Timely Surgery for Early Stage Lung Cancer Matters

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US, but patients diagnosed at an early stage (stages I and II) have an improved chance of survival when treated with surgical resection.

Timely care matters.

For patients with early stage lung cancer, delays between diagnosis and surgery—even as short as 8–12 weeks—have been linked to increased rates of growth, metastasis, and mortality.¹ Yet, there is no universal standard for the optimal interval between diagnosis and surgical resection, and recommendations vary substantially by organization.

A clearer understanding of optimal surgical timing could help health systems set benchmarks and prioritize access to timely, curative treatment. This article reviews the current evidence on surgical delays for early stage lung cancer and highlights key barriers to achieving timely surgery.

Does Delayed Surgery Matter?

Extended delays in lung cancer resection raises the risk for disease progression, but the exact window when delays become clinically significant remains uncertain. Some studies show no clear survival impact with wait times ranging from 12 to 16 weeks, while others report worse outcomes with delays as short as 4 weeks.²

Many studies examining this question use data from the ACS National Cancer Database^® (NCDB^®), the largest hospital-based cancer registry in the US. In an analysis of more than 363,000 patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), delays beyond 6 weeks were linked to worse 5-year survival rates.³ Each additional week of delay was associated with a 3% higher risk of death for stage I disease, and 1.6% increase for stage II disease.

A separate NCDB study focused on those with stage IA disease—a group for whom surgery alone is often curative. Among 4,984 patients, delays of more than 38 days between diagnosis and surgery were associated with worse 5-year survival.⁴ Survival continued to decline as delays lengthened beyond this point.

Together, these studies suggest that surgical timing plays an important role for patients with early stage lung cancer. Although the exact threshold is a subject of ongoing debate, there is a clear association between surgical delay and decreased survival.

Defining Time to Surgery

A major challenge in understanding the impact of surgical delays in lung cancer treatment is the lack of a standardized definition for time to surgery (TTS). While the date of surgery is straightforward, the date of diagnosis is defined differently across studies. Some use the date of initial imaging, others the day of biopsy, and some even use the date of surgery itself.

These differences make it difficult to compare results and draw data-based conclusions about how delays affect outcomes. For example, for researchers using data from the NCDB, up to one-fourth of patients must be excluded because diagnosis and surgery are defined as occurring on the same day.⁴ Without a consistent definition of TTS, interpreting data on surgical delays becomes challenging.

One practical approach for defining TTS is to establish the diagnosis date as the first computed tomography (CT) scan suggestive of lung cancer. Most early stage lung cancers are initially identified on cross-sectional imaging, either through cancer screening or as incidental findings. Using the CT scan date captures the full preoperative timeline, including additional imaging (e.g., positron emission tomography [PET] scan), possible biopsy, pulmonary function testing, surgical referral, and scheduling.

Defining TTS this way may provide a more clinically meaningful measure of surgical timeliness. Furthermore, a universal definition for TTS will allow health systems to establish clear, standardized benchmarks, which can be used to track and improve care across the entire patient workup continuum.

Insights from Robust Cohort Studies

To address gaps in data regarding patients with early stage NSCLC, several recent studies have focused on integrated healthcare systems, where clinical data are more complete and care timelines can be tracked more accurately.

One such study by Heiden and colleagues examined patients with early stage NSCLC treated within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.⁵ The authors use the date of the first CT scan suggestive of cancer as the starting point, which allowed them to measure TTS more consistently.

With access to detailed patient data, they also were able to account for factors such as smoking status, race, and socioeconomic status. Their analysis found that overall survival was decreased for patients who received surgical resection more than 12 weeks after their diagnosis.

A limitation of this study, however, was the restricted applicability of these findings to broader populations. The VA cohort was predominantly male (96%), White (83%), and almost entirely composed of current or former smokers (99%).

A similar approach for defining TTS was conducted by Tupper and colleagues in a more diverse patient population within Kaiser Permanente Northern California.⁶ Using the same CT-based definition of diagnosis and adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic differences, they found that delays beyond 8 weeks were associated with higher recurrence at 1 year and greater 5-year mortality. This cohort included more women (60%), more non-White patients (35%), and more never smokers (23%), making it more representative of the broader US population.

Overall, these higher-quality studies provide more precise estimates of how surgical timing relates to outcomes and suggest that longer delays may carry real consequences for survival in early stage NSCLC.

When Should Surgery Occur?

Timely surgery is associated with better long-term survival in early stage NSCLC, although the exact threshold varies across studies. Robust analyses using consistent definitions of TTS suggest that delays beyond 8–12 weeks are linked to decreased survival, even after accounting for patient factors.

