The "two-week wait" referral pathway allows prompt treatment but does not improve outcome for patients with oesophago-gastric cancer

Regional variations in inpatient decompensated cirrhosis mortality may be associated with access to specialist care: results from a multicentre retrospective study

Introduction

Specialist centres have been developed to deliver high-quality Hepatology care. However, there is geographical inequity in accessing these centres in the United Kingdom (UK). We aimed to assess the impact of these centres on decompensated cirrhosis patient outcomes and understand which patients transfer to specialist centres.

Methods

A UK multicentred retrospective observational study was performed including emergency admissions for patients with decompensated cirrhosis in November 2019. Admissions were grouped by specialist/non-specialist centre designation, National Health Service region and whether a transfer to a more specialist centre occurred or not. Univariable and multivariable comparisons were made.

Results

1224 admissions (1168 patients) from 104 acute hospitals were included in this analysis. Patients at specialist centres were more likely to be managed by a Consultant Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist on a Gastroenterology/Hepatology ward. Only 24 patients were transferred to a more specialist centre. These patients were more likely to be admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding and were not using alcohol. Specialist centres eliminated regional variations in mortality which were present at non-specialist centres. Low specialist Consultant staffing numbers impacted mortality at non-specialist centres (aOR 2.15 (95% CI 1.18 to 4.07)) but not at specialist centres. Hospitals within areas of high prevalence of deprivation were more likely to have lower specialist Consultant staffing numbers.

Conclusions

Specialist Hepatology centres improve patient care and standardise outcomes for patients with decompensated cirrhosis. There is a need to support service development and care delivery at non-specialist centres. Formal referral pathways are required to ensure all patients receive access to specialist interventions.

Evaluation of treatment delays in hepatopancreatico-biliary surgery during the first COVID-19 wave

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused oncological services worldwide to face unprecedented challenges resulting in treatment disruption for surgical patients. Hepatopancreatico-biliary (HPB) cancers are characterised by rapid disease progression. This study aims to assess delays in receiving surgery for this patient cohort during the first COVID-19 wave.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery between April and July 2020 (COVID-19 period) were compared with a control group from the preceding year. Delay in receiving surgery was defined as more than 50 days between referral and surgery date. Statistical analysis was carried out to evaluate predictors of delay and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods, 94 and 115 patients underwent surgery, respectively. No patients contracted COVID-19 postoperatively. Some 118 patients waited more than 50 days for surgery versus 91 who received surgery within 50 days from referral. Independent predictors for surgical delay were undergoing surgery in the COVID-19 era (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.1; p=0.015), referral pathway (OR 35.1, 95% CI 4.2-296; p=0.001) and presenting pathology (OR 8.3, 95% CI 1.2-56.1; p=0.03). Short-term outcomes were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient referral pathway and presenting pathology may contribute to delays in undergoing HPB cancer surgery during COVID-19 outbreaks. It is hoped that a better understanding of these factors will aid in designing shifts in healthcare policy during future pandemic outbreaks.

The utility of a symptom model to predict the risk of oesophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether extra-oesophageal symptoms are predictive of oesophageal malignancy.

METHODS

A prospective, single-centre cross-sectional questionnaire study at a tertiary referral unit for oesophageal cancer using the Comprehensive Reflux Symptoms Scale (CReSS) questionnaire tool. Respondents with oesophageal malignancy were compared with historical cohorts undergoing airway examination or upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and found to have benign diagnoses. We developed a model for predicting oesophageal cancer using linear discriminant analysis and logistic regression, assessed by Monte Carlo cross validation.

