From the Journals

Cancer treatment delays are deadly: 5- and 10-year data


 

No surprises

Turning to breast cancer, increased TTI was associated with the most negative survival effects for stage II and III breast cancer.

For stage II breast cancer, for example, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 17.7% and 30.5%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days vs 21.7% and 36.5% with TTI at 181-365 days.

Even for stage I breast cancer patients, there were significant differences in all-cause mortality with delayed definitive therapy, although the effect size is clinically small, the researchers report.

Patients with stage IA or IB breast cancer who were not treated until 61 to 120 days after diagnosis had 1.3% and 2.3% increased mortality at 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and those waiting longer suffered even greater increases in mortality. “As such, our analysis underscores the importance of timely definitive treatment, even for stage I breast cancer,” the authors write.

Charles Shapiro, MD, director of translational breast cancer research for the Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, was not surprised by the data.

The observation that delays in initiating cancer treatment are associated with worse survival is “not new, as delays in primary surgical treatments and chemotherapy for early-stage disease is an adverse prognostic factor for clinical outcomes,” Shapiro told Medscape Medical News.

“The bottom line is primary surgery and the start of chemotherapy should probably occur as soon as clinically feasible,” said Shapiro, who was not involved in the study.

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree.

This study supports avoiding unnecessary treatment delays and prioritizing timely cancer care, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, write Laura Van Metre Baum, MD, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues.

They note, however, that primary care, “the most important conduit for cancer screening and initial evaluation of new symptoms, has been the hardest hit economically and the most subject to profound disruption and restructuring during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

“In many centers, cancer care delivery has been disrupted and nonstandard therapies offered in an effort to minimize exposure of this high-risk group to the virus. The implications in appropriately balancing the urgency of cancer care and the threat of COVID-19 exposure in the pandemic are more complex,” the editorialists conclude.

Cone, Shapiro, and Van Metre Baum have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This work won first prize in the Commission on Cancer 2020 Cancer Research Paper Competition and was virtually presented at the Commission on Cancer Plenary Session on October 30, 2020.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Recommended Reading

COVID-19 ‘far more serious’ than flu, inpatient data confirm
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
COVID-19 vaccines and cancer patients: 4 things to know
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
COVID-19 variant sparks U.K. travel restrictions
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Doctors publish paper on COVID-19 protocol; Experts unconvinced
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
COVID-19 anticoagulation trials ‘paused’ for futility, safety
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Call to arms: vaccinating the health workforce of 21 million strong
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine deemed ‘highly effective,’ but further studies needed
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
COVID-19 mortality rates declined, but vary by hospital
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
New resilience center targets traumatized health care workers
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Scant risk for SARS-CoV-2 from hospital air
MDedge Hematology and Oncology