-based study (47) that found a significant association between extended T32 and mortality. This registry-based study (47) was included in Yu et al.’s (40) and Zhan et al.’s (42) meta-analyses, which yielded risk estimates greatest in magnitude, and accounted for 21.24% and 8.09% of the weight in their analyses, respectively. Raphael et al. (41), who reported the most conservative pooled risk estimate, did not include this registry-based study (47). Raphael et al. (41) argued that inclusion of this registry-based study in Yu et al.’s analysis (40) could have introduced bias by confounding or misclassification of ACT as palliative rather than curative, resulting in an overestimation of risk associated with prolonged T32. By extension, this argument could also apply to Zhan et al.’s analysis (42). However, Raphael et al.’s argument relied on the assumption that those who received palliative ACT were not only less likely to survive, but also more likely to experience longer time to ACT after surgery, thus inducing an artifactual association between shorter time from surgery to ACT and mortality. Because it is unknown whether patients undergoing palliative care would be considered lower priority for receiving ACT or, conversely, experience shorter time to ACT due to directed resources specific to palliative care units, it is unclear as to whether the possible inclusion of patients undergoing palliative ACT in the registry-based study (47) would have led to an over- or under-estimation of Yu et al.’s (40) and Zhan et al.’s (42) risk estimates.

T29 and colorectal cancer

The three meta-analyses evaluating the impact of time from NACRT to surgery (T29) on pCR rates among patients with advanced rectal cancer provided different conclusions regarding the optimal timing of surgery (33, 34, 36). Each reported protective associations of extended T29 for pCR rates using different cut-offs to define “longer” versus “control” T29: 7 weeks (33), 6-8 weeks (34), and 8 weeks after NACRT (36). These cut-offs were determined based on the seminal Lyon R90-01 trial, which investigated the impact of 6-8 weeks between NART and sphincter-preserving surgery compared to 2 weeks on pathological downstaging among patients with rectal cancer and established 6-8 weeks as an accepted lag time of NART or NACRT after surgery in clinical practice (48). However, an evaluation of a 6-8 week length of time between preoperative radiotherapy and surgery in the trial might not have precluded the potential for shorter time between preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery (T29) (> 2 weeks and < 6-8 weeks), or longer T29 (> 6-8 weeks) to sustain benefit for patients with rectal cancer.

Considering this uncertainty, Wang et al. conducted subgroup analyses based on different cut-offs of T29 (5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 weeks) (Supplemental Table 3) and found that performing surgery at 7 and 8 weeks yielded a significantly improved pCR rates compared to performing surgery earlier, at 5 or 6 weeks, or later, at 10 or 12 weeks (33). This reported “optimal window”, which is narrower than the clinically accepted 6-8 week window, suggests that benefits associated with NACRT for patients with advanced rectal cancer are dependent on the timing of surgery and also on inter-individual variation in response to NACRT. Among rectal cancer patients, surgery performed too soon may not allow for the maximal anti-tumorigenic response to NACRT, however, waiting too long could mitigate any potential benefit that could be maintained from NACRT and permit tumor repopulation.

T32 and colorectal cancer

Three meta-analyses (35, 43, 44) investigating the association between time from surgery to ACT on mortality among patients with colorectal cancer reported significant associations between extended time from surgery to ACT (T32) and risk of mortality. Yet, all three (35, 43, 44) used differing statistical methods with regards to lag time variable classification. Des Guetz et al.’s (43) and Petrelli et al.’s (2019) (35) considered lag time categorically with respective cut-offs of > 8 weeks and > 6-8 weeks, while Biagi et al. (44) considered lag time as a continuous variable. Biagi et al. (44) excluded four studies (49-52) that were included in Des Guetz et al.’s analysis (41) based on lack of adjustment for potential confounders. Two studies (53, 54) included in Biagi et al.’s (44) and Des Guetz et al.’s (43) analysis, which cumulatively contributed 69.05% of the weight in Biagi et al.’s analysis (weight was not reported by Des Guetz et al.), reported risk estimates highly similar to those yielded from the two meta-analyses. After exclusion of the two largest studies (53, 54) in both analyses, significance was maintained (Supplemental Table 3).

T32 and ovarian cancer

The two meta-analyses on the association between time to ACT after surgery (T32) and risk of mortality among patients with ovarian cancer reported contradictory findings; one found an increased risk of mortality due to longer T32 (46), but not the other (45). Key methodological differences could account for these conflicting findings. Although there was substantial overlap of included studies between the meta-analyses, the one that found an increased risk of mortality due to longer T32 (46) stratified the analysis by lag time variable type (categorical or continuous), while the other meta-analysis that found no association (45) included studies independent of the lag time variable type. Inclusion of studies in the same analysis independent of or dependent upon how lag time was considered likely contributed to the substantial heterogeneity observed in the meta-analysis that did not stratify by lag time variable type (I² = 64.3%) (45) compared to the one that did (I² = 17.6%, 9.05%) (46). Notably, the cut-offs defining “early” versus “deferred” lag time intervals in both meta-analyses were based on those used in the included original studies. It is also likely that the wide range of lag time intervals across studies might have influenced the precision and significance of the reported risk estimates, hence the importance of standardization of lag time cut-offs in meta-analyses and the impact of lag time variable type on statistical findings.

