73
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Routes to diagnosis for cancer – determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Cancer survival in England is lower than the European average, which has been at least partly attributed to later stage at diagnosis in English patients. There are substantial regional and demographic variations in cancer survival across England. The majority of patients are diagnosed following symptomatic or incidental presentation. This study defines a methodology by which the route the patient follows to the point of diagnosis can be categorised to examine demographic, organisational, service and personal reasons for delayed diagnosis.

          Methods:

          Administrative Hospital Episode Statistics data are linked with Cancer Waiting Times data, data from the cancer screening programmes and cancer registration data. Using these data sets, every case of cancer registered in England, which was diagnosed in 2006–2008, is categorised into one of eight ‘Routes to Diagnosis'.

          Results:

          Different cancer types show substantial differences between the proportion of cases that present by each route, in reasonable agreement with previous clinical studies. Patients presenting via Emergency routes have substantially lower 1-year relative survival.

          Conclusion:

          Linked cancer registration and administrative data can be used to robustly categorise the route to a cancer diagnosis for all patients. These categories can be used to enhance understanding of and explore possible reasons for delayed diagnosis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Time to diagnosis and mortality in colorectal cancer: a cohort study in primary care

          Background: The relationship between the diagnostic interval and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) is unclear. This association was examined by taking account of important confounding factors at the time of first presentation of symptoms in primary care. Methods: A total of 268 patients with CRC were included in a prospective, population-based study in a Danish county. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from first presentation of symptoms until diagnosis. We analysed patients separately according to the general practitioner's interpretation of symptoms. Logistic regression was used to estimate 3-year mortality odds ratios as a function of the diagnostic interval using restricted cubic splines and adjusting for tumour site, comorbidity, age, and sex. Results: In patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of cancer or any other serious illness, the risk of dying within 3 years decreased with diagnostic intervals up to 5 weeks and then increased (P=0.002). In patients presenting with vague symptoms, the association was reverse, although not statistically significant. Conclusion: Detecting cancer in primary care is two sided: aimed at expediting ill patients while preventing healthy people from going to hospital. This likely explains the counterintuitive findings; but it does not explain the increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals. Thus, this study provides evidence for the hypothesis that the length of the diagnostic interval affects mortality in CRC patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multiple tumours in survival estimates.

            In international comparisons of cancer registry based survival it is common practice to restrict the analysis to first primary tumours and exclude multiple cancers. The probability of correctly detecting subsequent cancers depends on the registry's running time, which results in different proportions of excluded patients and may lead to biased comparisons. We evaluated the impact on the age-standardised relative survival estimates of also including multiple primary tumours. Data from 2,919,023 malignant cancers from 69 European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 collaborative study were used. A total of 183,683 multiple primary tumours were found, with an overall proportion of 6.3% over all the considered cancers, ranging from 0.4% (Naples, Italy) to 12.9% (Iceland). The proportion of multiple tumours varied greatly by type of tumour, being higher for those with high incidence and long survival (breast, prostate and colon-rectum). Five-year relative survival was lower when including patients with multiple cancers. For all cancers combined the average difference was -0.4 percentage points in women and -0.7 percentage points in men, and was greater for older registries. Inclusion of multiple tumours led to lower survival in 44 out of 45 cancer sites analysed, with the greatest differences found for larynx (-1.9%), oropharynx (-1.5%), and penis (-1.3%). Including multiple primary tumours in survival estimates for international comparison is advisable because it reduces the bias due to different observation periods, age, registration quality and completeness of registration. The general effect of inclusion is to reduce survival estimates by a variable amount depending on the proportion of multiple primaries and cancer site.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The waiting time paradox: population based retrospective study of treatment delay and survival of women with endometrial cancer in Scotland.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                Br. J. Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                09 October 2012
                20 September 2012
                : 107
                : 8
                : 1220-1226
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Avon, Somerset, and Wiltshire Cancer Services, South Plaza , Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
                [2 ]National Cancer Intelligence Network , 18th Floor, Portland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5RS, UK
                [3 ]South West Public Health Observatory , Grosvenor House, 149 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2RA, UK
                [4 ]Cancer Research UK , Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK
                [5 ]National Cancer Action Team , 18th Floor, Portland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5RS, UK
                Author notes
                Article
                bjc2012408
                10.1038/bjc.2012.408
                3494426
                22996611
                12736080-95c4-40c4-8094-0e53f889255f
                Copyright © 2012 Cancer Research UK

                From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

                History
                : 30 April 2012
                : 06 August 2012
                : 15 August 2012
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                survival,diagnosis,emergency,route,referral,pathways
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                survival, diagnosis, emergency, route, referral, pathways

                Comments

                Comment on this article