Primary Care Interval Research Articles

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

IntroductionMost symptomatic women with breast cancer have relatively short diagnostic intervals but a substantial minority experience prolonged journeys to diagnosis. Atypical presentations (with symptoms other than breast lump) may be responsible. MethodsWe examined the presenting symptoms of breast cancer in women using data from a national audit initiative (n=2316). Symptoms were categorised topographically. We investigated variation in the length of the patient interval (time from symptom onset to presentation) and the primary care interval (time from presentation to specialist referral) across symptom groups using descriptive analyses and quantile regression. ResultsA total of 56 presenting symptoms were described: breast lump was the most frequent (83%) followed by non-lump breast symptoms, (e.g. nipple abnormalities (7%) and breast pain (6%)); and non-breast symptoms (e.g. back pain (1%) and weight loss (0.3%)).Greater proportions of women with ‘non-lump only’ and ‘both lump and non-lump’ symptoms waited 90days or longer before seeking help compared to those with ‘breast lump only’ (15% and 20% vs. 7% respectively). Quantile regression indicated that the differences in the patient interval persisted after adjusting for age and ethnicity, but there was little variation in primary care interval for the majority of women. ConclusionsAbout 1 in 6 women with breast cancer present with a large spectrum of symptoms other than breast lump. Women who present with non-lump breast symptoms tend to delay seeking help. Further emphasis of breast symptoms other than breast lump in symptom awareness campaigns is warranted.

Impact of a continuing medical education meeting on the use and timing of urgent cancer referrals among general practitioners - a before-after study

BackgroundDetection of cancer in general practice is challenging because symptoms are diverse. Even so-called alarm symptoms have low positive predictive values of cancer. Nevertheless, appropriate referral is crucial. As 85% of cancer patients initiate their cancer diagnostic pathway in general practice, a Continuing Medical Education meeting (CME-M) in early cancer diagnosis was launched in Denmark in 2012. We aimed to investigate the effect of the CME-M on the primary care interval, patient contacts with general practice and use of urgent cancer referrals.MethodsA before-after study was conducted in the Central Denmark Region included 396 general practices, which were assigned to one of eight geographical clusters. Practices were invited to participate in the CME-M with three-week intervals between clusters. Based on register data, we calculated urgent referral rates and patient contacts with general practice before referral. Information about primary care intervals was collected by requesting general practitioners to complete a one-page form for each urgent referral during an 8-month period around the time of the CME-Ms. CME-M practices were compared with non-participating reference practices by analysing before-after differences.ResultsForty percent of all practices participated in the CME-M. There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of total contacts with general practice from urgently referred patients in the month preceding the referral and an increase in the proportion of patients who waited 14 days or more in general practice from the reported date of symptom presentation to the referral date from before to after the CME-M in the CME-M group compared to the reference group.ConclusionsWe found a reduced number of total patient contacts with general practice within the month preceding an urgent referral and an increase in the reported primary care intervals of urgently referred patients in the CME-M group. The trend towards higher urgent referral rates and longer primary care intervals may suggest raised awareness of unspecific cancer symptoms, which could cause the GP to register an earlier date of first symptom presentation. The standardised CME-M may contribute to optimising the timing and the use of urgent cancer referral.Trial registrationNCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered, 1/29/2014

Imaging investigations before referral to a sarcoma center delay the final diagnosis of musculoskeletal sarcoma