RESULTS

Respondents with oesophageal malignancy (n = 146; mean age 70.5; male: female, 71:29) were compared with those undergoing airway examination (n = 177) and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 351), found to have benign diagnoses. No single questionnaire item, or group of co-varying items (factors), reliably discriminated oesophageal cancer from other diagnoses. Individual items which suggested higher risk of oesophageal malignancy included dysphagia (area under the curve (AUC) 0.68), low appetite (AUC 0.66), and early satiety (AUC 0.58). Conversely, throat pain (AUC 0.38), bloating (AUC 0.38) and heartburn (AUC 0.37) were inversely related to cancer risk. A forward stepwise regression analysis including a subset of 12 CReSS questionnaire items together with age and sex derived a model predictive of oesophageal malignancy in this cohort (AUC 0.89).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate a model comprised of 12 questionnaire items and 2 demographic parameters as a potential predictive tool for oesophageal malignancy diagnosis in this study population. Translating this model for predicting oesophageal malignancy in the general population is a valuable topic for future research.

Satellite liver transplant centres significantly improve transplant assessment outcomes for patients with chronic liver disease but not hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Liver transplantation (LT) remains integral to the management of end-stage chronic liver disease (CLD). However, referral thresholds and assessment pathways remain poorly defined. Distance from LT centre has been demonstrated to impact negatively on patient outcomes resulting in the development of satellite LT centres (SLTCs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of SLTCs on LT assessment in patients with CLD and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken including all patients with CLD or HCC assessed for LT at King's College Hospital (KCH) between October 2014 and October 2019. Referral location, social, demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected. Univariable and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to assess the impact of SLTCs on patients being accepted as LT candidates and contraindications being identified.

Results

1102 and 240 LT assessments were included for patients with CLD and HCC, respectively. MVA demonstrated significant associations with; patients living greater than 60 min from KCH/SLTCs and LT candidacy acceptance in CLD, and less deprived patients and LT candidacy acceptance in HCC. However, neither variable was associated with identification of LT contraindications. MVA demonstrated that referrals from SLTCs were more likely to result in acceptance of LT candidacy and less likely to result in a contraindication being identified in CLD. However, such associations were not demonstrated in HCC.

Conclusion

SLTCs improve LT assessment outcomes in CLD but not HCC reflecting the standardised HCC referral pathway. Developing a formal regional LT assessment pathway across the UK would improve equity of access to transplantation.

Improved survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients after introducing patient navigation: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score weighted historic control

OnkoNetwork is a patient navigation program established in the Moritz Kaposi General Hospital to improve the timeliness and completeness of cancer investigations and treatment. The H2020 SELFIE consortium selected OnkoNetwork as a promising integrated care initiative in Hungary and conducted a multicriteria decision analysis based on health, patient experience, and cost outcomes. In this paper, a more detailed analysis of clinical impacts is provided in the largest subgroup, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling new cancer suspect patients with subsequently confirmed NSCLC in two annual periods, before and after OnkoNetwork implementation (control and intervention cohorts, respectively). To control for selection bias and confounding, baseline balance was improved via propensity score weighting. Overall survival was analyzed in univariate and multivariate weighted Cox regression models and the effect was further characterized in a counterfactual analysis. Our analysis included 123 intervention and 173 control NSCLC patients from early to advanced stage, with significant between-cohort baseline differences. The propensity score-based weighting resulted in good baseline balance. A large survival benefit was observed in the intervention cohort, and intervention was an independent predictor of longer survival in a multivariate analysis when all baseline characteristics were included (HR = 0.63, p = 0.039). When post-baseline variables were included in the model, belonging to the intervention cohort was not an independent predictor of survival, but the survival benefit was explained by slightly better stage distribution and ECOG status at treatment initiation, together with trends for broader use of PET-CT and higher resectability rate. In conclusion, patient navigation is a valuable tool to improve cancer outcomes by facilitating more timely and complete cancer diagnostics. Contradictory evidence in the literature may be explained by common sources of bias, including the wait-time paradox and adjustment to intermediate outcomes.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies.

Results

55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes.

Discussion

Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival.

Other

This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

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.

Variation in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome of Esophageal Cancer in a Regionalized Care System in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

Esophageal cancer remains one of the most deadly cancers, ranking sixth highest among cancers leading to the greatest years of life lost.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed and treated in Ontario's regionalized thoracic surgery centers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry, in a single-payer health care system with regionalization of thoracic surgery in the province of Ontario, Canada.

