Delay In Diagnosis Of Cancer Research Articles

Colorectal cancer in Crohn\u2019s colitis is associated with advanced tumor invasion and a poorer survival compared with ulcerative colitis: a retrospective dual-center study

PurposeColorectal cancer is a well-recognized complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), such as ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s colitis (CC). In this study, we assess the clinico-pathological features and outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer from UC in comparison with CC.MethodsData of all patients with colitis-associated cancer (CAC) who underwent surgery at Erlangen or Würzburg University Clinic between 1995 and 2015 were selected. Clinical, histopathological, and survival data were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsOf all 88 patients with CAC, 20 patients had Crohn’s colitis and 68 patients had ulcerative colitis. We observed a young median age at tumor diagnosis (49.5 years UC; 45.5 years CC, p = 0.208) in both diseases and a long median disease duration before CAC (19 years UC; 18 years CC; p = 0.840). Patients with CC suffered more often from rectal cancer (14 (70.0%) in CC; 23 (33.8%) in UC; p = 0.005) and advanced tumor stages (8 (47.0%) pT4 in CC; 14 (25.0%) pT4/ypT4 in UC; p = 0.008). Five-year overall survival rate was 39.3% for CC and 67.1% for UC (p = 0.009 for difference between the groups). Survival did not differ significantly between UC and CC in the multivariate analysis after correction for UICC tumor stage.ConclusionCAC in CC showed advanced tumor stages associated with reduced survival compared with CAC in UC. This may be explained by less intense surveillance in patients with CC leading to delayed cancer diagnosis.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and surgical breast cancer management.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and surgical breast cancer management.

COVID-19 threatens to cause collateral delay in cancer diagnosis

COVID-19 threatens to cause collateral delay in cancer diagnosis

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer diagnosis and management in Slovenia - preliminary results.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision and use of healthcare services throughout the world. In Slovenia, an epidemic was officially declared between mid-March and mid-May 2020. Although all non-essential health care services were put on hold by government decree, oncological services were listed as an exception. Nevertheless, as cancer control depends also on other health services and additionally major changes in people’s behaviour likely occurred, we aimed to analyse whether cancer diagnosis and management were affected during the COVID-19 epidemic in Slovenia.MethodsWe analysed routine data for the period November 2019 through May 2020 from three sources: (1) from the Slovenian Cancer Registry we analysed data on pathohistological and clinical practice cancer notifications from two major cancer centres in Ljubljana and Maribor; (2) from the e-referral system we analysed data on all referrals in Slovenia issued for oncological services, stratified by type of referral; and (3) from the administrative data of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana we analysed data on outpatient visits by type as well as on diagnostic imaging performed.ResultsCompared to the November 2019 – February 2020 average, the decrease in April 2020 was about 43% and 29% for pathohistological and clinical cancer notifications; 33%, 46% and 85% for first, control and genetic counselling referrals; 19% (53%), 43% (72%) and 20% (21%) for first (and control) outpatient visits at the radiotherapy, surgery and medical oncology sectors at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, and 48%, 76%, and 42% for X-rays, mammograms and ultrasounds performed at the Institute, respectively. The number of CT and MRI scans performed was not affected.ConclusionsSignificant drops in first referrals for oncological services, first visits and imaging studies performed at the Institute, as well as cancer notifications in April 2020 point to a possibility of a delayed cancer diagnosis for some patients during the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 cases in Slovenia. The reasons for the delay cannot be ascertained with certainty and could be linked to health-seeking behaviour of the patients, the beliefs and practices of doctors and/ or the health system management during the epidemic. Drops in control referrals and control visits were expected and are most likely due to the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana postponing non-essential follow-ups through May 2020.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK endoscopic activity and cancer detection: a National Endoscopy Database Analysis

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess mortality...

Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy and COVID-19: Avoiding More Casualties

Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy and COVID-19: Avoiding More Casualties

Factors Influencing Delayed Diagnosis in Oncology

Background: In Romania there is a discrepancy between cancer incidence (last place in Europe) and mortality rate (over the medium rate in Europe), possibly due to a higher number of late diagnosis. This study aims to determine associations between delayed cancer diagnosis and psychosocial characteristics (depression, coping style, social support). Methods: Cancer patients were administered a battery of tests for depression, anxiety, coping mechanism, social support, social status, medical and family history, and time between first symptoms and diagnosis. Results: Delayed presentation was positively correlated with female gender (p=0.031), rural area (p=0.033) and law stress levels (p=0.045), depression (p=0.02). positive reassessment (p=0.002) and low positive refocusing (p=0.006). Conclusion: Coping styles, depression and gender influence delayed diagnosis of cancer, this potentially contributing to a bad prognosis of oncology patients. Further longitudinal studies and screening procedures could contribute to a better understanding of individual contribution of these factors to delayed diagnosis.

International guidelines and recommendations for surgery during Covid-19 pandemic: A Systematic Review.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical departments were forced to re-schedule their activity giving priority to urgent procedures and non-deferrable oncological cases. There is a lack of evidence-based literature providing clinical and organizational guidelines for the management of a general surgery department. Aim of our study was to review the available recommendations published by general Surgery Societies and Health Institutions and evaluate the underlying Literature.Materials and methodsA review of the English Literature was conducted according to the AMSTAR and to the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsAfter eligibility assessment, a total of 22 papers and statements were analyzed. Surgical societies have established criteria for triage and prioritization in order to identify procedures that can be postponed after the pandemic and those that should not. Prioritization among oncologic cases represents a difficult task: clinicians have to balance a possible delay in cancer diagnosis or treatment against the risk for a potential COVID-19 exposure. There is broad agreement among guidelines that indication to proceed with surgery should be discussed in virtual Tumor Boards taking into consideration alternative therapeutic approaches. Several guidelines deal with the role of laparoscopic surgery during the pandemic: a tailored approach is currently suggested, with a case-by-case evaluation provided that appropriate personal protective equipment is available in order to minimize the potential risk of transmission. Finally, there is a considerable agreement in the published Literature concerning the management of the personnel during the peri- and intraoperative phase and on the technical advices regarding the induction, operative and recover maneuvers in COVID-19 cases.ConclusionsDuring COVID-19 pandemic, it is of paramount importance to face the emergency in the most effective and efficient manner, retrieving resources from non-essential settings and, at the same time, providing care to high priority non-COVID-19 related diseases.

Adjusting to the new reality: Evaluation of early practice pattern adaptations to the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveWe aim to define national practice patterns to assess current clinical practice, anticipated delays and areas of concern that potentially could lead to deviations from the normal standard of care. MethodsAnonymous surveys were emailed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO). The spread of COVID-19 and its impact on gynecologic oncology care in terms of alterations to normal treatment patterns and anticipated challenges were assessed. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed to determine risk factors for COVID-19 infection. ResultsWe analyzed the responses of 331 gynecologic oncology providers. COVID-19 is present in 99.1% of surveyed communities with 99.7% reporting mitigation efforts in effect. The infection rate differs significantly between regions (p≪0.001) with the Northeast reporting the highest number of COVID-19 cases. Practice volume has dropped by 61.6% since the start of the pandemic with most cancellations being provider initiated. A majority of responders (52.8%) believed that ovarian cancer will be the most affected cancer by COVID-19. >94% of responders are proceeding with gynecologic cancer surgeries with exception of grade 1, endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (36.3%). Surgical backlog (58.6%), delayed cancer diagnosis (43.2%) and re-establishing normal care with delayed patient (37.8%) were identified as the top 3 challenges after COVID-19 has abated. ConclusionsCOVID-19 is widespread and has radically altered normal practice patterns. Despite COVID-19 related concerns, most gynecologic oncology care is proceeding. However, the steep decline in clinical volume shows there is a large group of patients who are not being diagnosed or are deferring care.

Impacts of the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Volume and Diagnosis of Gastric and Colorectal Cancers: A Population-Based Study

Impacts of the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Volume and Diagnosis of Gastric and Colorectal Cancers: A Population-Based Study

SAT-465 Steroid-Responsive Encephalopathy Associated with Autoimmune Thyroiditis: Diagnosis or Distraction?

