Primary Care Interval Research Articles

Determining diagnostic delays in Romanian multiple myeloma patients using the Aarhus statement

IntroductionMultiple Myeloma (MM) is classified as one of the most challenging cancers to diagnose, and the hematological malignancy is associated with prolonged diagnostic delays. Although major steps have been made in the improvement of MM patient diagnosis and care, Romanian patients still face long diagnostic delays. Thus far, there have been no studies evaluating the factors associated with diagnostic errors in Romanian MM patients.MethodsUsing the Aarhus statement, we prospectively determined the diagnostic intervals for 103 patients diagnosed with MM at Fundeni Clinical Institute, between January 2022 and March 2023.ResultsOur data revealed that the main diagnostic delays are experienced during the “patient interval.” Patients spend a median of 162 days from the first symptom onset until the first doctor appointment. Bone pain is the most frequently reported symptom by patients (78.64%), but it leads to a medical-seeking behavior in only half of the reporting patients and results in a median delay of 191 days. The changes in routine lab tests are considered most worrisome for patients, leading to a medical appointment after a median of only 25 days. The median primary care interval was 70 days, with patients having an average of 3.7 medical visits until MM suspicion was first raised. The secondary care interval did not contribute to the diagnostic delays.DiscussionOverall, the median diagnostic path for MM patients in Romania was more than 6 months, leading to a higher number of emergency presentations and myeloma-related end-organ damage.

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

ObjectivesThe 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...

Associations between patient-level health literacy and diagnostic time intervals for head and neck cancer: A prospective cohort study.

Health literacy (HL) comprises skills and knowledge required to understand, access, and make decisions about healthcare. Our aim was to examine associations between patient HL and time intervals (defined in the Aarhus statement) along the pathway to treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC). A prospective cohort study was conducted from October 2018 to March 2020. Participants completed the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ®) and described key events and dates along the pathway to treatment using validated questionnaires. Correlations between six diagnostic time intervals and domains of HL were explored, and factors predicting exceeding maximum acceptable timeframes were assessed using logistic regression. One hundred patients with a diagnosis of HNC within the preceding 6 months were recruited. HLQ® Domain 2 (sufficient information to manage health) was significantly negatively associated with four intervals: the patient interval (first symptom to first presentation), primary care interval (first presentation to referral to secondary care), diagnostic interval (first presentation to diagnosis), and total interval (first symptom to treatment onset); correlation coefficients -0.25 to -0.27 (P < 0.05). Domain 8 (ability to find good information) was significantly negatively associated with three intervals (primary care interval, diagnostic interval, and total interval; correlation coefficients -0.23 to -0.34; P < 0.05). Higher education, age, and comorbidity levels were associated with shorter patient and diagnostic intervals. HL may be a potential target to improve timeliness of HNC diagnosis and reduce disparities in outcomes.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis.

Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak-Delayed Referral of Colorectal and Lung Cancer in Primary Care: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1-29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6-230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3-47) to 41 days (IQR 7-102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2-7) to 6 days (IQR 3-9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9-52), 18 (IQR 7-40), and 9 (IQR 3-44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis.

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data

ObjectivesA growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4...