EXPOSURES

Exposures included incidence of esophageal cancer and stage at diagnosis; time from the first health care visit until treatment; and the use of specialist consultations, endoscopic ultrasonography, positron emission tomography and computed tomography, endomucosal resection, esophagectomy, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, radiation alone, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcome measures included wait times, health care use, treatment, and overall survival. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to February 2021.

RESULTS

There were 10 364 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.9] years; 7876 men [76%]) identified during the study period. The incidence of esophageal cancer increased over the study period from 1041 in 2010 to 1309 in 2018, which was driven by a 30% increase in the number of adenocarcinomas. The time from first health care encounter to start of treatment was a median 93 days (interquartile range, 56-159 days). Endoscopic ultrasonography was observed for 12% of patients, and positron emission tomography and computed tomography (CT) in 45%. Use of endoscopic mucosal resection was observed for 8% of patients with stage 0 to I disease. A total of 114 of 547 patients (21%) receiving endoscopic resection had a subsequent esophagectomy. Only 2778 patients (27%) had consultations with a thoracic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiation oncologist, whereas 1514 patients (15%) did not see any of these specialists. Of 3047 patients who had an esophagectomy, those receiving neoadjuvant therapy had better overall survival (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-39 months) than patients who received esophagectomy alone (median survival, 27 months; 95% CI, 24-30 months) or those who received esophagectomy with adjuvant therapy (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-44 months) despite significant early mortality (log-rank P < .001). There was significant variation in treatment modality across hospitals: esophagectomy ranged from 5% to 39%; esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy ranged from 33% to 93%; and esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy ranged from 0 to 34% (P < .001). Perioperative mortality was higher at 30 days for patients receiving esophagectomy at low-volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 2.01-6.66) and medium-volume centers (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.33-3.23) compared with high-volume centers (P < .001). A longer wait time until treatment was associated with better overall survival (median overall survival was 15 to 17 days vs 5 to 8 days for patients who received treatment earlier than 30 days vs 30 days or longer after diagnosis; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cohort study suggest that despite regionalization, there was significant regional variability in volumes at designated centers and in the evaluation and treatment course for patients with esophageal cancer across Ontario.

Comparison of oesophageal and gastric cancer in the evaluation of urgent endoscopy referral criteria

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study is to identify differences in epidemiology and clinical presentation between oesophageal and gastric cancer and to evaluate the sensitivity of the Australian urgent endoscopy referral guidelines.

METHODS

Design; Observational cohort study from February 2013 to October 2018.

SETTING

A single tertiary specialist oesophago-gastric cancer centre: Flinders Medical Centre, South Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer that had surgery with curative intent 61.9% oesophageal cancer, 38.1% gastric cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences between oesophageal and gastric cancer in terms of demographical variables, first presenting symptoms and sensitivity of the Australian urgent endoscopy referral guidelines.

RESULTS

Oesophageal cancer presented at a median age of 64.4 years old, with a male: female ratio of 6:1, and dysphagia as the first presenting symptom in 61%. Gastric cancer presented at a median age of 69.5, with a 2:1 male: female ratio and predominantly non-specific symptoms-blood loss (36%), weight loss, nausea, and anorexia (21%) and epigastric pain (13%). The Australia urgent endoscopy referral guidelines had 76% sensitivity for oesophageal cancer detection compared with a 33% sensitivity for gastric cancer in this cohort. Delays from symptom onset to referral occurred for most patients with timeframes over four times the recommended 2-week timeframe.

CONCLUSION

There should be a separate urgent referral guideline for oesophageal and gastric cancer. These should include dysphagia for oesophageal cancer and blood loss (anaemia, haematemesis, melaena) for gastric cancer. Delays from symptom onset to referral indicate the need for further education of the public and general practitioners on symptoms warranting urgent referral.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Delays in referral for patients with colorectal cancer may occur if the presenting symptom is falsely attributed to a benign condition.

