Experiences along the diagnostic pathway for patients with advanced lung cancer in the USA: a qualitative study

The journey of lung cancer patients from symptoms to diagnosis in Greece. A mixed methods approach

The early diagnosis of lung cancer improves the probability of successful treatment. However, patients and physicians face several difficulties that can considerably delay the diagnostic process. A mixed-methods study that would follow the patient's journey throughout the diagnostic process could alleviate these difficulties. This study aimed to (a) track the patients' journey from the onset of symptoms until diagnosis and, (b) explore the patients' perspective of the journey until diagnosis, on the largest island of Greece. A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted with 94 patients with lung cancer. Patients completed a self-report questionnaire and were interviewed about their symptoms and journey through the healthcare system before their diagnosis. Our findings revealed several problems and delays in the diagnostic process. Both quantitative and qualitative data showed that patients did not recognize their symptoms and sought medical advice in time because they overlooked or attributed their symptoms to 'simpler'/'more common' causes. Furthermore, most patients were diagnosed 1-3 months after their first visit to a physician for their symptoms. Qualitative data analysis revealed three broad categories of problems that delayed diagnosis: (1) physician missteps, (2) administrative problems, and (3) the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study found that major issues and delays prolong the diagnostic process for lung cancer. Therefore, optimization of diagnostic processes at each level of healthcare and interspecialty cooperation programs are needed. Furthermore, population-based interventions and patient education can help lung cancer patients be diagnosed early and improve their quality of life and disease outcomes.

Unravelling the lung cancer diagnostic pathway: identifying gaps and opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND

A fast and well-organized complex diagnostic process is important for better success in the treatment of lung cancer patients. The aim of our study was to reveal the gaps and inefficiencies in the diagnostic process and to suggest improvement strategies in a single tertiary centre in Slovenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We employed a comprehensive approach to carefully dissect all the steps in the diagnostic journey for individuals suspected of having lung cancer. We gathered and analysed information from employees and patients involved in the process by dedicated questionnaires. Further, we analysed the patients' data and calculated the diagnostic intervals for patients in two different periods.

RESULTS

The major concerns among employees were stress and excessive administrative work. The important result of the visual journey and staff reports was the design of electronic diagnostic clinical pathway (eDCP), which could substantially increase safety and efficacy by diminishing the administrative burden of the employees. The patients were generally highly satisfied with diagnostic journey, but reported too long waiting times. By analysing two time periods, we revealed that diagnostic intervals exceeded the recommended timelines and got importantly shorter after two interventions - strengthening the diagnostic team and specially by purchase of additional PET-CT machine (the average time from general practitioner (GP) referral to the multidisciplinary treatment board (MDTB) decision was 50.8 [± 3.0] prior and 37.1 [± 2.3] days after the interventions).

CONCLUSIONS

The study illuminated opportunities for refining the diagnostic journey for lung cancer patients, underscoring the importance of both administrative and capacity-related enhancements.

Symptomatic presentation of cancer in primary care: a scoping review of patients' experiences and needs during the cancer diagnostic pathway

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to map the experiences and needs of patients presenting with symptoms of suspected cancer in the primary care interval (from when they first present to primary care to their first appointment or referral to a secondary or tertiary level healthcare facility).

DESIGN

This was a scoping review.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies or reports written in English which included primary data on the primary care interval experiences and/or needs of adult patients presenting with new symptoms of suspected cancer were eligible. Studies which only included patients with secondary or recurring cancer, conference abstracts and reviews were excluded. No date limits were applied.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute method for Scoping Reviews guided screening, report selection and data extraction. At least two independent reviewers contributed to each stage. Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Embase and Web of Science were searched and several grey literature resources. Relevant quantitative findings were qualitised and integrated with qualitative findings. A thematic analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Of the 4855 records identified in the database search, 18 were included in the review, along with 13 identified from other sources. The 31 included studies were published between 2002 and 2023 and most (n=17) were conducted in the UK. Twenty subthemes across four themes (patient experience, interpersonal, healthcare professional (HCP) skills, organisational) were identified. No studies included patient-reported outcome measures. Patients wanted (1) to feel heard and understood by HCPs, (2) a plan to establish what was causing their symptoms, and (3) information about the next stages of the diagnostic process.

CONCLUSIONS

Scoping review findings can contribute to service planning as the cancer diagnostic pathway for symptomatic presentation of cancer evolves. The effectiveness of this pathway should be evaluated not only in terms of clinical outcomes, but also patient-reported outcomes and experience, along with the perspectives of primary care HCPs.

Factors leading to disparity in lung cancer diagnosis among black/African American communities in the USA: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study has two objectives: first, to explore the diagnostic experiences of black/African American (BAA) patients with lung cancer to pinpoint pitfalls, suboptimal experiences and instances of discrimination leading to disparities in outcomes compared with patients of other ethnic backgrounds, especially white patients. The second objective is to identify the underlying causes contributing to health disparities in the diagnosis of lung cancer among BAA patients.

