Time to diagnosis and stage of symptomatic colorectal cancer determined by three different sources of information: A population based retrospective study

Factors associated with diagnostic and treatment intervals in colorectal cancer: A linked data study

This research aimed to assess the length of intervals before diagnosis and treatment for colorectal cancer in Australia using linked datasets, and to determine any factors associated with interval length. A colorectal cancer clinical registry was linked to general practice electronic medical record data and routinely collected hospital referral datasets to determine the length of four key intervals in the time before first treatment. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess associations between individual characteristics (sociodemographic variables such as age and sex, and disease characteristics such as cancer subtype and treatment approach) and the length of each interval. Sample sizes available for analysis varied by interval, ranging from 99 to 9359. The median interval length ranged from 21 (IQR 5-38) days for the time between diagnosis and treatment to 63 (IQR 24-218) days for the time between first presentation and diagnosis. Overall, few measured characteristics were associated with the lengths of any of the intervals. Of note, shorter diagnostic intervals were associated with presenting to the general practitioner with alarm symptoms, and people proceeding to surgery as initial treatment had shorter times to treatment than any other treatment modality. Given disease and medical system factors were associated with interval length, broad improvements to the overall efficient functioning of the healthcare system are likely to improve timeliness. More targeted interventions could focus on processes at the transitions between different levels of the healthcare system and implementing recommended maximum lengths of intervals along the diagnostic and treatment pathway.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days.

CONCLUSION

The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

The prognostic impact of lead times in colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC

Background

National lead time goals have been implemented across Sweden to standardize and improve cancer patient care. However, the prognostic impact of lead times has not yet been studied in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases scheduled for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC).

Aim

To study the correlation between lead times and overall survival and operability.

Methods

One hundred forty-eight patients with peritoneal metastases originating from colorectal cancer and scheduled for CRS + HIPEC from June 2012 to December 2019 were identified using a HIPEC register at Uppsala University Hospital. Data were collected from medical records concerning operability, overall survival, recurrence and time from diagnosis, and decision to operate to the date of surgery. Patients who had neoadjuvant therapy or no malignant cells in the resected specimens were excluded. Statistical calculations were made with the chi-squared test, Cox regression analysis, and log-rank test.

Results

The median age was 66 years (27–82). Ninety-five were women and 53 were men. One hundred six underwent CRS + HIPEC, 13 CRS only, and 29 were inoperable (open-close). No difference in overall survival was seen when comparing patients with lead times ≤ 34 days and ≥ 35 days from the decision to operate at the multidisciplinary conference to the surgery but there was a higher frequency of open-close (p = 0.023) in the group with longer lead time. Factors that impacted overall survival were open-close (p < 0.001), liver metastases (p = 0.003), and peritoneal cancer index score ≥ 20 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A long lead time from multidisciplinary conference to surgery has no direct impact on overall survival but can result in more cases of inoperability. In a larger cohort, this might translate into decreased survival, and efforts should therefore be made to complete preoperative work up as soon as possible and reduce overall time span. Important factors for survival are related to patient selection and extent of disease.

Relationship between time from symptom's onset to diagnosis and prognosis in patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the relationship of the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with the time from symptom onset to diagnosis. The aim of this study is to investigate this association, with the assumption that this relationship was nonlinear and with adjustment for multiple confounders, such as tumor grade, symptoms, or admission to an emergency department.

METHODS

This multicenter study with prospective follow-up was performed in five regions of Spain from 2010 to 2012. Symptomatic cases of incident CRC from a previous study were examined. At the time of diagnosis, each patient was interviewed, and the associated hospital and clinical records were reviewed. During follow-up, the clinical records were reviewed again to assess survival. Cox survival analysis with a restricted cubic spline was used to model overall and CRC-specific survival, with adjustment for variables related to the patient, health service, and tumor.

RESULTS

A total of 795 patients had symptomatic CRC and 769 of them had complete data on diagnostic delay and survival. Univariate analysis indicated a lower HR for death in patients who had diagnostic intervals less than 4.2 months. However, after adjustment for variables related to the patient, tumor, and utilized health service, there was no relationship of the diagnostic delay with survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer, colon cancer alone, or rectal cancer alone. Cubic spline analysis indicated an inverse association of the diagnostic delay with 5-year survival. However, this association was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that the duration of diagnostic delay had no significant effect on the outcome of patients with CRC. We suggest that the most important determinant of the duration of diagnostic delay is the biological profile of the tumor. However, it remains the responsibility of community health centers and authorities to minimize diagnostic delays in patients with CRC and to implement initiatives that improve early diagnosis and provide better outcomes.