AIM

To investigate whether delays in referral from primary care are associated with a later stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse prognosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A national retrospective cohort study in England including adult patients with colorectal cancer identified from the cancer registry with linkage to Clinical Practice Research Datalink, who had been referred following presentation to their GP with a 'red flag' or 'non-specific' symptom.

METHOD

The hazard ratios (HR) of death were calculated for delays in referral of between 2 weeks and 3 months, and >3 months, compared with referrals within 2 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 4527 (63.5%) patients with colon cancer and 2603 (36.5%) patients with rectal cancer were included in the study. The percentage of patients presenting with red-flag symptoms who experienced a delay of >3 months before referral was 16.9% of those with colon cancer and 13.5% of those with rectal cancer, compared with 35.7% of patients with colon cancer and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer who presented with non-specific symptoms. Patients referred after 3 months with red-flag symptoms demonstrated a significantly worse prognosis than patients who were referred within 2 weeks (colon cancer: HR 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 1.81; rectal cancer: HR 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.60). This association was not seen for patients presenting with non-specific symptoms. Delays in referral were associated with a significantly higher proportion of late-stage cancers.

CONCLUSION

The first presentation to the GP provides a referral opportunity to identify the underlying cancer, which, if missed, is associated with a later stage in diagnosis and worse survival.

Delays in referral from primary care are associated with a worse survival in patients with esophagogastric cancer

NICE referral guidelines for suspected cancer were introduced to improve prognosis by reducing referral delays. However, over 20% of patients with esophagogastric cancer experience three or more consultations before referral. In this retrospective cohort study, we hypothesize that such a delay is associated with a worse survival compared with patients referred earlier. By utilizing Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a national primary care linked database, the first presentation, referral date, a number of consultations before referral and stage for esophagogastric cancer patients were determined. The risk of a referral after one or two consultations compared with three or more consultations was calculated for age and the presence of symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria. The risk of death according to the number of consultations before referral was determined, while accounting for stage and surgical management. 1307 patients were included. Patients referred after one (HR 0.80 95% CI 0.68-0.93 p = 0.005) or two consultations (HR 0.81 95% CI 0.67-0.98 p = 0.034) demonstrated significantly improved prognosis compared with those referred later. The risk of death was also lower for patients who underwent a resection, were younger or had an earlier stage at diagnosis. Those presenting with a symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria (OR 0.27 95% CI 0.21-0.35 p < 0.0001) were more likely to be referred earlier. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between a delay in referral and worse prognosis in esophagogastric patients. These findings should prompt further research to reduce primary care delays.

Benefits Of Timely Care In Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review To Navigate Through The Contradictory Evidence

The evidence base of policies that improve the timeliness of cancer care is under ongoing debate. Pancreatic cancer is frequently diagnosed in a stage when curative therapy is not feasible; hence, it is an important target for timelier healthcare interventions. The objectives of our research were to identify all clinical studies on pancreatic cancer care delays via a systematic literature review, to assess the study methodologies for possible biases, to conclude on the available evidence, and to formulate research recommendations on evidence gaps. Nineteen studies were identified and eight reported multivariate analyses. Although many sources of bias shifted the results towards negative or paradoxical findings, a statistically significant association of shorter delays with better clinical outcomes was demonstrated in the majority of studies reporting multivariate analyses. Noninferiority analyses were not published. Further efforts to provide timely care for pancreatic cancer patients are encouraged, and studies on the associations of delay with patient experience and healthcare resource utilization are warranted.

Safety of prolonged wait time for gastrectomy in clinical stage I gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with stage I gastric cancer tend to wait for surgery. Although the cancer may progress during such a delay, effects of wait time for surgery on survival remain inconsistent. Here, we evaluated the safety of surgical wait time on survival of patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer.