The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Longer time intervals to diagnosis and treatment are associated with worse survival for various types of cancer. The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals are considered core indicators for early diagnosis and treatment. This review estimated the median duration of these intervals for various types of cancer and compared it across high- and lower-income countries. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis (prospectively registered protocol CRD42020200752). Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) and information sources including grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, EThOS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) were searched. Eligible articles were published during 2009 to 2022 and reported the duration of the following intervals in adult patients diagnosed with primary symptomatic cancer: patient interval (from the onset of symptoms to first presentation to a healthcare professional), diagnostic interval (from first presentation to diagnosis), and treatment interval (from diagnosis to treatment start). Interval duration was recorded in days and study medians were combined in a pooled estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Aarhus checklist. A total of 410 articles representing 68 countries and reporting on 5,537,594 patients were included. The majority of articles reported data from high-income countries (n = 294, 72%), with 116 (28%) reporting data from lower-income countries. Pooled meta-analytic estimates were possible for 38 types of cancer. The majority of studies were conducted on patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and head and neck cancer. In studies from high-income countries, pooled median patient intervals generally did not exceed a month for most cancers. However, in studies from lower-income countries, patient intervals were consistently 1.5 to 4 times longer for almost all cancer sites. The majority of data on the diagnostic and treatment intervals came from high-income countries. Across both high- and lower-income countries, the longest diagnostic intervals were observed for hematological (71 days [95% CI 52 to 85], e.g., myelomas (83 days [47 to 145])), genitourinary (58 days [50 to 77], e.g., prostate (85 days [57 to 112])), and digestive/gastrointestinal (57 days [45 to 67], e.g., colorectal (63 days [48 to 78])) cancers. Similarly, the longest treatment intervals were observed for genitourinary (57 days [45 to 66], e.g., prostate (75 days [61 to 87])) and gynecological (46 days [38 to 54], e.g., cervical (69 days [45 to 108]) cancers. In studies from high-income countries, the implementation of cancer-directed policies was associated with shorter patient and diagnostic intervals for several cancers. This review included a large number of studies conducted worldwide but is limited by survivor bias and the inherent complexity and many possible biases in the measurement of time points and intervals in the cancer treatment pathway. In addition, the subintervals that compose the diagnostic interval (e.g., primary care interval, referral to diagnosis interval) were not considered. These results identify the cancers where diagnosis and treatment initiation may take the longest and reveal the extent of global disparities in early diagnosis and treatment. Efforts should be made to reduce help-seeking times for cancer symptoms in lower-income countries. Estimates for the diagnostic and treatment intervals came mostly from high-income countries that have powerful health information systems in place to record such information.

Primary care blood tests before cancer diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data.

Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in patients with cancer but how often they are used is unclear. To explore use of common blood tests before cancer diagnosis in primary care. English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39 752 patients with cancer diagnosed in 2018. Common blood test use (full blood count [FBC], urea and electrolytes [U&E], and liver function tests [LFTs]), variation by patient and symptom group, and associations with the primary care interval and the diagnostic interval were assessed. At least one common blood test was used in 41% (n = 16 427/39 752) of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Among tested patients, (n = 16 427), FBC was used in 95% (n = 15 540), U&E in 89% (n = 14 555), and LFTs in 76% (n = 12 414). Blood testing was less common in females (adjusted odds ratio versus males: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 0.98) and Black and minority ethnic patients (0.89, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.97 versus White), and more common in older patients (1.12, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.18 for ≥70 years versus 50-69 years). Test use varied greatly by cancer site (melanoma 2% [ n = 55/2297]; leukaemia 84% [ n = 552/661]). Fewer patients presenting with alarm symptoms alone were tested (24% [ n = 3341/13 778]) than those with non-alarm symptoms alone (50% [ n = 8223/16 487]). Median primary care interval and diagnostic interval were longer in tested than non-tested patients (primary care interval: 10 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 49 versus 32 days, respectively, P<0.001 for both), including among tested patients with alarm symptoms (primary care interval: 4 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 41 versus 22 days). Two-fifths of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer have primary care blood tests as part of their diagnostic process. Given variable test use, research is needed on the clinical context in which blood tests are ordered.

Demora en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de 5 tipos de cáncer en 2 centros de salud urbanos

ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic (ID) and treatment (IT) intervals of the most prevalent cancers in patients attached to two health centres and to analyse the influence of sociodemographic, clinical and health system (HS) organisational factors. DesignObservational, retrospective, analytical cohort study. SitePrimary care. Two urban health centres. ParticipantsThree hundred sixty-five patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), breast, lung, prostate or bladder cancer between 1/1/2012 and 31/12/2017. Main measuresThe medians of ID and IT and the risk (OR) of ID and IT above those medians according to the above factors are compared. The contribution of each process step to ID is analysed. ResultsMedian ID was 92 days, maximum in prostate cancer (395 days) and minimum in lung (54 days). Factors associated with prolonged ID (OR>92 days) were female sex, CRC or prostate location, localised stage, index primary care (AP) consultation and outpatient diagnostic pathway. Prolonged IT (OR>56 days) was related to CRC or prostate location and outpatient diagnostic route. ID components with the greatest influence on delay were: Primary Care Interval (IAP), Secondary Care Delay (DAS) and Secondary Care Adjunctive Test Delay (DPAS). The contribution of IAP was highest in patients with CRC, lung and bladder. ConclusionsID and IT were 92 and 56 days respectively. The ID components with the highest contribution to delay were IAP, DAS and DPAS. Increasing diagnostic capacity in PC and organising specific diagnostic and treatment pathways would shorten these intervals and allow earlier detection.

