Primary Care Interval Research Articles

Presentation intervals and the impact of delay on breast cancer progression in a black African population

BackgroundThe help-seeking interval and primary-care interval are points of delays in breast cancer presentation. To inform future intervention targeting early diagnosis of breast cancer, we described the contribution of each interval to the delay and the impact of delay on tumor progression.MethodWe conducted a multicentered survey from June 2017 to May 2018 hypothesizing that most patients visited the first healthcare provider within 60 days of tumor detection. Inferential statistics were by t-test, chi-square test, and Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test at p-value 0.05 or 95% confidence limits. Time-to-event was by survival method. Multivariate analysis was by logistic regression.ResultsRespondents were females between 24 and 95 years (n = 420). Most respondents visited FHP within 60 days of detecting symptoms (230 (60, 95% CI 53–63). Most had long primary-care (237 of 377 (64 95% CI 59–68) and detection-to-specialist (293 (73% (95% CI 68–77)) intervals. The primary care interval (median 106 days, IQR 13–337) was longer than the help-seeking interval (median 42 days, IQR 7–150) Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 0.001. There was a strong correlation between the length of primary care interval and the detection-to-specialist interval (r = 0.9, 95% CI 0.88–0.92). Patronizing the hospital, receiving the correct advice, and having a big tumor (> 5 cm) were associated with short intervals.Tumors were detected early, but most became advanced before arriving at the specialist clinic. The difference in tumor size between detection and arriving at a specialist clinic was 5.0 ± 4.9 cm (95% CI 4.0–5.0). The hazard of progressing from early to locally advanced disease was least in the first 30 days (3%). The hazard was 31% in 90 days.ConclusionMost respondents presented early to the first healthcare provider, but most arrived late at a specialist clinic. The primary care interval was longer than the help-seeking interval. Most tumors were early at detection but locally advanced before arriving in a specialist clinic. Interventions aiming to shorten the primary care interval will have the most impact on time to breast cancer presentation for specialist oncology care in Nigeria.

Time to diagnosis of symptomatic gastric and oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: Where is the room for improvement?

BackgroundAn efficient diagnostic pathway and early stage diagnosis for cancer patients is widely pursued. This study aims to chart the duration of the diagnostic pathway for patients with symptomatic oesophageal and gastric cancer, to identify factors associated with long duration and to assess the association of duration with tumour stage at diagnosis.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study, using electronic health records of six routine primary care databases covering about 640,000 patients, partly linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Symptomatic patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer (2010–2015) that presented in primary care were included. Duration of four diagnostic intervals was determined: patient interval; first symptoms to primary care consultation, primary care interval; consultation to referral, secondary care interval; referral to diagnosis, and the diagnostic interval; consultation to diagnosis. Characteristics associated with ‘long duration’ (≥P75 duration) were assessed using log-binomial regression. Median durations were stratified for tumour stages.ResultsAmong 312 symptomatic patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer, median durations were: patient interval: 29 days (interquartile interval 15–73), primary care interval: 12 days (interquartile interval 1–43), secondary care interval: 13 days (interquartile interval 6–29) and diagnostic interval: 31 days (11–74). Patient interval duration was comparable for patients with and without alarm symptoms. Absence of cancer-specific alarm symptoms was associated with ‘long duration’ of primary care interval and secondary care interval: relative risk 5.0 (95% confidence interval 2.7–9.1) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.3–3.7), respectively. Median diagnostic interval duration for local stage disease was 51 days (interquartile interval 13–135) versus 27 days (interquartile interval 11–71) for advanced stage (p = 0.07).ConclusionIn the diagnostic pathway of upper gastrointestinal cancers, the longest interval is the patient interval. Reducing time to diagnosis may be achieved by improving patients’ awareness of alarm symptoms and by diagnostic strategies which better identify cancer patients despite low suspicion.

Cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care: Results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

To characterize cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care and draw comparisons with cancer diagnostic activity in England. A national audit of cancer diagnosis was conducted in Scottish and English general practices. Participating GPs collected diagnostic pathway data on patients diagnosed in 2014 from medical records. Data were supplemented by linkage to national cancer registries. Analysis explored and compared patient characteristics, diagnostic intervals, and routes to diagnosis. 7.7% of all Scottish general practices in 2017 provided data on 2,014 cancer diagnoses. 71.5% of cases presented to GPs and 37.4% were referred using the "Urgent-Suspected Cancer" route. The median primary care interval was 5days (IQR 0-23days) and median diagnostic interval was 30days (IQR 13-68). Both varied by cancer-site. Diagnostic intervals were longer in the most remote patients and those with more comorbidities. Scottish and English samples corresponded closely in key characteristics. Most people diagnosed with cancer in Scotland present to a GP first. Most are referred and diagnosed quickly, with variations by cancer-site. Intervals were longest for the most remote patients. GPs in Scotland and England appear to perform equally but, in view of growing differences between health systems, future comparative audits may be informative.

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...

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

ObjectiveDifferences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports...

The pathway to diagnosis and treatment for surgically managed lung cancer patients.

Most lung cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage, resulting in poor survival. This study examined diagnostic pathways for patients with operable lung cancer to identify factors contributing to early diagnosis. Surgically treated lung cancer patients (aged ≥40, within 6 months of diagnosis), approached via the population-based Cancer Registry, with their primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists completed cross-sectional surveys assessing symptoms, diagnostic route (symptomatic or 'investigation' of other problem), tests, key event dates and treatment. Time intervals to diagnosis and treatment were determined, and quantile regression examined differences between the two diagnostic routes. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses examined associations between survival and diagnostic route adjusting for stage, sex and age. One hundred and ninety-two patients (36% response rate), 107 PCPs and 55 specialists participated. Fifty-eight per cent of patients had a symptomatic diagnostic route reporting an average of 1.6 symptoms, most commonly cough, fatigue or haemoptysis. Symptomatic patients had longer median primary care interval than 'investigation' patients (12 versus 9 days, P < 0.05) and were more likely to report their PCP first-ordered imaging tests. Secondary care interval was shorter for symptomatic (median = 43 days) than investigation (median = 62 days, P < 0.05) patients. However, 56% of all patients waited longer than national recommendations (6 weeks). While survival estimates were better for investigation than symptomatic patients, these differences were not significant. Many operable lung cancer patients are diagnosed incidentally, highlighting the difficulty of symptom-based approaches to diagnosing early stage disease. Longer than recommended secondary care interval suggests the need for improvements in care pathways.

Association between hospital interval and survival in patients with oral cancer: A waiting time paradox.

BackgroundIn early diagnosis studies on symptomatic cancer, survival was the most recommended outcome. The magnitude and impact of the patient interval and primary care interval is well-known in oral cancer; however, the hospital interval and its influence on surviving this neoplasia are not well known.AimsTo quantify the interval between the first contact with the specialist and the start of treatment for patients with oral cancer and to evaluate whether there was a link between this interval and disease survival.MethodsWe designed a hospital-based study that included 228 patients diagnosed with oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1998 and 2008 at A Coruña University Hospital (Spain) who were followed up until 2016. The data were extracted retrospectively from hospital medical charts. The study interval was defined in the context of the "pathways to treatment" model as the interval from the first specialist visit (start point) to the start of treatment (end point). We calculated the total interval (from first symptom to treatment) to evaluate the relative length of the hospital interval, and we considered the variables age, sex, location, comorbidity and tumour classification stage. Survival time was defined as the interval from the first treatment to death or censoring.ResultsThe median hospital interval was 20 days, with an interquartile range of 15–29.1 days. The most relevant prognostic variable was the tumour stage (III-IV: Exp. ß = 2.8, p = 0.001). The hospital interval was part of the multivariate model, and its association with mortality showed a V-shaped association, where patients with short hospital intervals (3–18 days) and those with long hospital intervals (26–55 days) had significantly higher mortality than those with medium hospital intervals (19–25 days).ConclusionThe hospital interval represents a relevant interval for the patient’s path towards treatment, has prognostic implications and is subject to a severity bias (waiting time paradox) that should be avoided.

Impact of Primary Care Delay on Progression of Breast Cancer in a Black African Population: A Multicentered Survey.