METHODS

The outcomes of 556 patients who underwent gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer between January 2007 and December 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified into three groups based on wait time: short- (<61 days, n = 185), intermediate- (61-90 days, n = 218), and long-wait (91-180 days, n = 153) groups. Clinicopathological findings and survival were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The median wait time was 72 days. Age and comorbidities differed among the groups, but clinical and pathological cancer stages did not. Overall survival was comparable; the 5-year overall survival was 90.2%, 93.6%, and 88.8% in the short-, intermediate-, and long-wait groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that wait time was not an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.69 (p = 0.262) and 1.03 (p = 0.926) in the intermediate- and long-wait groups, respectively, with short wait time as the reference. Relapse-free survival was comparable among the groups (intermediate-wait HR = 0.80, p = 0.476; long-wait HR = 1.10, p = 0.740).

CONCLUSION

A half-year wait time for surgery was not independently associated with survival of patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer and may therefore be acceptable.

Impact of ‘two-week wait’ referral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival in upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers

Background

The ‘two-week wait’(2WW) referral pathway was introduced in the United Kingdom to reduce waiting times for treatment of cancer. There has been a debate regarding the efficacy of 2WW pathway since its implementation.

Methods

A singleinstitutional analysis of upper gastrointestinal(UGI) and lower gastrointestinal(LGI) malignancies treated between 1April 2015 and 31March 2017 was undertaken to analyse the impact of 2WWreferral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival.

Results

2WW referral does not achieve an earlier diagnosis compared with non-2WW routes of referral in UGI (χ2(3)=2.6, p=0.458) and LGI (χ2(3)=0.884, p=0.829) malignancies. 2WW referral does not lead to an improvement in curative treatment in UGI (OR1.48, 95%CI0.68to3.21, p=0.321) and LGI (OR1.59, 95%CI0.97to2.62, p=0.067) malignancies. No improvement in survival is seen in UGI (HR0.99, 95%CI0.56to1.75, p=0.963) and LGI (HR1.10, 95%CI0.60to1.99, p=0.764) malignancies by virtue of 2WW referral. Emergency presentation is the most common presenting route in UGI malignancy(40%) and is associated with poor survival (HR0.55, 95%CI0.30to0.97, p=0.045).Non-emergency route of presentation is associated with higher rates of curative treatment in UGI malignancies (OR3.49, 95%CI1.57to7.76, p=0.002). Lower rate of curative treatment (OR 0.27, 95%CI0.16to0.43, p<0.001) and poor survival (HR0.44, 95%CI0.26to0.76, p=0.003) is also observed in emergency presentation of LGI malignancy(29%) which is the secondmost common route of presentation in this group.

Conclusion

2WW referral does not achieve early diagnosis nor does it lead to an improvement in the rate of curative treatment in UGI and LGI malignancies. No improvement in short-term survival is seen in UGI malignancies nor in LGI malignancies on multivariate analysis by virtue of 2WW referral.

Time to diagnosis in esophageal cancer: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

The association between shorter time to diagnosis and favorable outcome is still unproven in esophageal cancer. This study aims to evaluate the effect of time to diagnosis on patient prognosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of all 3613 symptomatic patients referred for esophageal cancer to our center from 1980 to 2011. Time to diagnosis was calculated as the number of days from first symptom onset to the diagnosis of esophageal cancer. The main outcome measures were: resectability and severe malnutrition at diagnosis; postoperative morbidity, mortality and survival.

RESULTS

Longer time to diagnosis was significantly associated with severe malnutrition at diagnosis (odds ratio (OR): 1.003, 95% confidence interval (C.I.).: 1.001-1.006) but not with resectability (OR: 0.997, 95% C.I.: 0.994-1.001). Longer time to diagnosis was not associated with postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.000, 95% C.I.: 0.998-1.003), postoperative mortality (OR: 1.002, 95% C.I.: 0.998-1.006), five-year overall survival (hazard ratio (HR): 0.999, 95% C.I.: 0.997-1.001) or five-year disease free survival (HR: 0.999, 95% C.I.: 0.998-1.001).

CONCLUSION

Longer time to diagnosis did not affect resectability, postoperative morbidity or survival. Further campaigns to raise awareness of cancer among population and primary health care providers may have limited effect on clinical outcome.

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.