Impact of a colorectal cancer screening program implantation on delays and prognosis of non-screening detected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The implementation of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme may increase the awareness of Primary Care Physicians, reduce the diagnostic delay in CRC detected outside the scope of the screening programme and thus improve prognosis.

AIM

To determine the effect of implementation of a CRC screening programme on diagnostic delays and prognosis of CRC detected outside the scope of a screening programme.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective intervention study with a pre-post design. We identified 322 patients with incident and confirmed CRC in the pre-implantation cohort (June 2014 – May 2015) and 285 in the post-implantation cohort (June 2017 - May 2018) in the Cancer Registry detected outside the scope of a CRC screening programme. In each patient we calculated the different healthcare diagnostics delays: global, primary and secondary healthcare, referral and colonoscopy-related delays. In addition, we collected the initial healthcare that evaluated the patient, the home location (urban/rural), and the CRC stage at diagnosis. We determined the two-year survival and we performed a multivariate proportional hazard regression analysis to determine the variables associated with survival.

RESULTS

We did not detect any differences in the patient or CRC baseline-related variables. A total of 20.1% of patients was detected with metastatic disease. There was a significant increase in direct referral to colonoscopy from primary healthcare (25.5%, 35.8%; P = 0.04) in the post-implantation cohort. Diagnostic delay was reduced by 24 d (106.64 ± 148.84 days, 82.84 ± 109.31 d; P = 0.02) due to the reduction in secondary healthcare delay (46.01 ± 111.65 d; 29.20 ± 60.83 d; P = 0.02). However, we did not find any differences in CRC stage at diagnosis or in two-year survival (70.3%; P = 0.9). Variables independently associated with two-year risk of death were age (Hazard Ratio-HR: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07), CRC stage (II HR: 2.17, 95%CI: 1.07-4.40; III HR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.56-6.08; IV HR: 19.22, 95%CI: 9.86-37.44; unknown HR: 9.24, 95%CI: 4.27-19.99), initial healthcare consultation (secondary HR: 2.93, 95%CI: 1.01-8.55; emergency department HR: 2.06, 95%CI: 0.67-6.34), hospitalization during the diagnostic process (HR: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.17-2.38) and urban residence (HR: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.06-1.98).

CONCLUSION

Although implementation of a CRC screening programme can reduce diagnostic delays for CRC detected in symptomatic patients, this has no effect on CRC stage or survival.

Survival in stage IIB/C compared to stage IIIA rectal cancer: an Australian experience affirming that size does matter

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies globally; however, a survival paradox has been observed unique to this malignancy. The aim of this study was to review survival outcomes of patients diagnosed with stage II and stage III rectal cancer, to determine whether a survival paradox is present in our centre and assess for patient-related factors that can explain the observed paradox or were predictors of prognosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data collected from 2006 to 2018 of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer in three separate centres was conducted. Percentages pertaining to patient and tumour characteristics, presentation, management and subsequent recurrence were reported. Preoperative and postoperative factors associated with survival were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Stage IIB/C patients had significantly higher carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels compared to stage IIA and stage IIIA patients (P < 0.001). Stage IIB/C patients had significantly larger primary rectal tumour and were more symptomatic (i.e. rectal bleeding, altered bowel habits and obstruction) at the time of diagnosis (P = 0.007). Preoperative CEA was an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival in patients diagnosed with stage IIB/C and stage IIIA disease (P = 0.008) on multivariable analysis. Overall survival was greatest in stage IIIA disease, which was significantly greater than stage IIB/C disease.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the existence of a survival paradox in patients diagnosed with CRC in an Australian tertiary centre and adds further weight to the revision of the TNM staging to provide more emphasis on the T stage.

A retrospective cohort study of medication dispensing at pharmacies: Administration matters!

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorders may be delivered at treatment clinics or dispensed from pharmacies, however the type of delivery may be associated with different risks and benefits. The aim of the study was to investigate whether dispensing of methadone or buprenorphine at pharmacies during treatment for opioid use disorders was associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using a national, linked, population-level data set from Denmark. Patients included were between 18 and 75 years, living in Denmark, and admitted for treatment for opioid use disorders during 2000-2016 (n = 9299). Cox proportional hazards regression was estimated for convictions, non-fatal overdoses, and death, after the first dispensing of either methadone or buprenorphine from a pharmacy after starting treatment.