Methodological gaps in lag time literature

In juxtaposing the design and analytical approaches of included reviews, we identified three predominant methodological gaps in lag time literature. Firstly, consideration of change in intervention modality over time was inconsistent across included reviews. Failure to account for improvement of clinical protocols and treatment regimens, which can confer greater protection against morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes, could have biased the observed risk estimates based on recency of included studies and their corresponding weight in the meta-analyses. For example, the three meta-analyses (40-42) that reported significant associations between time to ACT after surgery (T32) and mortality among patients with breast cancer included studies for which chemotherapy regimens were anthracycline-based and/or CMF regimens with the earliest included study dating to 1989 (55). This could constrain generalizability of results to patients treated with more recent ACT regimens which primarily include taxanes as standard care (56). It is noteworthy, however, that apart from the recent advent of immunotherapy and targeted therapies, which fall under the umbrella of precision medicine, there have not been major paradigm shifts in treatment provision during the timespan covered by our search (1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019). Nevertheless, our restriction on publication date of included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses does not prevent the inclusion of studies that evaluate interventions that have since evolved in type, dosing, and/or timing. Indeed, future ubiquity of novel therapies under the purview of precision medicine will necessitate consideration of the evolution of cancer care in meta-analytical lag time research. In such cases, conducting sensitivity analyses based on treatment type, regimen, or date of publication can provide a clearer understanding of the external validity of reported risk estimates. The findings of select included meta-analyses that did conduct such sensitivity analyses (21, 42, 46) (Supplemental Table 3) demonstrated the variation in significance of the association between lag time and clinical outcomes due to treatment specification and recency of publication in addition to baseline patient characteristics, such as demographics, stage, date of administration, dosing, type of therapy, and clinical decisions.

Secondly, ambiguity in defining lag time interval start and endpoints in the reviews and original studies could lead to exposure misclassification. For example, in the case of categorical lag time variables, specification of whether an endpoint is considered as initiation of NACRT, completion of NACRT, or time of medical charting of NACRT, could influence the length of the lag time interval measured and classification of such exposure as experimental or control.

The Aarhus statement, a set of recommendations and checklist resulting from discussion regarding methodological concerns in research conducted on lag times to cancer diagnosis, identified unclear definitions of start and endpoints in lag times, as well as inconsistency in defining these points across studies evaluating the same lag time as primary obstacles to aggregating research on lag time to cancer diagnosis (57). We argue that the same concerns would apply to research on lag time between any start and endpoint on the cancer care continuum, not only within time to cancer diagnosis.

Some of the included qualitative systematic reviews initially intended to meta-analyze the abstracted data (22, 23, 26, 29), however, variability in start and endpoint definitions of lag times across included studies and in type of lag time variable (categorical versus continuous) prevented researchers from pursuing quantitative analyses. This lack of clarity of exposure definitions stymies lag time research and calls for an expansion of the pre-existing Aarhus statement (57) to encompass lag time research across the entire cancer care continuum. Refinements of the Aarhus statement integrating suggestions from clinicians and cancer diagnosis researchers have been proposed (58), yet are still restricted to cancer diagnosis, rather than applicable to the entire cancer care continuum. Additions to the Aarhus statement regarding the entire continuum could provide not only recommendations for standardizing lag time definitions in randomized-controlled trials and observational studies, but also for justifying classification of lag time categorically versus continuously (e.g., evaluation of a lag time cut-off in standard care). Apart from residual confounding that can arise from categorical classification of lag time, the method of defining lag time categories using cut-offs can substantially impact resulting risk estimates and their corresponding uncertainty. Some included meta-analyses (18, 19, 21, 37, 45, 46) utilized categories of “early” and “deferred” care defined by original studies. Even when classifying lag time categorically is appropriate, not standardizing cut-offs across included studies can give rise to more significant variation in risk estimates and constrict interpretation of resulting findings. Overall, recommendations for defining lag time exposure across the entire continuum and strategizing statistical classification of lag time exposure is necessary for improving the quality and utility of future lag time research.

Thirdly, confounding by indication needs to be taken into consideration in research conducted on lag times in cancer care. Otherwise monikered the “waiting-time paradox”, confounding by indication is the implication that patients with more advanced stage disease are prioritized for referral and subsequent treatment within a given health system more rapidly than patients with early-stage, less severe disease. The overall effect of this prioritization leads to the indication that early referral and/or treatment is associated with higher mortality; this survival trend is in direct contradiction with the typical log-linear approach taken in meta-analyses on the association between extended lag time to cancer treatment and risk of mortality. The presence of the waiting-time paradox in meta-analyses can be most clearly identified when lag time is treated as a continuous rather than categorical variable. However, this can be difficult as studies included in meta-analyses often regard lag times as dichotomous exposure. Few of the meta-analyses included in the current scoping review reported risk estimates for lag time intervals as a continuous exposure (31, 39-42, 44, 46). Notwithstanding appropriate justification for treating lag time categorically, either sensitivity analyses using different cut-offs of categorical lag time or meta-analyses using continuous lag time could facilitate identification of the waiting-time paradox and provide insights regarding its mechanisms.