METHODS

We employed a phenomenological research approach, guiding in-depth interviews with patients self-identifying as BAA diagnosed with lung cancer, as well as caregivers, healthcare professionals and community advocates knowledgeable about BAA experiences with lung cancer. We performed thematic analysis to identify experiences at patient, primary care and specialist levels. Contributing factors were identified using the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) health disparity model.

RESULTS

From March to November 2021, we conducted individual interviews with 19 participants, including 9 patients/caregivers and 10 providers/advocates. Participants reported recurring and increased pain before seeking treatment, treatment for non-cancer illnesses, delays in diagnostic tests and referrals, poor communication and bias when dealing with specialists and primary care providers. Factors contributing to suboptimal experiences included reluctance by insurers to cover costs, provider unwillingness to conduct comprehensive testing, provider bias in recommending treatment, high healthcare costs, and lack of healthcare facilities and qualified staff to provide necessary support. However, some participants reported positive experiences due to their insurance, availability of services and having an empowered support structure.

CONCLUSIONS

BAA patients and caregivers encountered suboptimal experiences during their care. The NIMHD model is a useful framework to organise factors contributing to these experiences that may be leading to health disparities. Additional research is needed to fully capture the extent of these experiences and identify ways to improve BAA patient experiences in the lung cancer diagnosis pathway.

Pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among individuals who did not receive lung cancer screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although early detection of lung cancer through screening is associated with better prognosis, most lung cancers are diagnosed among unscreened individuals. We therefore sought to characterize pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among unscreened individuals.

METHODS

Participants were individuals with lung cancer who did not undergo asymptomatic lung cancer screening (n = 13) and healthcare providers who may be involved in the pathway to lung cancer diagnosis (n = 13). We conducted semi-structured interviews to identify themes in lung cancer patients' narratives of their cancer diagnoses and providers' personal and/or professional experiences of various pathways to lung cancer diagnoses, to identify delays in diagnosis. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews in two stages. First, we conducted deductive coding using three time-period intervals from the Models of Pathways to Treatment framework: appraisal, help-seeking, and diagnostic (i.e., excluding pre-treatment). Second, we conducted inductive coding to identify themes within each time-period interval, and classified these themes as either barriers or facilitators to diagnosis. Coding and thematic summarization were completed independently by two separate analysts who discussed for consensus.

RESULTS

Eight of the patient participants had formerly smoked, and five had never smoked. We identified eight barrier/facilitator themes within the three time-period intervals. Within the appraisal interval, the barrier theme was (1) minimization or misattribution of symptoms, and the facilitator theme was (2) acknowledgment of symptoms. Within the help-seeking interval, the barrier theme was (3) hesitancy to seek care, and the facilitator theme was (4) routine care. Within the diagnosis interval, barrier themes were (5) health system challenges, and (6) social determinants of health; and facilitator themes were (7) severe symptoms and known risk factors, and (8) self-advocacy. Many themes were interrelated, including minimization or misattribution of symptoms and hesitancy to seek care, which may collectively contribute to care and imaging delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to reduce hesitancy to seek care may facilitate timely lung cancer diagnoses. More prompt referral to imaging-especially computed tomography (CT)-among symptomatic patients, along with patient self-advocacy for imaging, may reduce delays in diagnosis.

Cell-Free DNA Fragmentomes in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients With Symptoms Suggestive of Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic workup of individuals suspected of having lung cancer can be complex and protracted because conventional symptoms of lung cancer have low specificity and sensitivity.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Among individuals with symptoms of lung cancer, can a blood-based approach to analyze cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentation (the DNA evaluation of fragments for early interception [DELFI] score) enhance evaluation for the possible presence of lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Adults were referred to Bispebjerg Hospital (Copenhagen, Denmark) for diagnostic evaluation of initial imaging anomalies and symptoms consistent with lung cancer. Numbers and types of symptoms were extracted from medical records. cfDNA from plasma samples obtained at the prediagnostic visit was isolated, sequenced, and analyzed for genome-wide cfDNA fragmentation patterns. The relationships among clinical presentation, cancer status, and DELFI score were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 296 individuals were analyzed. Median DELFI scores were higher for those with lung cancer (n = 98) than those without cancer (n = 198; 0.94 vs 0.19; P < .001). In a multivariate model adjusted for age, smoking history, and presenting symptoms, the addition of the DELFI score improved the prediction of lung cancer for those who demonstrated symptoms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.74-0.94).

INTERPRETATION

The DELFI score distinguishes individuals with lung cancer from those without cancer better than suspicious symptoms do. These results represent proof-of-concept support that fragmentation-based biomarker approaches may facilitate diagnostic resolution for patients with concerning symptoms of lung cancer.