FINDINGS

Of all patients, 68 % had methadone and 31 % had buprenorphine dispensed at a pharmacy. Compared with the time prior to pharmacy dispension, the risk of criminal convictions increased after having methadone dispensed from a pharmacy (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.22, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-1.28), non-fatal overdoses (aHR = 1.55, CI 1.41-1.71), and all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.54, CI = 1.43-1.76). After having buprenorphine dispensed at a pharmacy, risk of criminal convictions increased (aHR = 1.08, CI = 1.01-1.16) and non-fatal overdoses (aHR = 1.31, CI = 1.18-1.45), but not all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.07, CI = 0.94-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

For almost all outcomes investigated across medication type, the risk of adverse events increased following a switch from clinic dispension to pharmacy dispension of medications in OAT. Medically responsible and safe provision of OAT may often require more clinical follow-up than what is typically provided when medication is dispensed at pharmacies.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Delay: Effect on Stage Shift and Increased Mortality

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a sudden, dramatic impact on healthcare. In Italy, since the beginning of the pandemic, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs have been forcefully suspended. We aimed to evaluate whether screening procedure delays can affect the outcomes of CRC screening.

METHODS

We built a procedural model considering delays in the time to colonoscopy and estimating the effect on mortality due to up-stage migration of patients. The number of expected CRC cases was computed by using the data of the Italian screened population. Estimates of the effects of delay to colonoscopy on CRC stage, and of stage on mortality were assessed by a meta-analytic approach.

RESULTS

With a delay of 0-3 months, 74% of CRC is expected to be stage I-II, while with a delay of 4-6 months there would be a 2%-increase for stage I-II and a concomitant decrease for stage III-IV (P = .068). Compared to baseline (0-3 months), moderate (7-12 months) and long (> 12 months) delays would lead to a significant increase in advanced CRC (from 26% to 29% and 33%, respectively; P = .008 and P < .001, respectively). We estimated a significant increase in the total number of deaths (+12.0%) when moving from a 0-3-months to a >12-month delay (P = .005), and a significant change in mortality distribution by stage when comparing the baseline with the >12-months (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening delays beyond 4-6 months would significantly increase advanced CRC cases, and also mortality if lasting beyond 12 months. Our data highlight the need to reorganize efforts against high-impact diseases such as CRC, considering possible future waves of SARS-CoV-2 or other pandemics.

Factors contributing to time to diagnosis in symptomatic colorectal cancer: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide (Ferlay et al., 2015, International Journal of Cancer, 136, E359), and delayed diagnosis is associated with mortality (Tørring et al., 2011, British Journal of Cancer, 104, 934; Tørring et al., 2012, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 669). The purpose of this review was to determine the factors associated with time to diagnosis in symptomatic CRC using scoping review methods.

METHODS

We performed database and citation searches to identify studies which examine the length of any interval from symptom presentation to diagnosis. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers. Factors contributing to time to diagnosis were extracted from selected articles and mapped onto a conceptual framework consisting of four levels: patient and disease factors, provider factors, organisation/setting factors and sectors of influence.

RESULTS

From the 31 studies included in this review, we identified 138 unique factors, 17 of which were investigated by at least three studies and 11 of which had consistent results. Patient and disease factors were most commonly studied. Patient perception that their symptoms were benign, a non-urgent referral, female sex and rectal tumour location were each associated with a longer time to diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Thus far, the literature has focused on patient or disease-related factors, while other levels of influence have been relatively understudied.

Time Intervals Under the Lens at Sweden's First Diagnostic Center for Primary Care Patients With Nonspecific Symptoms of Cancer. A Comparison With Matched Control Patients

Introduction

Fast-track referral pathways for patients with nonspecific, serious symptoms have been implemented in several countries. Our objective was to analyze time intervals in the diagnostic routes of patients diagnosed with cancer at Sweden’s first Diagnostic Center (DC) for nonspecific symptoms and compare with time intervals of matched control patients.

Methods

Adult patients with nonspecific symptoms that could not be explained by an initial investigation in primary care were eligible for referral to the DC. Patients diagnosed with cancer were matched with patients at another hospital within the same healthcare organization. We aimed for two control patients per DC-patient and matched on tumor type, age and sex. Five time intervals were compared: 1) patient interval (first symptom—primary care contact), 2) primary care interval (first visit—referral to the DC/secondary care), 3) diagnostic interval (first visit—cancer diagnosis), 4) information interval (cancer diagnosis—patient informed) and 5) treatment interval (cancer diagnosis—treatment start). Comparisons between groups and matched cohort analyses were made.