Prognostic consequences of implementing cancer patient pathways in Denmark: a comparative cohort study of symptomatic cancer patients in primary care

BACKGROUND

Cancer Patient Pathways (CPPs) were introduced in 2000-2015 in several European countries, including Denmark, to reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment initiation and ultimately improve patient survival. Yet, the prognostic consequences of implementing CPPs remain unknown for symptomatic cancer patients diagnosed through primary care. We aimed to compare survival and mortality among symptomatic patients diagnosed through a primary care route before, during and after the CPP implementation in Denmark.

METHODS

Based on data from the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) Cohort, we compared one- and three-year standardised relative survival (RS) and excess hazard ratios (EHRs) before, during and after CPP implementation for seven types of cancer and all combined (n = 7725) by using life-table estimation and Poisson regression. RS estimates were standardised according to the International Cancer Survival Standard (ICSS) weights. In addition, we compared RS and EHRs for CPP and non-CPP referred patients to consider potential issues of confounding by indication.

RESULTS

In total, 7725 cases were analysed: 1202 before, 4187 during and 2336 after CPP implementation. For all cancers combined, the RS3years rose from 45% (95% confidence interval (CI): 42;47) before to 54% (95% CI: 52;56) after CPP implementation. The excess mortality was higher before than after CPP implementation (EHR3years before vs. after CPP = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.21;1.51)). When comparing CPP against non-CPP referred patients, we found no statistically significant differences in RS, but we found lower excess mortality among the CPP referred (EHR1year CPP vs. non-CPP = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.73;1.01)).

CONCLUSION

We found higher relative survival and lower mortality among symptomatic cancer patients diagnosed through primary care after the implementation of CPPs in Denmark. The observed changes in cancer prognosis could be the intended consequences of finding and treating cancer at an early stage, but they may also reflect lead-time bias and selection bias. The finding of a lower excess mortality among CPP referred compared to non-CPP referred patients indicates that CPPs may have improved the cancer prognosis independently.

Waiting time for cancer treatment and mental health among patients with newly diagnosed esophageal or gastric cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Background

Except for overall survival, whether or not waiting time for treatment could influences other domains of cancer patients’ overall well-being is to a large extent unknown. Therefore, we performed this study to determine the effect of waiting time for cancer treatment on the mental health of patients with esophageal or gastric cancer.

Methods

Based on the Swedish National Quality Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancers (NREV), we followed 7,080 patients diagnosed 2006–2012 from the time of treatment decision. Waiting time for treatment was defined as the interval between diagnosis and treatment decision, and was classified into quartiles. Mental disorders were identified by either clinical diagnosis through hospital visit or prescription of psychiatric medications. For patients without any mental disorder before treatment, the association between waiting time and subsequent onset of mental disorders was assessed by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), derived from multivariable-adjusted Cox model. For patients with a preexisting mental disorder, we compared the rate of psychiatric care by different waiting times, allowing for repeated events.

Results

Among 4,120 patients without any preexisting mental disorder, lower risk of new onset mental disorders was noted for patients with longer waiting times, i.e. 18–29 days (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.00) and 30–60 days (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.93) as compared with 9–17 days. Among 2,312 patients with preexisting mental disorders, longer waiting time was associated with more frequent psychiatric hospital care during the first year after treatment (37.5% higher rate per quartile increase in waiting time; p for trend = 0.0002). However, no such association was observed beyond one year nor for the prescription of psychiatric medications.