Time duration and health care resource use during cancer diagnoses in the United States: A large claims database analysis

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnostic pathways are highly variable and not clearly established in the United States, which can lead to a diagnosis process that takes more time and exposes patients to invasive or unnecessary procedures, delays in treatment, worsening patient outcomes, and elevated health care resource utilization (HRU) and health care system costs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate current trends in time to diagnosis and diagnostic-related HRU preceding the patient's cancer diagnosis across all cancer types in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was conducted on patients newly diagnosed with cancer identified from 2018-2019 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database, which includes Medicare Advantage and commercially insured members. Patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and were required to have at least 2 outpatient visits at least 30 days apart or at least 1 inpatient cancer visit without prior cancer claims. The first diagnostic test was identified based on an algorithm of a 60-day gap between diagnostic tests prior to diagnosis. The index date was defined as the first diagnostic test date or an office visit less than 4 weeks prior to the first diagnostic test date. Patient characteristics, time to diagnosis, and HRU were descriptively analyzed for all patients and by cancer type. RESULTS: Among the 458,818 patients newly diagnosed with cancer included in this analysis, the mean age was 70.6 years, approximately half were female, and most were White people (65.0%) with Medicare Advantage coverage (74.0%). Patients with cancer had an overall mean (SD) time to diagnosis of 156.2 (164.9) days and 15.4% of patients waited longer than 180 days before a cancer diagnosis. High heterogeneity among cancer types was observed, with a mean time to diagnosis ranging from 121.6 days (bladder cancer) to 229.0 days (multiple myeloma). Imaging resource use during the diagnostic pathway was high for radiology (60.7%), computerized tomography (50.8%), magnetic resonance imaging (48.6%), and ultrasound (42.6%). A total of 69.3% of patients had endoscopy without biopsy, 36.5% had endoscopy with biopsy, 62.5% had other biopsies, and most patients did general urine and serum tests (91.3%) and nongenetic cancer-specific laboratory tests (84.3%). Resource use was highly varied by cancer type but tended to increase with a longer time to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients experiencing a diagnostic process of longer than 180 days is clinically and economically meaningful. Diagnostic-related HRU was significant and highly variable, highlighting the inefficiencies in the cancer diagnostic process in the United States and the need for policies, guidelines, or medical interventions to streamline cancer diagnostic pathways to optimize patient outcomes and reduce health care system burden. DISCLOSURES: Dr Cong is an employee of Grail, LLC, which supported this study. Drs Gitlin and McGarvey are employees of BluePath Solutions, and Ms Shivaprakash was an employee of BluePath Solutions, which received financial support from Grail, LLC, for study-related research activities. This study was sponsored by Grail, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated October 29, 2021. The sponsor had no role in the collection, management, and analysis of the data. The sponsor contributed to study design and data interpretation.

Symptoms and signs of lung cancer prior to diagnosis: case-control study using electronic health records from ambulatory care within a large US-based tertiary care centre

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the USA. While most patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation, no studies have compared symptoms and physical examination signs at or prior to diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) in the USA. We aimed to identify symptoms and signs in patients prior to diagnosis in EHR data.

DESIGN

Case-control study.

SETTING

Ambulatory care clinics at a large tertiary care academic health centre in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOMES

We studied 698 primary lung cancer cases in adults diagnosed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019, and 6841 controls matched by age, sex, smoking status and type of clinic. Coded and free-text data from the EHR were extracted from 2 years prior to diagnosis date for cases and index date for controls. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with lung cancer at time of diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months before the diagnosis/index dates.

RESULTS

Eleven symptoms and signs recorded during the study period were associated with a significantly higher chance of being a lung cancer case in multivariable analyses. Of these, seven were significantly associated with lung cancer 6 months prior to diagnosis: haemoptysis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.3), cough (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), chest crackles or wheeze (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.1), bone pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), back pain (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2), weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8) and fatigue (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer appear to have symptoms and signs recorded in the EHR that distinguish them from similar matched patients in ambulatory care, often 6 months or more before diagnosis. These findings suggest opportunities to improve the diagnostic process for lung cancer.

A Patient-Centered Model of Fast-Track Lung Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing importance of digital resources in modern life over the past decades, little is known about the impact of internet-based solutions on patient's health. We aimed to study the potential benefit of a digital platform helping patients to deal with abnormal chest CT scan revealing possible lung cancer.

METHODS

We set up a fast-track lung cancer diagnosis pathway through a secure online platform. Patient-generated information combined with online review of their imaging enables preplanning of further investigations ahead of clinical assessment. We compared outcomes of "self-referred" patients (patient group), who directly fill out the online questionnaire, to general practitioner-driven patients (GP group), who were referred by their GP.