Results

Sixty-four patients (22.1%) were diagnosed with cancer at the DC, of which eight were not matchable. Forty-two patients were matched with two controls and 14 were matched with one control. There were no significant differences in patient-, primary care-, or diagnostic intervals between the groups. The information interval was shorter at the DC compared to the control group (difference between matched pairs 7 days, p = 0.001) and the treatment interval was also shorter at the DC with significant differences in the matched analysis (difference between matched pairs 13 days, p = 0.049). The findings remained the same in four sensitivity analyses, made to compensate for differences between the groups.

Conclusions

Up to diagnosis, we could not detect significant differences in time intervals between the DC and the control group. However, the shorter information and treatment intervals at the DC should be advantageous for these patients who will get timely access to treatment or palliative care. Due to limitations regarding comparability between the groups, the results must be interpreted with caution and further research is warranted.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov-ID: NCT01709539. Registration-date: October 18, 2012.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Association of Self-reported Presenting Symptoms With Timeliness of Help-Seeking Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the BRIGHTLIGHT Study

Importance

Evidence regarding the presenting symptoms of cancer in adolescents and young adults can support the development of early diagnosis interventions.

Objective

To examine common presenting symptoms in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years who subsequently received a diagnosis of cancer and potential variation in time to help-seeking by presenting symptom.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter study is a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study, which was conducted across hospitals in England. Participants included adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years with cancer. Information on 17 prespecified presenting symptoms and the interval between symptom onset and help-seeking (the patient interval) was collected through structured face-to-face interviews and was linked to national cancer registry data. Data analysis was performed from January 2018 to August 2019.

Exposures

Self-reported presenting symptoms.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were frequencies of presenting symptoms and associated symptom signatures by cancer group and the proportion of patients with each presenting symptom whose patient interval was longer than 1 month.

Results

The study population consisted of 803 adolescents and young adults with valid symptom information (443 male [55%]; 509 [63%] aged 19-24 years; 705 [88%] White). The number of symptoms varied by cancer group: for example, 88 patients with leukemia (86%) presented with 2 or more symptoms, whereas only 9 patients with melanoma (31%) presented with multiple symptoms. In total, 352 unique symptom combinations were reported, with the 10 most frequent combinations accounting for 304 patients (38%). Lump or swelling was reported by more than one-half the patients (419 patients [52%; 95% CI, 49%-56%]). Other common presenting symptoms across all cancers were extreme tiredness (308 patients [38%; 95% CI, 35%-42%]), unexplained pain (281 patients [35%; 95% CI, 32%-38%]), night sweats (192 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), lymphadenopathy (191 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), and weight loss (190 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]). The relative frequencies of presenting symptoms also varied by cancer group; some symptoms (such as lump or swelling) were highly prevalent across several cancer groups (seen in >50% of patients with lymphomas, germ cell cancers, carcinomas, bone tumors, and soft-tissue sarcomas). More than 1 in 4 patients (27%) reported a patient interval longer than 1 month; this varied from 6% (1 patient) for fits and seizures to 43% (18 patients) for recurrent infections.

Conclusions and Relevance

Adolescents and young adults with cancer present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, some of which are shared across cancer types. These findings point to discordant presenting symptom prevalence estimates when information is obtained from patient report vs health records and indicate the need for further symptom epidemiology research in this population.

The frequency, nature and impact of GP-assessed avoidable delays in a population-based cohort of cancer patients

BACKGROUND

There is a growing emphasis on the speed of diagnosis as an aspect of cancer prognosis. While epidemiological data in the last decade have quantified diagnostic timeliness and its variation, whether and how often prolonged diagnostic intervals can be considered avoidable is unknown.

METHODS

We used data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) on 17,042 patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014. Participating primary care physicians were asked to identify delays in diagnosis that they deemed avoidable, together with the 'setting' of the avoidable delay and key attributable factors. We used descriptive analysis and regression frameworks to assess validity and examine variation in the frequency and nature of avoidable delays.