Morbidity and measures of the diagnostic process in primary care for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

BackgroundThere is uncertainty regarding how pre-existing conditions (morbidities) may influence the primary care investigation and management of individuals subsequently diagnosed with cancer.MethodsWe identified morbidities using information from both primary and secondary care records among 11,716 patients included in the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) 2014. We examined variation in 5 measures of the diagnostic process (the primary care interval, diagnostic interval, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care-led investigations, and referral type) by both primary care- and hospital records-derived measures of morbidity.ResultsMorbidity prevalence recorded before cancer diagnosis was almost threefold greater using the primary care (75%) vs secondary care-derived measure (28%). After adjustment, there was limited variation in the primary care interval and the number of pre-referral consultations by either definition of morbidity. Patients with more severe morbidities were less likely to have had a primary care-led investigation before cancer diagnosis compared with those without any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.60–0.86] for Charlson score 3+ vs 0; joint P < 0.001). Patients with multiple primary care-recorded conditions or a Charlson score of 3+ were more likely to have diagnostic intervals exceeding 60 days (aOR: 1.26 [1.10–1.45] and 1.19 [>1.00–1.41], respectively), and more likely to receive an emergency referral (aOR: 1.60 [1.26–2.02] and 1.61 [1.26–2.06], respectively).ConclusionAmong cancer cases with up to 2 morbidities, there was no evidence of differences in diagnostic processes and intervals in primary care but higher morbidity burden was associated with longer time to diagnosis and higher likelihood of emergency referral.

Patients' health literacy is associated with timely diagnosis of cancer-A cross-sectional study in Denmark.

Timely diagnosis of cancer is important for prognosis. Patients' health literacy (HL) may impact differences of diagnostic delays. Thus, we aim to explore the association between HL and diagnostic intervals in cancer. Questionnaire data were obtained from patients with cancer diagnosed in 2016 and their general practitioner (n = 3890). The primary care interval (PCI) and the diagnostic interval (DI) were calculated using dates from national registries and questionnaires. A long PCI and DI were defined as ≥75th percentile. HL was assessed using scales from the Health Literacy Questionnaire: engaging with healthcare providers (scale 6:Engagement, n = 3008), navigating in healthcare (scale 7:Navigation, n = 2827) and understanding health information (scale 9:Knowledge, n = 3002). Low HL was defined as a score ≤3. Low HL was reported by 12.2% (Engagement), 27.0% (Navigation) and 9.3% (Knowledge) of the patients and associated with a long PCI after adjustment of socio-economic factors: Engagement (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] 1.27 [95% CI 1.01-1.60]), Navigation (PRR 1.41 [95% CI 1.10-1.80]) and Knowledge (PRR 1.32 [95% CI 1.03-1.68]). No association was found between HL and DI. HL may interfere with the diagnostic processes in general practice. Efforts to manage low HL include GPs' awareness of patients' ability to explain and respond to bodily changes and use of corresponding safety-netting strategies.

Impact of the Presenting Symptom on Time Intervals and Diagnostic Routes of Patients with Symptomatic Oral Cancer.