Background and purpose — The use of point-of-care or local investigations before referral to specialist sarcoma centers as part of a fast-track diagnostic pathway varies, and may affect the time to diagnosis. We wanted to investigate differences in time intervals and proportion of malignancy in patients who were referred after initial diagnostic investigations were performed locally and in patients who were referred without these investigations.Patients and methods — We included 545 consecutive patients who were referred to Aarhus Sarcoma Center for suspected musculoskeletal sarcoma. Data on time intervals and investigations performed were collected from questionnaires and patient records. Patients who were referred from outside Aarhus uptake area after initial MRI/CT or histology performed locally were compared with patients who were referred from Aarhus uptake area without these investigations.Results — The median total interval from first symptom to diagnosis was 166 days for outside patients referred with MRI/CT or histology, which was 91 (95% CI: 76–106) days longer than for local patients who were referred without MRI/CT or histology. Comparing the same groups, the median diagnostic interval was 41 (95% CI: 30–51) days longer for outside patients including both primary care and hospital intervals. Both the proportion of malignancies (38% vs. 14%) and the proportion of sarcomas (24% vs. 7%) were higher in the outside group referred with MRI/CT or histology than in the local group without MRI/CT or histology.Interpretation — Pre-referral investigations at a local hospital increased the diagnostic interval by at least 1 month for 50% of the patients, and the proportion of malignancy was more than doubled—to almost 40%. If investigations are to be performed before referral to a sarcoma center, they should be part of the fast-track pathway in order to ensure timely diagnosis.

Greenlandic patients with colorectal cancer: symptomatology, primary investigations and differences in diagnostic intervals between Nuuk and the rest of the country

ABSTRACTBackground: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a potentially fatal disease, and expedited referral and treatment is needed to ensure early detection.Objective: We aimed to assess the symptomatology of Greenlandic patients with CRC and the primary investigations initiated before referral to Dronning Ingrids Hospital in Nuuk for further diagnostic workup. Primary care interval (first consultation until referral), hospital interval (referral until diagnosis) and diagnostic interval (first consultation until diagnosis) were calculated and compared between patients living in Nuuk and in other places in Greenland (“the Coast”).Design: This was a retrospective, register-based study of all patients in Greenland diagnosed with CRC from 2008 through 2011. Medical history was obtained and investigated by reviewing the primary care charts.Results: In total 113 patients were identified from the Greenlandic cancer database or pathology reports. About 80% of the patients were asked about blood in the stools and changes of bowel habits, and the majority responded positively to this. Abdominal examination was performed for 78%, 65% had a rectal examination performed, 22% a proctoscopy performed and 51% a haemoglobin level measured.The median primary care interval was 4 days in Nuuk vs. 55 days for patients from “the Coast” (p=0.01); the median diagnostic interval was 55 days in Nuuk vs. 95 days for patients from “the Coast” (p=0.04). Median hospital interval was similar for both groups (23 days vs 24 days; p=0.86). Women had a median primary care interval of 70 days vs. 15 days for men (p=0.06).Conclusions: Patients with CRC presented classic symptomatology of CRC. Primary care interval and diagnostic interval were significantly longer for patients from “the Coast” compared with Nuuk. Women tended to have longer primary care interval. A more standardised examination should be implemented and a national CRC screening programme should be considered to reduce the difference in diagnostic interval and ensure timely referral.

Tackling cancers of unmet need: the pancreatic cancer pathway

Tackling cancers of unmet need: the pancreatic cancer pathway

Profiling for primary-care presentation, investigation and referral for liver cancers: evidence from a national audit.

The incidence of liver cancer across Europe is increasing. There is a lack of evidence within the current literature on the identification and investigation of liver cancer within primary care. We aimed to profile liver cancer recognition and assessment as well as the timeliness of liver cancer diagnosis from within the primary-care setting in the UK. Data were obtained from the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care 2009-2010 and analysed. We calculated the patient interval, the primary-care interval and the number of prereferral consultations for liver cancer. We then compared these data with prior data on the respective indicators for other common cancers. The median patient interval was 9 days (interquartile range 0-31 days), and the median primary-care interval for liver cancer was 11 days (interquartile range 0-40 days). Of the 90 patients, 21 (23.3%) had three or more consultations with their general practitioner before specialist referral. For the three metrics (patient interval, primary-care interval and number of prereferral consultations), liver cancer has average or longer intervals when compared with other cancers. The most common symptomatic presentation of liver cancer within the primary-care setting was right upper quadrant pain (11%), followed by decompensated liver failure (9%). Of the patients, 12% were diagnosed with liver cancer on the basis of an incidental finding of an abnormal liver function test. This study provides a detailed and thorough overview of the recognition of liver cancer and the promptness of liver cancer identification in an English context, and should inform strategies for improving the timeliness of diagnosis.