In 1966 a case of episodic encephalopathy with anti-thyroid antibody (ATAb) positive Hashimoto’s thyroiditis was first reported. Controversy persists regarding Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, now known as steroid-responsive encephalopathy associated with autoimmune thyroiditis (SREAT) and any relationship with ATAb. There is no literature supporting an etiologic role of ATAb in SREAT. Nor has there been correlation shown between ATAb titer and severity of thyroid dysfunction or SREAT(1).A 56 yo female was admitted to a community hospital three times with visual hallucinations and slurred speech. Brain MRI, LP and standard tests including C3/C4, folate, B12, ANA and ANCA were unrevealing. Thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAb) and anti-thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) were positive. Diagnosed with SREAT with relief of symptoms on high dose IV corticosteroids. Discharged on oral prednisone. Seven months later she began experiencing progressive proximal weakness of all extremities associated with exertional dyspnea, fatigue and weight gain. EMG studies indicated steroid-induced myopathy of the proximal extremities. After prednisone tapering, she was admitted to our institution with acute confusion, blurred vision, fever, tachycardia, tachypnea and hypoxemia.Examination showed Cushingoid features. Labs showed hyperglycemia, ANA (+), TPOAb (+), TgAb (+), low FreeT4, low T3, normal TSH and elevated IgG in the CSF. Brain MRI showed meningeal enhancement of parieto-occipital lobes and left tentorium. Empiric antibiotics started to cover infectious meningoencephalitis. Endocrinology consulted for iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome with hyperglycemia, abnormal thyroid function tests (TFTs) with positive ATAb and evaluation for SREAT. We recommended tapering steroids and evaluation for infectious, autoimmune or paraneoplastic causes of encephalopathy, before presuming SREAT. Rheumatological and infectious work-up was negative. CT chest showed nodular densities and CT abdomen showed hepatic, splenic and right inguinal region masses. Biopsy of inguinal mass showed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma confirmed on bone marrow biopsy. CSF flow cytometry was unrevealing, likely due to prior steroids. Leptomeningeal enhancement likely reflected leptomeningeal metastases. Treated with systemic R-CHOP, high dose MTX, intrathecal MTX, cytarabine and corticosteroid tapering. Complete remission was achieved with normalization of TFTs, resolution of her Cushingoid and encephalopathic features.This case illustrates SREAT as a diagnosis of exclusion. ATAbs may be positive in non-thyroid autoimmune disorders, other neurological conditions and 10-20% of the general population (2). B cell lymphoma with leptomeningeal metastasis caused encephalopathic features which improved with corticosteroids. Ascribing a diagnosis of SREAT led to delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Identification of factors influencing delayed presentation of cancer patients

Background: Delayed presentation of patients of cancer is associated with poorer survival. Early presentation, timely diagnosis and treatment are critical factors in improving long-term survival for patients with cancer. Thus, reducing delays in diagnosis of cancer should be a priority. Against this backdrop this study was conducted to identify factors leading to delayed presentation of patients in advanced stages of cancer at our institute. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients of cancer coming to radiation oncology, surgery and medical oncology outpatient departments were included in this study. Data was collected in a pre-validated questionnaire format.Results: 360 patients were included. Majority of patients 212 (58.9%) were male. 66.7% patients were from rural areas. Most of the patient’s educational level was upto primary schooling 178 (49.4%) and caregiver educational level was upto primary schooling 153 (42.5%). Reason for alternative treatment correlated significantly with patient awareness about the disease (p<0.03). Most common reason of the time gap given by patients was symptom appraisal 258 (71.7%).Conclusions: Educational level of patients, symptom appraisal, fear of side effects of treatment and awareness about disease were main reasons for delay in presentation of cancer patients. So, education regarding warning signs of cancer and symptom appraisal are important in reducing delays in presentation.

