MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411300228 · doi:10.14740/wjon2584

Time-to-Treatment Initiation and Its Effect on All-Cause Mortality: Insights From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database

2025· article· en· W4411300228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Song Peng Ang, Eunseuk Lee, Jia Ee Chia, Mariela Di Vanna, Shreya Shambhavi, José Iglesias

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsEpidemiologyDatabaseNational databaseIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Delays in cancer treatment initiation can significantly impact survival outcomes, but the magnitude of this effect varies by cancer type, stage, and patient demographics. This study examined the association between time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) and all-cause mortality across multiple common cancers, evaluating differential impacts and sociodemographic disparities. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, including 991,771 adults diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate, or colorectal cancers between 2015 and 2020. TTI intervals were divided into four categories: 0 - 1, 2 - 5, 6 - 9, and ≥ 10 months. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, cancer-specific, and treatment factors, assessed the impact of TTI on all-cause mortality, accounting for time-varying covariates. Results: Overall, 63.9% of patients initiated treatment within 1 month. Unadjusted analyses revealed paradoxically lower mortality with longer TTI intervals (26.1% for 0 - 1 month vs. 11.4% for ≥ 10 months). After adjusting for time-varying effects, longer TTI significantly correlated with higher mortality risks (hazard ratio (HR): 1.02 for 2 - 5 months, 1.08 for 6 - 9 months, 1.23 for ≥ 10 months; P < 0.001 each), compared to treatment within 1 month. Older age (HR: 1.06), male gender (HR: 1.08), unmarried status (HR: 1.06), and non-Hispanic Black race (HR: 1.03) were independently associated with increased mortality. Lung cancer patients had significantly higher mortality than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers (all P < 0.001). Treatment differences emerged, with reduced chemotherapy (40.2% to 10.0%) and surgical interventions (70.6% to 48.8%) at longer intervals. Conclusion: Our analysis showed that increased TTI is independently associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality across major cancers, emphasizing the urgency of timely treatment initiation. Sociodemographic disparities in TTI and outcomes highlight systemic barriers disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, necessitating targeted interventions to improve equitable cancer care and survival outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207