Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. Patient survival largely depends on how early cancer is diagnosed and when treatment starts. Due to delays in diagnosis and the aggressive nature of certain cancers, many people are diagnosed at an advanced stage, reducing the likelihood of a cure.
Cancer treatment has entered the era of personalized medicine. Advanced treatments like targeted therapy and immunotherapy target specific cancer cells or the tumor microenvironment based on biomarkers, providing superior treatment efficacy and toxicity profiles to the systemic standard of care. These features promote advancements in treatment options, including the combining non-surgical therapies, the extending of indications to earlier-stage, and even surgically treated cancers in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, and the refinement of treatment protocols with more precise methods. At the same time, chemotherapy and radiotherapy continue to evolve and are integrated into the aforementioned strategies to achieve better outcomes.
With the increasing complexity of cancer treatment strategies, there is a pressing need to understand the impact of sequential treatments on prognostic outcomes. One focus is the treatment-to-treatment interval between multiple modalities within one treatment strategy (e.g., neoadjuvant therapy and surgery) or between treatment lines. Mortality risk could increase when immediately initiating or delaying the subsequent treatment. Similar conditions can be found in the cycle-to-cycle interval of a treatment and the traditional treatment intervals involving the period before the first treatment.
Other main focuses include treatment discontinuation. Treatment discontinuation can become ambiguous due to significantly prolonged survivorship with advanced treatments, particularly when extending these treatments to surgical cancers at a very early stage and long-term use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients can be on treatment for one to two years without cessation. Studies should investigate the optimal duration of treatment that balances prognosis, quality of life, and financial costs to the patient and healthcare system.
Enriched treatment options and strategies require more considerate assessments in radiology and pathology, potentially increasing time toxicity and healthcare utilization. Studies should also provide new insights into the length of the time intervals and their impact on healthcare resourcing.
This Research Topic aims to foster emerging evidence of the optimal timing of cancer treatments. We welcome Original Research, Brief Research Report, Systematic Review, Review, Perspective, and Opinion. These contributions should rigorously present and discuss the evidence of time intervals with cancer treatment initiation or discontinuation as the entry or ending time point. Submissions should focus on, but are not limited to, the following topics:
• length of time intervals;
• social, clinical, healthcare factors, reasons or interventions contributing to the time interval length;
• impact of time intervals on patient outcomes or healthcare utilization;
• study design and methodology;
• relevant policy, export consensus.
As study results can be content based regarding specific treatment options, therapeutic settings, cancer characteristics, healthcare settings or systems, we encourage various studies to be conducted and considered for this Research Topic. Submissions should include detailed reporting of study methodology in concordance with relevant guidelines (e.g., Aarhus statement, REST guideline).
Keywords:
Time-to-treatment, treatment-to-treatment interval, duration of therapy, treatment delay, neoplasms
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. Patient survival largely depends on how early cancer is diagnosed and when treatment starts. Due to delays in diagnosis and the aggressive nature of certain cancers, many people are diagnosed at an advanced stage, reducing the likelihood of a cure.
Cancer treatment has entered the era of personalized medicine. Advanced treatments like targeted therapy and immunotherapy target specific cancer cells or the tumor microenvironment based on biomarkers, providing superior treatment efficacy and toxicity profiles to the systemic standard of care. These features promote advancements in treatment options, including the combining non-surgical therapies, the extending of indications to earlier-stage, and even surgically treated cancers in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, and the refinement of treatment protocols with more precise methods. At the same time, chemotherapy and radiotherapy continue to evolve and are integrated into the aforementioned strategies to achieve better outcomes.
With the increasing complexity of cancer treatment strategies, there is a pressing need to understand the impact of sequential treatments on prognostic outcomes. One focus is the treatment-to-treatment interval between multiple modalities within one treatment strategy (e.g., neoadjuvant therapy and surgery) or between treatment lines. Mortality risk could increase when immediately initiating or delaying the subsequent treatment. Similar conditions can be found in the cycle-to-cycle interval of a treatment and the traditional treatment intervals involving the period before the first treatment.
Other main focuses include treatment discontinuation. Treatment discontinuation can become ambiguous due to significantly prolonged survivorship with advanced treatments, particularly when extending these treatments to surgical cancers at a very early stage and long-term use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients can be on treatment for one to two years without cessation. Studies should investigate the optimal duration of treatment that balances prognosis, quality of life, and financial costs to the patient and healthcare system.
Enriched treatment options and strategies require more considerate assessments in radiology and pathology, potentially increasing time toxicity and healthcare utilization. Studies should also provide new insights into the length of the time intervals and their impact on healthcare resourcing.
This Research Topic aims to foster emerging evidence of the optimal timing of cancer treatments. We welcome Original Research, Brief Research Report, Systematic Review, Review, Perspective, and Opinion. These contributions should rigorously present and discuss the evidence of time intervals with cancer treatment initiation or discontinuation as the entry or ending time point. Submissions should focus on, but are not limited to, the following topics:
• length of time intervals;
• social, clinical, healthcare factors, reasons or interventions contributing to the time interval length;
• impact of time intervals on patient outcomes or healthcare utilization;
• study design and methodology;
• relevant policy, export consensus.
As study results can be content based regarding specific treatment options, therapeutic settings, cancer characteristics, healthcare settings or systems, we encourage various studies to be conducted and considered for this Research Topic. Submissions should include detailed reporting of study methodology in concordance with relevant guidelines (e.g., Aarhus statement, REST guideline).
Keywords:
Time-to-treatment, treatment-to-treatment interval, duration of therapy, treatment delay, neoplasms
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.