Interventions Addressing Barriers to Delayed Cancer Diagnosis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Delays to cancer diagnosis exist, resulting in worse survival outcomes for many cancers. Interventions targeting delays and barriers to cancer diagnosis and treatment have been investigated, but mostly in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and characterize the interventions studied across cancers, within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review forms part two of a wider study examining solutions to delays and barriers in cancer early diagnosis in LMICs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on November 27, 2017, encompassing published studies from the preceding 15 years. We extracted study design, population, and intervention, and reported outcome measures from each study. Results were presented by target of interventions (general vs. health care professionals). A narrative synthesis was used to summarize intervention efficacy. Of 10,193 abstracts returned, 25 were included, consisting of studies across World Health Organization geographical regions, examining breast, cervix, childhood, prostate, head and neck, and gastric cancers. Altogether, 11 intervention studies targeted the general population, 12 targeted health care professionals, and 2 targeted both. The majority (17/25) of studies reported interventions focusing on patient and diagnosis-related barriers early in the cancer care pathway. Most studies reported knowledge score as primary outcome measure (17/25); few (6/25) reported on clinically relevant measures such as reducing disease stage at presentation or diagnostic time interval. Effectiveness of interventions was demonstrated for some cancers only. More interventions reporting clinically relevant measures and using standardized methods and outcomes are required to improve our ability to effectively improve cancer early diagnosis in LMICs. Prior to this study, the extent of intervention literature in cancer early diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries had not been characterized. This study aimed to outline and characterize interventions across all cancer types and across all countries. This systematic review demonstrated that interventions have been investigated targeting both the general population and health care professionals. Furthermore, this review demonstrates that the majority of studies report knowledge as an outcome measure, rather than clinically significant measures that improve cancer-related outcomes, such as delay intervals or downstaging of disease. Future interventions should address clinically relevant measures to better assess efficacy of interventions.

BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions identified at preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer: implications for management.

To investigate outcomes and retrospectively evaluate characteristics of additional lesions initially assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 at preoperative MRI to determine appropriate follow-up management. We retrospectively reviewed 429 lesions other than primary cancer initially assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 at preoperative MRI in 391 patients with breast cancer from March 2012 to December 2013. We investigated their malignancy rate and outcome according to BI-RADS category assessments. We also analyzed clinical and imaging characteristics of each lesion. Pathological results and imaging follow-up of at least 2years were used as reference standards. Of 429 lesions in 391 patients (mean 48.1years ± 9.4), the malignancy rate of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions was 1.4% (3/213), 17.8% (38/214), and 50% (1/2), respectively. Of BI-RADS 3 lesions or BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions that were followed up after benign-concordant biopsy (n = 114), two contralateral masses (2/306, 0.7%) were diagnosed as malignancy at 13.3 and 33.2months after initial detection, within a median follow-up of 63.3months. None of the NME or foci or lesions followed up after benign-concordant biopsy had a delayed diagnosis of malignancy. Of the 391 patients, 97.4% (381/391) received at least one type of adjuvant therapy. The incidence of delayed cancer diagnosis among additionally detected lesions other than primary cancer is very low and short-term follow-up is unnecessary. Contralateral masses which were not confirmed by biopsy may need annual follow-up. • 1.4% (3/213) of BI-RADS 3 lesions were malignant including 2 delayed diagnoses after 13.2months and 33.2months, and 17.8% (38/214) of BI-RADS 4 lesions and 50% (1/2) of BI-RADS 5 lesions were malignant. • The incidence of delayed diagnosis from additional MRI-detected lesions was very low (0.7%, 2/306) during follow-up, which were all T1N0 contralateral cancer. • Annual follow-up might be adequate for preoperative MRI-detected BI-RADS 3 lesions and BI-RADS 4 lesions followed up after benign-concordant biopsy.

Cross-sectional study using primary care and cancer registration data to investigate patients with cancer presenting with non-specific symptoms

IntroductionPatients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to...