Routes to Diagnosis for Suspected Sarcoma: The Impact of Symptoms and Clinical Findings on the Diagnostic Process.

Background and Objectives. Sarcoma patients often experience delay before diagnosis. We examined the association between presenting symptoms/signs and time intervals for suspected sarcoma patients. Methods. 545 consecutive patients suspected for sarcoma referred over a one-year period were included. Median time intervals in routes to diagnosis were collected from medical records and questionnaires. Results. 102 patients (18.7%) had a sarcoma; 68 (12.5%) had other malignancies. Median interval for the patient (time from first symptom to first doctor visit), primary care, local hospital, sarcoma center, diagnostic, and total interval for sarcoma patients were 77, 17, 29, 17, 65, and 176 days, respectively. Sarcoma patients visited more hospital departments and had longer median primary care (+10 days) and diagnostic intervals (+19 days) than patients with benign conditions. Median primary care (−19 days) and sarcoma center (−4 days) intervals were shorter for patients with a lump versus no lump. Median patient (+40 days), primary care (+12 days), diagnostic (+17 days), and total intervals (+78 days) were longer for patients presenting with pain versus no pain. GP suspicion of malignancy shortened local hospital (−20 days) and total intervals (−104 days). Conclusions. The main part of delay could be attributed to the patient and local hospitals. Length of time intervals was associated with presenting symptoms/signs and GP suspicion.

The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers.

Background:Appreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus.Methods:We analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on 10 953 patients with any of 28 cancers. We calculated summary statistics for the length of the patient and the primary care interval and their ratio, by cancer site.Results:Interval lengths varied greatly by cancer. Laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancers had the longest median patient intervals, whereas renal and bladder cancer had the shortest (34.5 and 30 compared with 3 and 2 days, respectively). Multiple myeloma and gallbladder cancer had the longest median primary care intervals, and melanoma and breast cancer had the shortest (20.5 and 20 compared with 0 and 0 days, respectively). Mean patient intervals were longer than primary care intervals for most (18 of 28) cancers, and notably so (two- to five-fold greater) for 10 cancers (breast, melanoma, testicular, vulval, cervical, endometrial, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, ovarian and thyroid).Conclusions:The findings support the continuing development and evaluation of public health interventions aimed at shortening patient intervals, particularly for cancers with long patient interval and/or high patient interval over primary care interval ratio.

Impact of investigations in general practice on timeliness of referral for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer: analysis of national primary care audit data.

Background:For patients with symptoms of possible cancer who do not fulfil the criteria for urgent referral, initial investigation in primary care has been advocated in the United Kingdom and supported by additional resources. The consequence of this strategy for the timeliness of diagnosis is unknown.Methods:We analysed data from the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on patients with lung (1494), colorectal (2111), stomach (246), oesophagus (513), pancreas (327), and ovarian (345) cancer relating to the ordering of investigations by the General Practitioner and their nature. Presenting symptoms were categorised according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on referral for suspected cancer. We used linear regression to estimate the mean difference in primary-care interval by cancer, after adjustment for age, gender, and the symptomatic presentation category.Results:Primary-care investigations were undertaken in 3198/5036 (64%) of cases. The median primary-care interval was 16 days (IQR 5–45) for patients undergoing investigation and 0 days (IQR 0–10) for those not investigated. Among patients whose symptoms mandated urgent referral to secondary care according to NICE guidelines, between 37% (oesophagus) and 75% (pancreas) were first investigated in primary care. In multivariable linear regression analyses stratified by cancer site, adjustment for age, sex, and NICE referral category explained little of the observed prolongation associated with investigation.Interpretation:For six specified cancers, investigation in primary care was associated with later referral for specialist assessment. This effect was independent of the nature of symptoms. Some patients for whom urgent referral is mandated by NICE guidance are nevertheless investigated before referral. Reducing the intervals between test order, test performance, and reporting can help reduce the prolongation of primary-care intervals associated with investigation use. Alternative models of assessment should be considered.