Simple SummaryInformation about the relative length of patient stays, primary care, and prereferral intervals (from symptom onset to specialist referral) is very scarce, and how the presenting symptoms influence these intervals and referral routes remains unknown. This study assesses the impact of presenting symptoms on time intervals, number of visits at the primary care level, and referral pattern of patients with symptomatic oral cancer. This approach will allow targets to be identified for future interventions and the optimization of the treatment pathway for symptomatic oral cancer patients.This investigation was aimed at determining the time intervals from the presenting symptoms until the beginning of oral cancer treatment and their relative contribution to the total time, and to assess the impact of the presenting symptom on diagnostic timelines and patient referral routes. A cross-sectional, ambispective study was designed to investigate symptomatic incident cases. The Aarhus statement was used as a conceptual framework. Strategies for minimizing potential recall biases were implemented. A sample of 181 patients was recruited (power: 99.5%; α = 0.05). The patient interval reached 58.2 days (95% CI, 40.3–76.2), which accounted for 74% of the whole prereferral interval and for more than one third of the total time interval. The presenting symptom (trigger for consultation) influenced both the number of primary care consultations and the length of time to diagnosis. General dental practitioners generated longer intervals to diagnosis (p < 0.005) and needed more consultations before referring a patient (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61–0.93), than general medical practitioners. The current study identifies the patient as the main target for interventions to improve awareness and reinforces the need for increased alertness amongst healthcare professionals about presenting symptoms of oral cancer and to diminish the number of prereferral consultations in order to optimize the primary care interval.

Alignment between the patient\u2019s cancer worry and the GP\u2019s cancer suspicion and the association with the interval between first symptom presentation and referral: a cross-sectional study in Denmark

BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) have a key role in the diagnosis of cancer. It is crucial to identify factors influencing the decision to refer for suspected cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the alignment between the patient’s cancer worry and the GP’s suspicion of cancer in the first clinical encounter and the association with the time interval from the first symptom presentation until the first referral to specialist care, i.e. the primary care interval (PCI).MethodThe study was performed as a cross-sectional study using survey data on patients diagnosed with incident cancer in 2010 or 2016 and their GPs in Denmark. We defined four alignment groups: 1) patient worry and GP suspicion, 2) GP suspicion only, 3) patient worry only, and 4) none of the two. A long PCI was defined as an interval longer than the 75th percentile.ResultsAmong the 3333 included patients, both patient worry and GP suspicion was seen in 39.5%, only GP suspicion was seen in 28.2%, only patient worry was seen in 13.6%, and neither patient worry nor GP suspicion was seen in 18.2%. The highest likelihood of long PCI was observed in group 4 (group 4 vs. group 1: PPR 3.99 (95% CI 3.34–4.75)), mostly pronounced for easy-to-diagnose cancer types.ConclusionMisalignment between the patient’s worry and the GP’s suspicion was common at the first cancer-related encounter. Importance should be given to the patient interview, due to a potential delayed GP referral among patients diagnosed with “easy-to-diagnose” cancer types presenting with unspecific symptoms.

Cancer suspicion, referral to cancer patient pathway and primary care interval: a survey and register study exploring 10 different types of abdominal cancer.

Abdominal cancers represent 30% of all diagnosed cancers. Nevertheless, it is unknown if the general practitioner's (GP's) initial cancer suspicion varies for different abdominal cancer types and how this is associated with referrals to standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs). To explore initial cancer suspicion in GPs and to investigate how this was associated with GP referrals to CPPs and the duration of the primary care interval (PCI) in 10 different abdominal cancer types. We conducted a cohort study on 1104 incident abdominal cancer patients diagnosed in Denmark in 2016 using a combination of survey and register-based data. Poisson regression was used to estimate associations between GP cancer suspicion, CPP referral and PCI duration. The GPs initially suspected cancer or other serious disease in 46-78% of cases, lowest in kidney cancer, and referred 35-65% to a CPP, lowest in oesophageal cancer. The GP's suspicion at the first presentation was strongly associated with referral to a CPP. The median (0-11 days) and 75th percentile (3-32 days) PCIs varied between the abdominal cancer types. The likelihood of a long PCI was more than 3-fold higher when the GP did not initially suspect cancer. In up to half of abdominal cancer patients, there is no initial suspicion of cancer or serious disease. CPPs were used in only one-third to two-thirds of patients, depending on cancer type. For kidney cancer, as well as several abdominal cancers, we need better diagnostic strategies to support GPs to enable effective and efficient referral.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

BackgroundCompared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial.MethodsThe ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation.DiscussionThis study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559.

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

BackgroundMost patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at advanced stages. However, the advent of oral targeted therapies has improved the prognosis of many patients with lung cancer.PurposeWe aimed to understand...