Determinants of delayed diagnosis among pediatric cancer patients from Ayder Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Mekelle, Northern Ethiopia

BackgroundDespite advances in the field of pediatric oncology, cancer remains a leading cause of death in children. The delays in cancer diagnosis may occur throughout the diagnostic pathway. Diagnosis of childhood cancer as early as possible is crucial to reduce mortality. The aim of this study was to identify determinants of delayed diagnosis among pediatric cancer patients in Ayder Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northern Ethiopia.MethodFacility based cross-sectional study was conducted among pediatric cancer patients aged less than 18 years. Data collection was done by interviewer-administered structured questionnaire from the volunteer primary caregiver from 1st September 2017 to 30th August 2018. The data was checked and cleaned by principal investigator on daily basis during data collection for completeness, consistencies, then coded, entered and analyzed using SPSS version 21 software. Diagnosis delay was considered significant when it is above the 3rd quartile. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to test associations between each of the determinant factors and the dependent variable. Variables with P-value < 0.25 during bivariate analysis were fed to the multivariate logistic regression model. Finally, variables with P-value < 0.05 were considered as determinants of delayed diagnosis.ResultsFrom a total of 102 patients, 71(69.6%) had delayed diagnosis. Children older than 10 years of age were four (AOR = 4.01; 95%CI = 1.55–12, P < 0.001) times more likely to get delayed compared to under five children. Rural residence (AOR = 3.3; 95%CI = 1.24–10.24, P < 0.001), uneducated parents (AOR = 3.4; 95%CI = 1.91–13.25, P = 0.009), parents with monthly income less than 1000 ETB (AOR = 6.1; 95%CI = 1.76–7.23, P < 0.001), absence of health insurance (AOR = 2.4; 95%CI = 1.50–3.50, P = 0.02), visit to holy water (AOR = 3.4;95%CI = 1.6–7.2) and those who think cancer is incurable (AOR = 2.7;95%CI = 1.3–14,P = 0.004) were also likely to be delayed.ConclusionDelayed diagnosis of childhood cancer was a major issue and most influenced by the child’s age, residency, family’s socioeconomic status, parental education, health insurance, use of holy water and caregivers perception on curability of cancer. Thus; every effort should be made to promote public and parental awareness of childhood cancer and promoting health insurance.

Barriers and explanatory mechanisms in diagnostic delay in four cancers - A health-care disparity?

Introduction:Most cancer disparities research has traditionally focused on two key outcomes, access to appropriate treatment and survival, but they do not encompass important aspects of patient-centered care such as the timeliness of diagnosis and treatment. Prolonged time intervals between symptom onset and treatment initiation increase the risk of poorer clinical outcomes and are associated with worse patient experience of subsequent cancer care. This study aims to assess the delay from symptom onset to the start of definitive treatment and to identify the possible contributory factors and its impact on response in cancers of head and neck, breast, cervix, and lung.Materials and Methods:This was a retrospective study of patients enrolled between 2015 and 2017. A questionnaire was filled in about socioeconomic aspects, patient history, tumor data, professionals who evaluated the patients, and the respective time delays. Statistical test included Mann–Whitney U test, univariate and multivariate test, and one-way ANOVA to evaluate the correlations.Results:Stage migration was significant with patient delay (P < 0.01). In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and Carcinoma lung, a significant correlation was found between referral delay and residence (P < 0.01) and treatment delay and reason for referral (HNSCC only) (P = 0.04). Referral delay and treatment delay were correlated to response in breast and cervix, respectively (P < 0.01).Conclusion:Social awareness, regularly updating primary care physicians about alarming symptoms of cancer, developing guidelines to identify these symptoms, promoting continuity of care, and enabling access to specialist expertise through prompt referral should all help prevent delays in cancer diagnosis.

Automated Detection of Radiology Reports that Require Follow-up Imaging Using Natural Language Processing Feature Engineering and Machine Learning Classification.

While radiologists regularly issue follow-up recommendations, our preliminary research has shown that anywhere from 35 to 50% of patients who receive follow-up recommendations for findings of possible cancer on abdominopelvic imaging do not return for follow-up. As such, they remain at risk for adverse outcomes related to missed or delayed cancer diagnosis. In this study, we develop an algorithm to automatically detect free text radiology reports that have a follow-up recommendation using natural language processing (NLP) techniques and machine learning models. The data set used in this study consists of 6000 free text reports from the author's institution. NLP techniques are used to engineer 1500 features, which include the most informative unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams in the training corpus after performing tokenization and Porter stemming. On this data set, we train naive Bayes, decision tree, and maximum entropy models. The decision tree model, with an F1 score of 0.458 and accuracy of 0.862, outperforms both the naive Bayes (F1 score of 0.381) and maximum entropy (F1 score of 0.387) models. The models were analyzed to determine predictive features, with term frequency of n-grams such as "renal neoplasm" and "evalu with enhanc" being most predictive of a follow-up recommendation. Key to maximizing performance was feature engineering that extracts predictive information and appropriate selection of machine learning algorithms based on the feature set.