RESULTS

From June 2021 to June 2022, we included 125 patients (61% males, median age 67 years, IQR 56.9-72.5): 41% in the patient group and 59% in the GP group. No difference was found between groups in terms of time from contact to first appointment (median 5 days in both groups, P = .6), percentage of pathways including prebooked tests (94% vs. 92%, P = .6), number of scheduled invasive procedures (median 1, IQR 1-2 vs. 2, IQR 1-2, P = .4) and in final cancer diagnosis (76% vs. 78%, P = .4).

CONCLUSION

A lung cancer diagnosis pathway directly accessible by patients through a secure online platform was feasible and as efficient as the usual general practitioner pathway. It demonstrated the benefit of leaning on new digital tools in order to answer to the new challenges of a patient-centered health care system.

Cutaneous lesions in a COVID-19 patient leading to a surprising diagnosis

Differential diagnosis of skin lesions is broad. Cutaneous metastases should always be considered in the appropriate clinical and laboratory context to ensure accurate diagnosis. https://bit.ly/400Msre.

Barriers and facilitators to early-stage lung cancer care in the USA: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Improved outcomes in lung cancer treatment are seen in high-volume academic centers, making it important to understand barriers to accessing care at such institutions. Few qualitative studies examine the barriers and facilitators to early-stage lung cancer care at US academic institutions.

METHODS

Adult patients with suspected or diagnosed early-stage non-small cell lung cancer presenting to a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic at a US academic institution over a 6-month period beginning in 2019 were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and a qualitative content analysis was performed using the framework method. Themes relating to barriers and facilitators to lung cancer care were identified through iterative team-based coding.

RESULTS

The 26 participants had a mean age of 62 years (SD: 8.4 years) and were majority female (62%), white (77%), and urban (85%). We identified 6 major themes: trust with providers and health systems are valued by patients; financial toxicity negatively influenced the diagnostic and treatment experience; social constraints magnified other barriers; patient self-advocacy as a facilitator of care access; provider advocacy could overcome other barriers; care coordination and good communication were important to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified several barriers and facilitators to lung cancer care at an academic center in the US. These factors need to be addressed to improve quality of care among lung cancer patients. Further work will examine our findings in a community setting to understand if our findings are generalizable to patients who do not access a tertiary cancer care center.

How Timely Is Diagnosis of Lung Cancer? Cohort Study of Individuals with Lung Cancer Presenting in Ambulatory Care in the United States

The diagnosis of lung cancer in ambulatory settings is often challenging due to non-specific clinical presentation, but there are currently no clinical quality measures (CQMs) in the United States used to identify areas for practice improvement in diagnosis. We describe the pre-diagnostic time intervals among a retrospective cohort of 711 patients identified with primary lung cancer from 2012-2019 from ambulatory care clinics in Seattle, Washington USA. Electronic health record data were extracted for two years prior to diagnosis, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to identify symptoms/signs from free text clinical fields. Time points were defined for initial symptomatic presentation, chest imaging, specialist consultation, diagnostic confirmation, and treatment initiation. Median and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for intervals spanning these time points. The mean age of the cohort was 67.3 years, 54.1% had Stage III or IV disease and the majority were diagnosed after clinical presentation (94.5%) rather than screening (5.5%). Median intervals from first recorded symptoms/signs to diagnosis was 570 days (IQR 273-691), from chest CT or chest X-ray imaging to diagnosis 43 days (IQR 11-240), specialist consultation to diagnosis 72 days (IQR 13-456), and from diagnosis to treatment initiation 7 days (IQR 0-36). Symptoms/signs associated with lung cancer can be identified over a year prior to diagnosis using NLP, highlighting the need for CQMs to improve timeliness of diagnosis.

A qualitative study of interactions with oncologists among patients with advanced lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

To support the care of lung cancer patients, oncologists have needed to stay current on treatment advancements and build relationships with a new group of survivors in an era where lung cancer survivorship has been re-defined. The objectives of the study were to (1) understand the perspectives of advanced lung cancer patients whose tumors have oncogenic alterations about their care experiences with their oncologist(s) and (2) describe the perceptions of advanced lung cancer patients about seeking second opinions and navigating care decisions.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 25) on targeted therapies were interviewed to discuss their ongoing experience with their oncologists. We used deductive and inductive qualitative approaches in the coding of the data. We organized the data using the self-determination framework.

RESULTS

Patients described both positive and negative aspects of their care as related to autonomy, provider competency, and connectedness. Patients sought second opinions for three primary reasons: expertise, authoritative advice, and access to clinical trial opportunities. When there is disagreement in the treatment plan between the primary oncologist and the specialist, there can be confusion and tension, and patients have to make difficult choices about their path forward.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value interactions that support their autonomy, demonstrate the competency of their providers, and foster connectedness. To ensure that patients receive quality and goal-concordant care, developing decision aids and education materials that help patients negotiate recommendations from two providers is an area that deserves further attention.