Conclusions

These data suggest that waiting time to treatment for esophageal or gastric cancer may have different mental health consequences for patients depending on their past psychiatric vulnerabilities. Our study sheds further light on the complexity of waiting time management, and calls for a comprehensive strategy that takes into account different domains of patient well-being in addition to the overall survival.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-3013-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Each year approximately 3000 patients in the United Kingdom undergo surgery for esophagogastric cancer. Jejunostomy feeding tubes, placed at the time of surgery for early postoperative nutrition, have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes in the short term. Whether feeding out of hospital is of benefit is unknown. Local experience has identified that between 15 and 20% of patients required 'rescue' jejunostomy feeding for nutritional problems and weight loss while at home. This weight loss and poor nutrition may contribute to the detrimental effect on the overall quality of life (QoL) reported in these patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This randomized pilot and feasibility study will provide preliminary information on the routine use of jejunostomy feeding after hospital discharge in terms of clinical benefits and QoL. Sixty participants undergoing esophagectomy or total gastrectomy will be randomized to receive either a planned program of six weeks of home jejunostomy feeding after discharge from hospital (intervention) or treatment-as-usual (control). The intention of this study is to inform a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome measures will be recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Secondary outcome measures will include disease specific and general QoL measures, nutritional parameters, total and oral nutritional intake, hospital readmission rates, and estimates of healthcare costs. Up to 20 participants will also be enrolled in a qualitative sub-study that will explore participants' and carers' experiences of home tube feeding.The results will be disseminated by presentation at surgical, gastroenterological and dietetic meetings and publication in appropriate peer review journals. A patient-friendly lay summary will be made available on the University of Leicester and the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust websites. The study has full ethical and institutional approval and started recruitment in July 2012.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UKClinical Research Network ID #12447 (Main study); UKCRN ID#13361 (Qualitative sub study); ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01870817 (First registered 28 May 2013).

Impact of Wait Times on Survival for Women With Uterine Cancer

Purpose

To determine whether wait time from histologic diagnosis of uterine cancer to time of definitive surgery by hysterectomy had an impact on all-cause survival.

Patients and Methods

Women in Ontario with a confirmed histopathologic diagnosis of uterine cancer between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2009, followed by surgery were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors were evaluated for their prognostic effect on survival by using Cox proportional hazards regression. Wait time was evaluated in a multivariable model after adjusting for other significant factors.

Results

The final study population included 9,417 women; 51.9% had surgery by a gynecologist, and 69.9% had endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Five-year survival for women with wait times of 0.1 to 2, 2.1 to 6, 6.1 to 12, or more than 12 weeks was 71.1%, 81.8%, 79.5%, and 71.9%, respectively. Wait times of ≤ 2 weeks were adversely prognostic for survival after adjusting for other significant factors in the multivariable model, and patients with wait times of more than 12 weeks had worse survival than those who had wait times between 2.1 and 12.0 weeks.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in a large population-based cohort demonstrating that longer wait times from diagnosis of uterine cancer to definitive surgery have a negative impact on overall survival.

The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two-week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non-TWW).

METHOD

A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).

RESULTS

Fifty-two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5-year all-cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease-free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer.

The influence of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on long-term survival after cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to investigate the influence of hospital volume, delay of surgery, and both together on the long-term survival of postoperative cancer patients.

METHODS

Using information from the Korea Central Cancer Registry from 2001 through 2005 and the National Health Insurance claim database, we determined survival for 147 682 patients who underwent definitive surgery for any of six cancers.

RESULTS

Regardless of cancer site, surgical patients in low- to medium-volume hospitals showed significantly worse survival [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.36-1.86] than those in high-volume hospitals in multivariable analyses. Among the latter, treatment delays > 1 month were not associated with worse survival for stomach, colon, pancreatic, or lung cancer but were for rectal [aHR = 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-1.40] and breast (aHR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.37-1.84) cancer. For patients in low- to medium-volume hospitals, treatment delay was associated with worse survival for all types of cancer (aHR = 1.78-3.81).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the effect of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on overall survival of cancer patients should be considered in formulating or revising national health policy.

Is the Two-Week Wait Path Way Appropriate for Thyroid Cancer Referrals?

Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy but remains relatively uncommon, representing 0.5% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the UK. Differentiated thyroid cancer is the most commonly diagnosed type in the UK and, if treated in an appropriate and timely fashion, is associated with outcomes of over 90% 10-year survival. However, evidence suggests that the outcomes in thyroid and other cancers in the UK lag behind our European and American counterparts. To address these deficiencies the Department of Health set out the NHS Plan. Within this document, there was a commitment to see all new suspected cancer referrals within a new 'two-week wait' (2WW) pathway from primary care to specialist review.