A geographical cluster randomised stepped wedge study of continuing medical education and cancer diagnosis in general practice.

BackgroundDenmark has inferior cancer survival rates compared with many European countries. The main reason for this is suggested to be late diagnosis at advanced cancer stages. Cancer diagnostic work-up begins in general practice in 85% of all cancer cases. Thus, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the diagnostic process. The latest Danish Cancer Plan included continuing medical education (CME) on early cancer diagnosis in general practice to improve early diagnosis. This dual aims of this protocol are, first, to describe the conceptualisation, operationalisation and implementation of the CME and, second, to describe the study design and outcomes chosen to evaluate the effects of the CME.Methods/DesignThe intervention is a CME in early cancer diagnosis targeting individual GPs. It was developed by a step-wise approach. Barriers for early cancer diagnosis at GP level were identified systematically and analysed using the behaviour system involving capability, opportunity and motivation described by Michie et al. The study will be designed as a geographical cluster randomised stepped wedge study. The study population counts 836 GPs from 417 general practices in the Central Denmark Region, geographically divided into eight clusters. GPs from each cluster will be invited to a CME meeting at a certain date three weeks apart. The primary outcomes will be primary care interval and GP referral rate on cancer suspicion. Data will be obtained from national registries, GP-completed forms on patients referred to cancer fast-track pathways and GP-completed online questionnaires before and after the intervention.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first study to measure the effect of a theory-based CME in early cancer diagnosis at three levels: GP knowledge and attitude, GP activity and patient outcomes. The achieved knowledge will contribute to the understanding of whether and how general practice’s ability to perform cancer diagnosis may be improved.Trial registrationRegistered as NCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0159-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding variation in the timeliness of diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients.

301 Background: Diagnosing cancer promptly in symptomatic patients is a priority for healthcare systems worldwide, but little is known about how initiatives can be targeted to patients at greater risk. Methods: UK data on the number of consultations with a family doctor before specialist referral (‘pre-referral consultations’); the time interval from presentation to referral (‘primary care interval’); and stage at diagnosis, were analysed using multivariable regression models. Results: Both patient experience (41,299 patients, 24 cancers) and clinical audit (13,031 patients, 18 cancers) data indicated wide variation in two correlated measures* of the difficulty of suspecting the diagnosis of cancer once the patient had presented to their family doctor. For example, >30% of patients with multiple myeloma, pancreatic and lung cancer experienced three or more pre-referral consultations; in contrast, this was true for <10% of patients with breast cancer and melanoma (p<0.001). Adjusting for diagnostic case-mix, younger and ethnic minority patients, and women, were more likely to experience three or more pre-referral consultations. Data from 88,657 patients (10 cancers) suggested socio-demographic disparities in stage at diagnosis for some only cancers: For patients with melanoma, breast and endometrial cancer, lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher risk of advanced stage at diagnosis and for, these three cancers, the same was true for older age. Conclusions: Different diagnostic intervals vary widely by cancer diagnosis and patient characteristics. Notable disparities in stage at diagnosis are apparent for ‘easy-to-suspect’ cancers (which are associated with minimal delay post-presentation), strongly implicating psychosocial patient factors as the source of these disparities. These findings can help to appropriately target early diagnosis policy initiatives and future research to patients at greater risk of prolonged diagnostic intervals. *Number of pre-referral consultations with a primary care physician and length of primary care interval (Spearman’s r=0.70).

Patient delay in cancer diagnosis: what do we really mean and can we be more specific?