Background Reports are scanty on the impact of long primary care interval in breast cancer. Exploratory reports in Nigeria and other low-middle-income countries suggest detrimental impact. The primary aim was to describe the impact of long primary care interval on breast cancer progression, and the secondary aim was to describe the factors perceived by patients as the reason(s) for long intervals. Method Questionnaire-based survey was used in 9 Nigerian tertiary institutions between May 2017 and July 2018. The study hypothesis was that the majority of patients stayed >30 days, and the majority experienced stage migration in primary care interval. Assessment of the impact of the length of interval on tumor stage was done by survival analysis technique, and clustering analysis was used to find subgroups of the patient journey. Results A total of 237 patients presented to primary care personnel with tumor ≤5cm (mean 3.4±1.2cm). A total of 151 (69.3%, 95% CI 62.0-75.0) stayed >30 days in primary care interval. Risk of stage migration in primary care interval was 49.3% (95% CI 42.5%-56.3%). The most common reasons for long intervals were symptom misinformation and misdiagnosis. Clustering analysis showed 4 clusters of patients' experience and journey: long interval due to distance, long interval due to misinformation, long interval due to deliberate delaying, and not short interval—prepared for treatment. Conclusion The majority of patients stayed longer than 30 days in primary care interval. Long primary care interval was associated with a higher risk of stage migration, and more patients reported misinformation and misdiagnosis as reasons for a long interval.

Advanced-stage cancer and time to diagnosis: An International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) cross-sectional study.

To investigate the relationship between tumour stage at diagnosis and selected components of primary and secondary care in the diagnostic interval for breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers. Observational study based on data from 6,162 newly diagnosed symptomatic cancer patients from Module 4 of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. We analysed the odds of advanced stage of cancer as a flexible function of the length of primary care interval (days from first presentation to referral) and secondary care interval (days from referral to diagnosis), respectively, using logistic regression with restricted cubic splines. The association between time intervals and stage was similar for each type of cancer. A statistically significant U-shaped association was seen between the secondary care interval and the diagnosis of advanced rather than localised cancer, odds decreasing from the first day onwards and increasing around three and a half months. A different pattern was seen for the primary care interval, flat trends for colorectal and lung cancers and a slightly curved association for ovarian cancer, although not statistically significant. The results confirm previous findings that some cancers may progress even within the relatively short time frame of regulated diagnostic intervals. The study supports the current emphasis on expediting symptomatic diagnosis of cancer.

Cancer diagnostic delays and travel distance to health services: A nationwide cohort study in Denmark

BackgroundThis study aims to investigate the association between distance to health services and intervals in the cancer diagnostic pathway, and explore whether the diagnostic difficulty of the cancer influences this association. MethodA nationwide cohort study was conducted based on data from both questionnaires and registries. Danish cancer patients diagnosed in 2005–2016 and their general practitioner (GP) were included if enrolled in the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort (n = 37,872). The CaP cohorts provided data on intervals assessed by patients and GPs. The Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to calculate travel distances from the residence of the patient to their GP surgery and to the hospital of diagnosis. ResultsLonger travel distance to the hospital of diagnosis was associated with longer diagnostic interval. This association was strongest in the period before the implementation of Cancer Patient Pathways (CPP) in 2010. Patients with a cancer categorised as ´hard to diagnose´ contributed mostly to the association. Longer travel distance to the GP was associated with shorter patient interval and primary care interval for patients diagnosed with cancer types ´intermediate to diagnose´. ConclusionTravel distance to cancer diagnostic health care services was associated with interval length in the diagnostic pathway. This association was less pronounced in the period after introducing CPPs and also strongly depending of the underlying cancer type and symptomatology.

Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors.

BackgroundGynaecological cancers are the second most common female cancer type, with survival rates in the UK lower than in many comparable countries. A potentially important factor in the UK’s poorer cancer outcomes is diagnostic delay; gynaecological cancers are the cancer type most likely to be affected by less timely diagnosis.AimTo examine current evidence for factors that contribute to patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancer.Design and settingA systematic review of the available literature.MethodPRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched using three terms: primary care; gynaecological cancer; and delay. Citation lists of all identified articles were searched. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of publications. Data extraction was performed by one author and quality assured by a second reviewer in a 20% sample of selected articles. Synthesis was narrative.ResultsA total of 1253 references was identified, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. Factors associated with delayed diagnosis were categorised as either patient factors (patient demographics, symptoms or knowledge, and presentation to the GP) or primary care factors (doctor factors: patient demographics, symptoms or knowledge, and referral process); and system factors (such as limited access to investigations).ConclusionDelayed diagnosis in the patient and primary care intervals of the diagnostic journey of gynaecological cancer is complex and multifactorial. This review identifies areas of future research that could lead to interventions to enable prompter diagnosis of gynaecological cancers.