In light of these findings, aiming for surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis is a reasonable benchmark for delivering prompt surgical care. Ultimately, prospective studies will be needed to better define the optimal timing for surgery and refine evidence-based standards.

Barriers to Timely Surgery

Although a clear definition of TTS has not been established, studies consistently identify patient-, system-, and societal-level barriers to timely surgery. Recent data suggest an increase in TTS over the last several decades.⁶ These delays have significant survival, recurrence, and cost implications.

Patient factors are one important driver of surgical timing. A greater comorbidity burden, such as cardiopulmonary morbidity or frailty, is associated with longer TTS often due to the need for complex preoperative evaluation, optimization, and multidisciplinary input.⁷

Tumor biology also plays a role. Patients with lower-grade, well-differentiated tumors have been found to be associated with increased TTS compared to more aggressive tumors, possibly due to the prioritization of patients with more severe disease.

At the system level, access to specialized centers and care coordination play an important role in TTS. Surgical care at low-volume centers is associated with longer TTS and higher risk of pathologic upstaging compared with high-volume centers.⁸ These differences may partly reflect variance in care coordination. Lung cancer workup is a complex, multistep process, and even small delays can meaningfully prolong TTS. High-volume centers often have well-defined pathways and experience fewer delays, making timely surgery more achievable.

Societal factors, often described as social vulnerability or social determinants of health, also influence TTS. These factors have measurable impacts on both the preoperative and postoperative period. Patients with higher social vulnerability are more likely to experience longer TTS.⁹

A recent large cohort study within Kaiser Permanente Northern California examined how specific social determinants influenced the likelihood of undergoing surgery within 8 weeks.¹⁰ Factors such as race, higher neighborhood deprivation index, and distance of more than 50 miles from the treatment facility, all were associated with longer TTS.

Many of these drivers extend beyond the healthcare system, but increased awareness, targeted needs assessments, and tailored support programs can help promote more equitable access to lung cancer care.

Given the association between prolonged TTS and diminished oncologic outcomes, greater attention to where delays arise along the care pathway—at the patient, system, and societal levels—is warranted. Many of these barriers are modifiable and identifying them is a key step toward meaningful improvement.

TTS remains one of the few modifiable variables in lung cancer care. Reducing patient-, system-, and societal-level barriers offers a practical opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with early stage lung cancer. Prioritizing timely surgery should remain a shared goal for clinicians, health systems, and policymakers alike.

Dr. Adrian Valderrama is a general surgery resident at UCSF-East Bay.

Dr. Jeffrey Velotta is a general thoracic surgeon, clinical professor at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine in Pasadena, CA, and a clinical assistant professor at UCSF.

References

1. Banks KC, Dusendang JR, Schmittdiel JA, et al. Association of surgical timing with outcomes in early stage lung cancer. World J Surg. 2023;47(5):1323-1332.
2. Perez C, Brownlee AR, Weiser L, et al. Wait times between lung cancer diagnosis and surgery: National trends, disparities, and impact on long-term survival. J Thorac Dis. 2025;17(8):5983-5992.
3. Khorana AA, Tullio K, Elson P, et al. Time to initial cancer treatment in the US and association with survival over time: An observational study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0213209.
4. Yang C-FJ, Wang H, Kumar A, et al. Impact of timing of lobectomy on survival for clinical stage IA lung squamous cell carcinoma. Chest. 2017;152(6):1239-1250.
5. Heiden BT, Eaton DB, Engelhardt KE, et al. Analysis of delayed surgical treatment and oncologic outcomes in clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5):e2111613.
6. Tupper HI, Sarovar V, Banks KC, et al. Time to surgery in early-stage non–small cell lung cancer: Defining the optimal diagnosis-to-resection interval to reduce mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025;169(6):1563-1572.e5.
7. Zhang Y, Hu Y, Xi J, Wu B, et al. Critical timing: Impact of delays to surgery on prognosis in stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0319357.
8. Bassiri A, Badrinathan A, Alvarado CE, et al. Evaluating the optimal time between diagnosis and surgical intervention for early-stage lung cancer. J Surg Res. 2023;292:297-306.
9. Mott, NM, Meguid, RA, Randhawa, SK, et al. Social vulnerability is associated with significant delays to definitive surgery for stages IA to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer and consequential increased rates of pathologic upstaging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2026;33(2):858-870.
10. Tupper, HI, Bhattacharjee, J, Sarovar, V, et al. Achieving timely treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Factors associated with delayed surgical resection and proposed quality benchmarks. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026. In Press.