BackgroundEarly diagnosis is a key focus of cancer control because of its association with survival. Delays in diagnosis can occur throughout the diagnostic pathway, within any one of its three component intervals: the patient interval, the primary care interval and the secondary care interval.DiscussionA key focus for help-seeking research in patients with symptoms of cancer has been the concept of ‘delay’. The literature is plagued by definitional and semantic problems, which serve to hinder comparison between studies. Use of the word ‘delay’ has been criticised as judgemental and potentially stigmatising, because of its implications of intent. However, the suggested alternatives (time to presentation, appraisal interval, help-seeking interval and postponement of help-seeking) still fail to accurately define the concept in hand, and often conflate three quite separate ideas; that of an interval, that of an unacceptably long interval, and that of a specific event which caused delay in the diagnostic process. We discuss the need to disentangle current terminology and suggest the term ‘prolonged interval’ as a more appropriate alternative. Most studies treat the patient interval as a dichotomous variable, with cases beyond a specified time point classified as ‘delay’. However, there are inconsistencies in both where this line is drawn, ranging from one week to three months, and how, with some studies imposing seemingly arbitrary time points, others utilising the median as a divisive tool or exploring quartiles within their data. This not only makes comparison problematic, but, as many studies do not differentiate between cancer site, also imposes boundaries which are not necessarily site-relevant. We argue that analysis of the patient interval should be based on presenting symptom, as opposed to pathology, to better reflect the context of the help-seeking interval, and suggest how new definitional boundaries could be developed.SummaryThe word ‘delay’ is currently (conf)used to describe diverse conceptualisations of ‘delay’ and more mindful, and discerning language needs to be developed to enable a more sophisticated discussion. By stratifying help-seeking by presenting symptom(s), more accurate and informative analyses could be produced which, in turn, would result in more accurately targeted early diagnosis interventions.

Socio-economic inequalities in patient, primary care, referral, diagnostic, and treatment intervals on the lung cancer care pathway: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundEarly diagnosis and treatment of cancer is thought to be important for improving survival. Longer time between the onset of cancer symptoms and receipt of treatment may help explain the poorer survival of UK cancer patients compared to that in other countries.Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of, and time to, treatment may contribute to socio-economic differences in cancer survival. Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment have been shown in a recent systematic review. However, no systematic review of the evidence for socio-economic inequalities in time to presentation (patient interval), time to first investigation (primary care interval), time to secondary care investigation (referral interval), time to diagnosis (diagnostic interval), and time to treatment (treatment interval) has been conducted.This review aims to assess the published and grey literature evidence for socio-economic inequalities in the length of time spent on the lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway, examining interim intervals on the pathway where inequalities might occur.MethodsSystematic methods will be used to identify relevant studies, assess study eligibility for inclusion, and evaluate study quality. The online databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL will be searched to locate cohort studies of adults with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer; where the outcome is mean or median time to the interval endpoint (or a suitable proxy measure of this), or the likelihood of longer or shorter time to the endpoint; analysed by a measure of socio-economic position. Meta-analysis will be conducted if there are sufficient studies available with suitable data.DiscussionThis review will systematically determine if there are socio-economic inequalities in time from symptom onset to treatment for lung cancer. If such inequalities are present, our review evidence will help inform the development of interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment, ultimately helping to reduce socio-economic inequalities in survival.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42014007145