RESULTS

Among 14,259 patients, 24% were deemed to have had an avoidable delay to their diagnosis. Patients with a reported avoidable delay had a longer median diagnostic interval (92 days) than those without (30 days). Of all avoidable delays, 13% were deemed to have occurred pre-consultation, 49% within primary care, and 38% within secondary care. Avoidable delays were mostly attributed to the test request/performance phase (25%). Multimorbidity was associated with greater odds of avoidable delay (OR for 3+ vs no comorbidity: 1.43 (95% CI 1.25-1.63)), with heterogeneous associations with cancer site.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that GP-identified instances of avoidable delay have construct validity. Whilst the causes of avoidable diagnostic delays are multi-factorial and occur in different settings and phases of the diagnostic process, their analysis can guide improvement initiatives and enable the examination of any prognostic implications.

Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis interventions such as symptom awareness campaigns increasingly form part of global cancer control strategies. However, these strategies will have little impact in improving cancer outcomes if the targeted symptoms represent advanced stage of disease. Therefore, we aimed to examine associations between common presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we analysed population-level data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014 for patients aged 25 years and older with one of 12 types of solid tumours (bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, laryngeal, lung, melanoma, oral or oropharyngeal, ovarian, prostate, rectal, and renal cancer). We considered 20 common presenting symptoms and examined their associations with stage at diagnosis (TNM stage IV vs stage I-III) using logistic regression. For each symptom, we estimated these associations when reported as a single presenting symptom and when reported together with other symptoms.

FINDINGS

We analysed data for 7997 patients. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer varied substantially by presenting symptom, from 1% (95% CI 1-3; eight of 584 patients) for abnormal mole to 80% (71-87; 84 of 105 patients) for neck lump. Three of the examined symptoms (neck lump, chest pain, and back pain) were consistently associated with increased odds of stage IV cancer, whether reported alone or with other symptoms, whereas the opposite was true for abnormal mole, breast lump, postmenopausal bleeding, and rectal bleeding. For 13 of the 20 symptoms (abnormal mole, breast lump, post-menopausal bleeding, rectal bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms, haematuria, change in bowel habit, hoarseness, fatigue, abdominal pain, lower abdominal pain, weight loss, and the "any other symptom" category), more than 50% of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV; for 19 of the 20 studied symptoms (all except for neck lump), more than a third of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV.

INTERPRETATION

Despite specific presenting symptoms being more strongly associated with advanced stage at diagnosis than others, for most symptoms, large proportions of patients are diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. These findings provide support for early diagnosis interventions targeting common cancer symptoms, countering concerns that they might be simply expediting the detection of advanced stage disease.

FUNDING

UK Department of Health's Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis; and Cancer Research UK.

Incidentally diagnosed cancer and commonly preceding clinical scenarios: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of English audit data

OBJECTIVES

Cancer can be diagnosed in the absence of tumour-related symptoms, but little is known about the frequency and circumstances preceding such diagnoses which occur outside participation in screening programmes. We aimed to examine incidentally diagnosed cancer among a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed in England.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of national primary care audit data on an incident cancer patient population.

SETTING

We analysed free-text information on the presenting features of cancer patients aged 15 or older included in the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (2009-2010). Patients with screen-detected cancers or prostate cancer were excluded. We examined the odds of incidental cancer diagnosis by patient characteristics and cancer site using logistic regression, and described clinical scenarios leading to incidental diagnosis.

RESULTS

Among the studied cancer patient population (n=13 810), 520 (4%) patients were diagnosed incidentally. The odds of incidental cancer diagnosis increased with age (p<0.001), with no difference between men and women after adjustment. Incidental diagnosis was most common among patients with leukaemia (23%), renal (13%) and thyroid cancer (12%), and least common among patients with brain (0.9%), oesophageal (0.5%) and cervical cancer (no cases diagnosed incidentally). Variation in odds of incidental diagnosis by cancer site remained after adjusting for age group and sex.There was a range of clinical scenarios preceding incidental diagnoses in primary or secondary care. These included the monitoring or management of pre-existing conditions, routine testing before or after elective surgery, and the investigation of unrelated acute or new conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 25 patients with cancer in our population-based cohort were diagnosed incidentally, through different mechanisms across primary and secondary care settings. The epidemiological, clinical, psychological and economic implications of this phenomenon merit further investigation.

Wait times to diagnosis and treatment in patients with colorectal cancer in Hungary

BACKGROUND

Mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) in Hungary is the highest in Europe. It was the aim of the present study to determine the wait times from first presentation to diagnosis, in a sample of Hungarian patients with CRC, as well as to assess the stages of CRC at diagnosis.