Diagnostic spectrum and time intervals in Sweden’s first diagnostic center for patients with nonspecific symptoms of cancer

Background: Fast-track referral is an increasingly used method for diagnostic evaluation of patients suspected of having cancer. This approach is challenging and not used as often for patients with only nonspecific symptoms. In order to expedite the diagnostics for these patients, we established Sweden’s first Diagnostic Center (DC) focusing on outcomes related to diagnoses and diagnostic time intervals.Material and Methods: The study was designed as a prospective cohort study. Patients aged ≥18 years who presented in primary care with nonspecific symptoms of a serious disease were eligible for referral to the DC after having completed an initial investigation. Acceptable diagnostic time intervals were defined to be a maximum of 15 days in primary care and 22 days at the DC. Diagnostic outcome, length of diagnostic time intervals and patient satisfaction were evaluated.Results: A total of 290 patients were included in the study. Cancer was diagnosed in 22.1%, other diseases in 64.1%, and no diagnosis was identified in 13.8% of these patients. Patients diagnosed with cancer were older, had shorter patient interval (time from first symptom to help-seeking), shorter DC-interval (time from referral decision in primary care to diagnosis) and showed a greater number of symptoms compared to patients with no diagnosis. The median primary care interval was 21 days and the median DC interval was 11 days. Few symptoms, no diagnosis, female sex, longer patient interval, and incomplete investigations were associated with prolonged diagnostic time intervals. Patient satisfaction was high; 86% of patients reported a positive degree of satisfaction with the diagnostic procedures.Conclusions: We demonstrated that the DC concept is feasible with a diagnosis reached in 86.2% of the patients in addition to favorable diagnostic time intervals at the DC and a high degree of patient satisfaction.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01709539.

Timeliness of Presentation and Referral Among Cancer Patients Who Presented With Abdominal Symptoms: Evidence to Inform Symptom Awareness Campaigns

Background: Abdominal symptoms at presentation are common among patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. While public health education campaigns in England and other countries have traditionally focused on 'red flag' symptoms associated with a single common cancer (e.g., 'blood in poo' and colorectal cancer), there is increasing interest in raising awareness of symptoms grouped by body area or system (eg 'abdominal symptoms'). Evidence regarding the frequency and nature of abdominal symptoms at presentation among a representative cancer patient cohort could inform the design and evaluation of community based cancer symptom awareness campaigns. Aim: To describe the frequency of abdominal symptoms at presentation among an incident cohort of cancer patients, examine variation in diagnostic timeliness and subsequently diagnosed cancer sites by abdominal symptom. Methods: The presenting symptom(s) of 15,956 cancer patients from a national audit of primary care records in England was coded into symptom categories. Eight abdominal symptoms with a range of predictive values and specificity for cancer were studied: abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, bloating/distension, dyspepsia, rectal bleeding, dysphagia, reflux, and nausea/vomiting. We investigated the prevalence of abdominal symptoms among the cancer patient population, examined variation in the length of the patient interval (time from symptom onset to presentation to primary care) and primary care interval (time from presentation to specialist referral) by symptom, and described the associated spectrum of diagnosed cancer sites for each individual symptom. Results: Almost a quarter (23%) of the incident cancer patient population had abdominal symptom(s) at presentation (n=3,661/15,956). The relative lengths of the patient and primary care intervals varied greatly by abdominal symptom. One in two cancer patients who had dysphagia before diagnosis presented 30 days after symptom onset (median (IQR) patient interval: 30 (10-61) days), but were referred immediately (median (IQR) primary care interval: 0 (0-14) days). In comparison, cancer patients who presented with abdominal pain had longer intervals postpresentation (median (IQR) patient interval: 7 (0-28) days, median (IQR) primary care interval: 16 (2-43) days). The majority (88.6%) of cancer patients who presented with an abdominal symptom were diagnosed with an abdominal or adjacent cancer, including colorectal, esophageal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. However, the remainder of patients were diagnosed with solid tumors of nonabdominal organ origin (7.6%) or a hematologic cancer (3.8%). Conclusion: Cancer symptom awareness campaigns focusing on abdominal symptoms could contribute to the earlier diagnosis of numerous common and rarer cancers. Evidence regarding the relative lengths of the patient and primary care intervals could be used as a measure of relative need for raising awareness.