Apart from inherent limitations of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, some overarching limitations in the methodology of our scoping review need to be acknowledged. Restricting our search to systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published after 2010 did not prevent the introduction of medical interventions that have changed over time in included literature, however, our reporting of stratified analyses performed in included meta-analyses, when available, by treatment specifications (e.g., dosing, chemotherapy type) does provide context regarding modification of lag time on clinical outcomes by intervention modality. Further, even though some meta-analyses evaluated the same parameters, variability in statistical methods limited the scope of our comparisons between these meta-analyses. While we did not conduct quality assessment due to the nature of the included literature, we did describe characteristics of each review which could aid in assessing the validity and generalizability of each review’s findings. Finally, despite the importance of examining treatment variations among patients within clinical trial settings, which are circumscribed to well-established rules and procedures, real-world evidence, such as data from electronic medical or health records, can provide further insight into patient profiles, treatment choice, drug adherence, and adverse event management. These individual-level factors, which are not captured by the included meta-analyses, can appreciably influence oncologic outcomes and thus the true causal effect of lag time on morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes.

Contextualizing findings of the scoping review amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

Our comprehensive map of lag time intervals and clinical outcomes across multiple cancer sites is intended to serve as a reference point for future research evaluating the pandemic’s impact on lag times in cancer control and care. As it can take years for cancer-related survival outcomes to accrue, it is too soon to accurately quantify the impact of extended times to diagnosis and treatment attributable to the pandemic. Hence, the perspectives presented herein on the impact of lag time in cancer control and care not only aid in benchmarking pandemic-induced lag time compared to standard-of-care lag time experienced prior to the pandemic, but also inform ongoing research on these unprecedented lag times experienced by patients.

Recently published modelling studies simulating the long-term impact of pandemic-induced lag times on cancer-related outcomes have informed the degree of tolerability of the widespread consequences of the pandemic on cancer care systems (2, 13). A U.K. population-based modelling study predicting the impact of lag times to diagnosis of colorectal, breast, lung, and esophageal cancers on survival during the 12 months after national lockdown measures began estimated increases of 7.9-9.6%, 15.3-16.6%, 4.8-5.3%, and 5.8-6.0% in deaths due to breast, colorectal, lung, and esophageal cancers, respectively, up to 5 years after diagnosis compared to pre-pandemic data (2). Another modelling study from our group projected a 2% increase in cancer deaths, or an excess 355,172 life-years-lost, in Canada between 2020 and 2030 due to pandemic-induced lag times to both cancer diagnosis and treatment, assuming the cancer care system returned to normal capacity in 2021 (15). Triage systems prioritizing patients into treatment and diagnostic systems (7), on top of system-related constraints, have resulted in unprecedented lag times that exceed those experienced pre-pandemic (6). This evokes the question as to whether adverse consequences associated with such pandemic-related lag-times will be harsher than those described in retrospective data.

The prevailing concern is that any attenuation of the impact of pandemic-induced lag time on cancer diagnosis and treatment is dependent on immediate recovery of cancer care infrastructure. As was seen most recently with the Omicron variant, which stressed already over-burdened health care systems worldwide, healthcare systems’ recovery to full capacity is tenuous. Such fragility signals for an ongoing need to quantify and contextualize lag time’s impact on cancer-related outcomes. This need was highlighted by Hanna et al.’s meta-analysis, which reported generalizable measures of effect of four-week-lag time to treatment, stratified by modality, across seven common cancers (59). While meta-analyses, especially the one by Hanna et al. (59), can serve as tools for parameterizing models (15) or summarizing the impact of time to treatment across common cancers (60), they may not capture information relevant to particular populations and outcomes. Three included meta-analyses (33, 34, 36), which reported improved pCR rates among patients with advanced-stage rectal cancer who experienced time between NACRT and surgery of 6-8 weeks, demonstrated the biological benefit of lag time within the context of the intervention. Similarly, extended lag time to subsequent steps in care can be clinically appropriate with regards to patient rehabilitation post-treatment. The impact of lag time to diagnosis and/or treatment may also vary across different types of cancer with differing risk or rates of development within the same site (e.g., breast cancer). That is, just as prolonged lag time can be deleterious, which is often how it is connoted, it can also denote advantageous clinical characteristics. Our scoping review aimed to attend to the same need of summarizing lag time’s impact on oncologic outcomes, however, with the intention of preserving the granularity of these associations across multiple cancer sites, with clearly mapped lag time interval start and endpoints. Our tracing of defined lag times across relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses can serve as a pre-pandemic reference when assessing the tolerability of pandemic-induced lag times. It could also lay the groundwork for observational and meta-analytical research on lag time intervals’ influence on oncologic outcomes across sites beyond the most common ones, such as breast, lung, and colorectal.