METHODS

A retrospective study based on data from 212 patients with CRC in Baranya county was carried out. Data extraction was performed from 26 GP practices and from the database of the University of Pécs Clinical Center. Total Diagnostic Interval (TDI) was determined as the number of days from the first patient-physician consultation with symptoms until the pathologically confirmed date of diagnosis. Total Treatment Interval (TTI) was calculated until the first day of any form of treatment. Statistical analyses, descriptive analysis and analysis of variance, were performed.

RESULTS

A minority (36.8%) of the diagnosed CRC cases were early stage cancers (Stages I-II), while the majority (59.9%) of the cases were diagnosed as advanced stage (Stages III-IV) cancers. The median TDI was 41 days, and the median TTI was 67 days. There was a wide range between minimum and maximum waiting times regarding both diagnosis and initiation of therapy (369-371 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Wait times to diagnosis and treatment of CRC in Hungary are similar to Western countries however the ratio of advanced cancers at diagnosis is higher. The cause of late diagnosis may be due to patient delay, indicating the need for implementation of primary and secondary prevention.

The nature and frequency of abdominal symptoms in cancer patients and their associations with time to help-seeking: evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis

Background

Raising awareness of possible cancer symptoms is important for timely help-seeking; recent campaigns have focused on symptom groups (such as abdominal symptoms) rather than individual alarm symptoms associated with particular cancer sites. The evidence base supporting such initiatives is still emerging however; understanding the frequency and nature of presenting abdominal symptoms among cancer patients could inform the design and evaluation of public health awareness campaigns.

Methods

We examined eight presenting abdominal symptoms (abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, bloating/distension, dyspepsia, rectal bleeding, dysphagia, reflux and nausea/vomiting) among 15 956 patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer in England. We investigated the cancer site case-mix and variation in the patient interval (symptom-onset-to-presentation) by abdominal symptom.

Results

Almost a quarter (23%) of cancer patients presented with abdominal symptoms before being diagnosed with one of 27 common and rarer cancers. The patient interval varied substantially by abdominal symptom: median (IQR) intervals ranged from 7 (0-28) days for abdominal pain to 30 (4-73) days for dysphagia. This variation persisted after adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Abdominal symptoms are common at presentation among cancer patients, while time to presentation varies by symptom. The need for awareness campaigns may be greater for symptoms associated with longer intervals to help-seeking.

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Symptom Signatures and Diagnostic Timeliness in Cancer Patients: A Review of Current Evidence

Early diagnosis is an important aspect of contemporary cancer prevention and control strategies, as the majority of patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. The nature of presenting symptoms can critically influence the length of the diagnostic intervals from symptom onset to presentation (the patient interval), and from first presentation to specialist referral (the primary care interval). Understanding which symptoms are associated with longer diagnostic intervals to help the targeting of early diagnosis initiatives is an area of emerging research. In this Review, we consider the methodological challenges in studying the presenting symptoms and intervals to diagnosis of cancer patients, and summarize current evidence on presenting symptoms associated with a range of common and rarer cancer sites. We propose a taxonomy of cancer sites considering their symptom signature and the predictive value of common presenting symptoms. Finally, we consider evidence on associations between symptomatic presentations and intervals to diagnosis before discussing implications for the design, implementation, and evaluation of public health or health system interventions to achieve the earlier detection of cancer.

Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: Evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Most symptomatic women with breast cancer have relatively short diagnostic intervals but a substantial minority experience prolonged journeys to diagnosis. Atypical presentations (with symptoms other than breast lump) may be responsible.

METHODS

We examined the presenting symptoms of breast cancer in women using data from a national audit initiative (n=2316). Symptoms were categorised topographically. We investigated variation in the length of the patient interval (time from symptom onset to presentation) and the primary care interval (time from presentation to specialist referral) across symptom groups using descriptive analyses and quantile regression.

RESULTS

A total of 56 presenting symptoms were described: breast lump was the most frequent (83%) followed by non-lump breast symptoms, (e.g. nipple abnormalities (7%) and breast pain (6%)); and non-breast symptoms (e.g. back pain (1%) and weight loss (0.3%)). Greater proportions of women with 'non-lump only' and 'both lump and non-lump' symptoms waited 90days or longer before seeking help compared to those with 'breast lump only' (15% and 20% vs. 7% respectively). Quantile regression indicated that the differences in the patient interval persisted after adjusting for age and ethnicity, but there was little variation in primary care interval for the majority of women.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 6 women with breast cancer present with a large spectrum of symptoms other than breast lump. Women who present with non-lump breast symptoms tend to delay seeking help. Further emphasis of breast symptoms other than breast lump in symptom awareness campaigns is warranted.