Assessing and Providing Culturally Competent Care in Radiation Oncology for Deaf Cancer Patients

While recognition of disparities in outcomes for many vulnerable populations in the field of oncology is increasing, little attention has been paid to the outcomes of deaf patients. At least a million Americans identify as culturally Deaf and utilize American Sign Language (ASL). Studies have identified poor linguistic and cultural competency among physicians as a significant barrier to care delivery for these patients, placing them at risk for treatment related disparities. To better educate Radiation Oncologists (RO) regarding the unique needs of this cohort, we performed an evidence-based literature review of culturally competent care for deaf patients with the goal of improving patient care and delivery. A systemic literature search was conducted using PubMed for publications after 1990 in English with the search term: “deaf AND cancer.” Then, “deaf” was interchanged with keywords such as “hard of hearing,” “hearing Loss,” “hearing Impaired,” “ASL,” and “deaf culture.” Articles were included if: (1) the study reported on survival, local control, and toxicity outcomes with various treatment modalities; and (2) identified cultural or linguistic barriers to oncological care and at what level such barriers occur. Publications were excluded if they reported on deafness as a side effect of treatment, or reported on outcomes or barriers in deaf patients with non-malignant conditions. The search resulted in 1105 articles and 37 articles from 2000 to 2018 met inclusion criteria. 35 articles were public health observational or interventional studies and 2 were retrospective series. Poor health literacy, accessibility to providers or resources in preferred language (ASL i.e.), and limited cultural proficiency of health care providers were identified as barriers to care. Deaf patients may have a delay in cancer diagnosis but we did not identify any articles reporting on outcomes with surgery, systemic therapy, or radiation for deaf patients with any malignancy. While legal and national recommendations for accessible care exist, no oncology-specific guidelines exist with regard to care delivery for deaf patients with cancer. We propose the need for a care model for the RO that provides guidelines on creating effective and total communication accessibility for deaf patients, and addresses the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity within this cohort, taking into account factors that can influence the physician-patient relationship including familial, cultural, health literacy, and socio-economic dynamics. The model should provide guidance on implementation of resources and training for ROs and how their respective institutions and staff can help create inclusive care environments. The clinical outcomes of deaf patients with cancer remain poorly characterized, highlighting the need for a care model for ROs to guide the provision of culturally competent oncological care for deaf patients.

Treatment times in locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer: evolution from 2011 to 2016 in a Portuguese Head and Neck Oncology Centre

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; Delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment are usually associated with patient anxiety, tumour progression and lower survival. This study aims to analyse the potential impact of rescheduling adjuvant treatments on survival outcome of patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; A retrospective review of medical records comprising all patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer who underwent primary surgery and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in a Tertiary Oncologic Centre from 2011 to 2016 was performed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; 63 patients with a male/female ratio of 8:1 and mean age of 57.5±9.6 years were enrolled. Patients waited a mean of 47.2±18.2 days from diagnosis to surgery and a median of 61 days from surgery to radiotherapy. Median radiotherapy duration was 43 days and the mean package time was 104.5±21.0 days. Analysis of these parameters has shown decreasing intervals from 2011 to 2016, although this was only significant for duration of PORT (p=0.022). Longer time span from surgery to PORT and PORT duration were predictive of superior package times (p&amp;lt;0.001). Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival was 63.8% and 64.8% respectively with no statistically significant impact of waiting times on clinical outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/strong&gt; Despite presenting favourable long-term outcomes, patients with locally advanced OPSCC have experienced longer waiting times than recommended. Waiting times were not prognostic factors in this condition, although efforts to reduce it might provide superior quality of care. Future studies assessing the factors involved in treatment delays might provide means to offer timely treatments. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;