Incidence of Ewing's Sarcoma in Different Age Groups, Their Associated Features, and Its Correlation With Primary Care Interval.

IntroductionPrimary care interval is the time duration from a patient’s first presentation to the final diagnosis. Ewing’s sarcoma is a rare small round blue cell bone tumor originating from neuroectoderm and undifferentiated neuroepithelial cells, having an annual incidence of approximately one case per million in the United States. In this study, we analyzed the age pattern among patients diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma undergoing management, along with associated features including involved site, regional lymphadenopathy, and distant metastasis at the time of presentation and their correlation with the primary care interval.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study carried out at the Oncology department of a Tertiary Care Government Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. The duration of our study was from January 2020 to December 2020. During this period, all patients with proven diagnosis of Ewing’s sarcoma between ages 10 years and 65 years were included in the study. All the participants of the study were divided into groups, based on the age and site of the tumor.ResultsA total of 895 cases of bone cancer were reported. Among these, 147 cases (16.4%) had Ewing’s sarcoma. Of these patients, 88 were male (60%) while 59 (40%) were female. The mean age of patients was 18.9 ± 3.2 years. Ewing’s sarcoma most commonly occurred during 15 to 20 years of age. The most common region involved was lower limb (n=76, 52%) followed by upper limb (n=63, 43%) followed by pelvis (n=8, 5.4%).ConclusionThe peak time for the occurrence of Ewing’s sarcoma is from 15 years to 20 years of age. Regional painful swelling is the most common presenting feature in our study population. Factors causing a prolonged primary care interval include early age of onset, non-specific clinical presentation, and insufficient knowledge of the primary care physician, which results in poor prognosis. Hence, it is important to consider Ewing’s sarcoma as a differential on the first presentation especially in the high-risk age group.

Time Intervals Under the Lens at Sweden's First Diagnostic Center for Primary Care Patients With Nonspecific Symptoms of Cancer. A Comparison With Matched Control Patients.

IntroductionFast-track referral pathways for patients with nonspecific, serious symptoms have been implemented in several countries. Our objective was to analyze time intervals in the diagnostic routes of patients diagnosed with cancer at Sweden’s first Diagnostic Center (DC) for nonspecific symptoms and compare with time intervals of matched control patients.MethodsAdult patients with nonspecific symptoms that could not be explained by an initial investigation in primary care were eligible for referral to the DC. Patients diagnosed with cancer were matched with patients at another hospital within the same healthcare organization. We aimed for two control patients per DC-patient and matched on tumor type, age and sex. Five time intervals were compared: 1) patient interval (first symptom—primary care contact), 2) primary care interval (first visit—referral to the DC/secondary care), 3) diagnostic interval (first visit—cancer diagnosis), 4) information interval (cancer diagnosis—patient informed) and 5) treatment interval (cancer diagnosis—treatment start). Comparisons between groups and matched cohort analyses were made.ResultsSixty-four patients (22.1%) were diagnosed with cancer at the DC, of which eight were not matchable. Forty-two patients were matched with two controls and 14 were matched with one control. There were no significant differences in patient-, primary care-, or diagnostic intervals between the groups. The information interval was shorter at the DC compared to the control group (difference between matched pairs 7 days, p = 0.001) and the treatment interval was also shorter at the DC with significant differences in the matched analysis (difference between matched pairs 13 days, p = 0.049). The findings remained the same in four sensitivity analyses, made to compensate for differences between the groups.ConclusionsUp to diagnosis, we could not detect significant differences in time intervals between the DC and the control group. However, the shorter information and treatment intervals at the DC should be advantageous for these patients who will get timely access to treatment or palliative care. Due to limitations regarding comparability between the groups, the results must be interpreted with caution and further research is warranted.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov-ID: NCT01709539. Registration-date: October 18, 2012.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose becausepresenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions.Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it maymake it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

CASNET2: evaluation of an electronic safety netting cancer toolkit for the primary care electronic health record: protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge RCT

IntroductionSafety-netting in primary care is the best practice in cancer diagnosis, ensuring that patients are followed up until symptoms are explained or have resolved. Currently, clinicians use haphazard manual solutions....