Rural-Urban Variation in Time to Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal or Breast Cancer in Victoria, Australia

Background: Rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes are found in many countries, though these vary by cancer type. In Victoria, Australia, survival is poorer for rural patients with colorectal cancer, but not breast cancer. Delayed diagnosis and treatment may contribute to disparities, but previous studies have not compared the timeliness of rural and urban pathways to treatment of these common cancers. Aim: We investigated whether time to diagnosis and treatment differed for rural and urban patients with colorectal or breast cancer in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Population-based, cross-sectional surveys examining events and dates on the pathway to treatment completed by patients aged ≥ 40 and approached within six months of diagnosis, their general practitioner (GP) and specialist. Data were collected from 2013 to 2014 as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Module 4. Six intervals were explored: patient (symptom to presentation), primary care (presentation to referral), diagnostic (presentation/screening to diagnosis), treatment (diagnosis to treatment), health system (presentation to treatment) and total intervals (symptom/screening to treatment). Rural-urban differences were examined for each cancer using quantile regression (50th, 75th and 90th percentiles) models including age, gender, health insurance and socioeconomic status. Results: 433 colorectal (48% rural) and 489 breast (42% rural) patients, 621 GPs and 370 specialists completed surveys. Compared with urban patients, symptomatic colorectal cancer patients from rural areas had a significantly longer total interval at all percentiles: 50th (18 days longer, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9-27), 75th (53, 95% CI: 47-59) 90th (44, 95% CI: 40-48). These patients also had longer health system intervals, ranging 7-85 days longer. This appeared mostly due to longer diagnostic intervals (range: 6-54 days longer). Results were similar when including screen-detected cases. In contrast, breast cancer intervals were similar for rural and urban patients, except the patient interval, which was shorter for rural patients. Conclusion: Consistent with variation in survival, we found longer total and diagnostic intervals for rural compared with urban patients with colorectal cancer, but not breast cancer. The lack of rural-urban differences observed for breast cancer suggest that inequities in the timeliness of colorectal cancer pathways can be ameliorated, and may improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, based on previous research, delays observed in this study could result in stage progression and hence reduced survival. From our results, interventions targeting the time from presentation to colorectal cancer diagnosis in rural populations should be pursued. Countries seeking to understand cancer disparities in their local context may also consider using a pathways approach to identify possible targets for policy intervention.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Time to Diagnosis and Treatment for Colorectal and Breast Cancer.

Background: Longer cancer pathways may contribute to rural-urban survival disparities, but research in this area is lacking. We investigated time to diagnosis and treatment for rural and urban patients with colorectal or breast cancer in Victoria, Australia.Methods: Population-based surveys (2013-2014) of patients (aged ≥40, approached within 6 months of diagnosis), primary care physicians (PCPs), and specialists were collected as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Module 4. Six intervals were examined: patient (symptom to presentation), primary care (presentation to referral), diagnostic (presentation/screening to diagnosis), treatment (diagnosis to treatment), health system (presentation to treatment), and total interval (symptom/screening to treatment). Rural and urban intervals were compared using quantile regression including age, sex, insurance, and socioeconomic status.Results: 433 colorectal (48% rural) and 489 breast (42% rural) patients, 621 PCPs, and 370 specialists participated. Compared with urban patients, patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer from rural areas had significantly longer total intervals at the 50th [18 days longer, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9-27], 75th (53, 95% CI: 47-59), and 90th percentiles (44, 95% CI: 40-48). These patients also had longer diagnostic and health system intervals (6-85 days longer). Breast cancer intervals were similar by area of residence, except the patient interval, which was shorter for rural patients with either cancer in the higher percentiles.Conclusions: Rural residence was associated with longer total intervals for colorectal but not breast cancer; with most disparities postpresentation.Impact: Interventions targeting time from presentation to diagnosis may help reduce colorectal cancer rural-urban disparities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 1036-46. ©2018 AACR.

Quantifying intervals to diagnosis in myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo quantify the duration of each step of the diagnostic pathway for patients with multiple myeloma from symptom onset to confirmation of diagnosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and selection criteriaThe...

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

BackgroundContinual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this.AimTo characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit.Design and settingClinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England.MethodInformation on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management.ResultsData were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15–86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0–27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more.ConclusionThe findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.