Ethnic inequalities in time to diagnosis of cancer: a systematic review

BackgroundMinimising diagnostic delays in cancer may help improve survival. Ethnic minorities have worse outcomes in some cancer types when compared to the majority; this may relate in part to differences during the diagnostic phase. Only a few British studies have specifically explored this relationship, and no synthesis of these exists. The present study aimed to systematically review evidence on ethnic inequalities in cancer diagnosis, focussing on patient and primary care intervals of diagnosis.MethodsSix electronic databases were searched. Included studies were those conducted in the UK or elsewhere (where access to healthcare is comparable to the NHS) and those that described a time element during diagnosis. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies and synthesis method was narrative.ResultsSeven of 8,520 studies retrieved by our search met the review criteria; six conducted in the UK, and one in New Zealand. Five (including one covering several sites) focused on breast cancer, one on prostate, and one on oesophagogastric cancer. The studies employed different methods of ascertainment and definition of ethnic groups and defined diagnostic delay in a non-standardised way; therefore, narrative synthesis was performed. In breast cancer, three studies reported longer diagnostic intervals among ethnic minorities and two found no evidence of differences by ethnicity. There was some evidence of longer diagnostic and referral intervals among ethnic minorities in oesophagogastric and colorectal cancers, but no evidence of this in prostate, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lung, and ovarian cancers. None of the studies identified shorter patient or primary care intervals in ethnic minorities.ConclusionsExisting studies provide insufficient evidence to confirm or refute ethnic inequalities in diagnostic intervals of cancer. Further studies are necessary to examine common cancer types including those frequently found in ethnic minorities (in addition to those covered here) and using current definitions of intervals in cancer diagnosis.

Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care

Sir, In their discussion Lyratzopoulos et al (2003) make the crucial point that they were not able to examine whether prolonged values of either the primary care interval or the number of pre-referral consultations were either justifiable or preventable. We also wish to question the widely held assumption that optimum care necessitates correctly identifying and referring a patient with serious illness (cancer) during the first consultation? This implies that reviewing a patient over time may cause harm as a consequence of delayed referral and subsequent diagnosis. One of the most important diagnostic tasks performed by general practitioners is discriminating between the majority of patients with minor, usually self-limiting illness and the minority with serious disease such as cancer. We have previously argued that the test re-test opportunity afforded by reviewing a patient maximises the gain in certainty in low prevalence settings such as general practice, the time efficiency principle (Irving and Holden, 2013). Arranging a follow-up consultation when presented with a patient with non-specific symptoms that may indicate major pathology frequently provides an opportunity to safely and efficiently reduce the number needed to predict (the number of patients that need to be examined in order to predict a diagnosis of a given cancer in one patient). The authors provide two examples of ‘more challenging cancers without specific symptoms'. One GP can expect to see a new case of each during their whole professional career. Furthermore, the median primary care intervals for these two cancers were 14 and 21 days, respectively. This suggests that GPs may well be performing effectively by picking up these difficult cancers by using the time efficiency principle and further improvement may thus be extremely hard to achieve. Therefore, the opportunities to improve the performance of GPs may be remote. The cost of additional investigation and referral in these circumstances may also far exceed any possible benefit to patients. We therefore consider that the key issue is ‘what is the optimum number of consultations required to safely and efficiently reduce the number needed to predict while keeping delays below biologically plausible limits for individual cancers?' We should be open to the possibility that this may paradoxically be more than one consultation. Indeed, we estimate that optimum range will often be about 1–3 consultations based on the evidence presented in this paper.

Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers.

Background:Evidence is needed about the promptness of cancer diagnosis and associations between its measures.Methods:We analysed data from the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care 2009–10 exploring the association between the interval from first symptomatic presentation to specialist referral (the primary care interval, or ‘interval' hereafter) and the number of pre-referral consultations.Results:Among 13 035 patients with any of 18 different cancers, most (82%) were referred after 1 (58%) or 2 (25%) consultations (median intervals 0 and 15 days, respectively) while 9%, 4% and 5% patients required 3, 4 or 5+ consultations (median intervals 34, 47 and 97 days, respectively) (Spearman's r=0.70). The association was at least moderate for any cancer (Spearman's r range: 0.55 (prostate)−0.77 (brain)). Patients with cancers with a higher proportion of three or more pre-referral consultations typically also had longer median intervals (e.g., multiple myeloma) and vice versa (e.g., breast cancer).Conclusion:The number of pre-referral consultations has construct validity as a measure of the primary care interval. Developing interventions to reduce the number of pre-referral consultations can help improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, and constitutes a priority for early diagnosis initiatives and research.