Time to diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients in the Netherlands: Room for improvement?

Background & aimReducing the duration of the diagnostic cancer care pathway is intensively pursued. The aim of this study was to chart the diagnostic pathway for the five most common cancers in the Netherlands. MethodsA retrospective cohort study using cancer patients' anonymised primary care data (free text and coded) linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We determined the median duration of the following: 1. Primary care intervals (IPCs): the first cancer-related general practitioner consultation to referral, 2. Referral intervals (IRs): referral to diagnosis, 3. Treatment intervals (ITs): diagnosis to treatment and the overarching intervals, 4. Diagnostic intervals (IDs): IPC and IR combined and 5. Health care intervals (IHCs): IPC, IR and IT combined. ResultsFor 465, 309, 197, 237 and 149 patients diagnosed with breast-, colorectal-, lung-, prostate cancer and melanoma, respectively; median IPC, IR and ID durations were shortest for breast cancer and melanoma (ID duration 7 and 21 days, respectively), intermediate for lung- and colon cancer (ID duration 49 and 54 days) and the longest for prostate cancer (ID duration 137 days). For all cancers, the duration of intervals increased steeply for the 10–25% with longest durations. For colorectal cancer, increasing ID durations showed increasing proportions of time attributable to primary care (IPC). ConclusionApproximately 10–25% of cancer patients show substantially long duration of diagnostic intervals. Reducing primary care delay seems particularly relevant for colorectal cancer.

Evidence of advanced stage colorectal cancer with longer diagnostic intervals: a pooled analysis of seven primary care cohorts comprising 11\u2009720 patients in five countries

Background:The benefits from expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are uncertain. We aimed to analyse the relationship between stage of colorectal cancer (CRC) and the primary and specialist care components of the diagnostic interval.Methods:We identified seven independent data sets from population-based studies in Scotland, England, Canada, Denmark and Spain during 1997–2010 with a total of 11 720 newly diagnosed CRC patients, who had initially presented with symptoms to a primary care physician. Data were extracted from patient records, registries, audits and questionnaires, respectively. Data sets were required to hold information on dates in the diagnostic interval (defined as the time from the first presentation of symptoms in primary care until the date of diagnosis), symptoms at first presentation in primary care, route of referral, gender, age and histologically confirmed stage. We carried out reanalysis of all individual data sets and, using the same method, analysed a pooled individual patient data set.Results:The association between intervals and stage was similar in the individual and combined data set. There was a statistically significant convex (∩-shaped) association between primary care interval and diagnosis of advanced (i.e., distant or regional) rather than localised CRC (P=0.004), with odds beginning to increase from the first day on and peaking at 90 days. For specialist care, we saw an opposite and statistically significant concave (∪-shaped) association, with a trough at 60 days, between the interval and diagnosis of advanced CRC (P<0.001).Conclusions:This study provides evidence that longer diagnostic intervals are associated with more advanced CRC. Furthermore, the study cannot define a specific ‘safe’ waiting time as the length of the primary care interval appears to have negative impact from day one.

The length of patient and primary care time interval in the pathways to treatment in symptomatic oral cancer. A quantitative systematic review.

To examine the relative length of the patient and primary care intervals in symptomatic oral cancer. Quantitative systematic review. Oral cancer OR oral squamous cell carcinoma OR oropharyngeal cancer AND time interval OR diagnostic delay. Primary and secondary care. Oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients. We computed five measures (patient, primary care, diagnosis, total diagnosis and total treatment intervals). Most studies did not provide any dispersion measure. We then used the sample size of each study to compute a weighted average of the mean intervals. When the median was provided, we assumed normality of the distribution of the means and used the median as a proxy of the mean. A total of 1089 articles were identified, and 22 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 2710 patients from Europe, USA, India, Australia, Japan, Argentina and Iran. The weighted average of patient interval was 80.3days. Primary care interval was five times shorter: 15.8days. The diagnostic interval was appreciably shorter (47.9days) when compared with the patient interval during symptomatic period. Patient interval represents the major component of waiting times since the detection of the first signs/symptoms to the definitive diagnosis of oral cancer. Thus, strategies focused on high-risk patients should be prioritised. Interventions aimed at optimising the health systems should be implemented by monitoring and facilitating diagnostic and treatment pathways of patients with oral cancer.