The “two-week wait” referral pathway is not associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal cancer

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days.

CONCLUSION

The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

Colorectal cancer diagnostic biomarkers: Beyond faecal haemoglobin

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the second commonest cause of cancer deaths worldwide. One of the most important prognostic factors, and thus a potential target for improving cancer care, is the stage of cancer at diagnosis. Earlier stage diagnosis is associated with better prognosis and longer survival times after treatment. At the same time, the use of targeted therapies and immunotherapy is improving CRC outcomes. Diagnostic biomarkers are key to both early detection and prediction of treatment responses. Currently faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin is perhaps the most widespread CRC diagnostic biomarker. However other biomarkers are approved for clinical use and others are in the validation stage of research prior to clinical use. This review focuses on these the evidence behind these biomarkers, their current and potential future use.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Outcomes of patients with non-lower gastrointestinal cancer diagnosed via the lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait service

INTRODUCTION

Patients referred via lower gastrointestinal two-week-wait (LGI-2WW) services deemed at 'low risk' of LGI cancer may have delayed or no investigation. However, 20% of patients diagnosed with cancer via the LGI-2WW have non-LGI cancer. This study investigates the outcomes in this under-reported group.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients referred to a UK LGI-2WW service with a non-LGI cancer diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision) between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with generalised log-rank test and binomial logistic regression of pre-investigation information to predict death. A p-value of < 0.05 represented statistical significance.

RESULTS

In total, 140 patients were diagnosed with non-LGI cancer (of 10,155 patients referred via the LGI-2WW pathway). Median follow-up was 13 months (range 0-65 months). Thirty-five patients (35/140; 25%) did not meet LGI-2WW referral criteria. Median survival varied by cancer site (upper gastrointestinal: 43/140 patients, median survival 4 months; gynaecological: 25/140, 25 months; haematological: 22/140, < 50% died; urological: 21/140, 47 months; unknown primary: 12/140, 3 months; lung: 10/140, 17 months; breast: 3/140, 5 months; retroperitoneal: 2/140, 9 months; brain: 1/140, 4 months; adrenal: 1/140, 52 months). Binomial logistic regression was statistically significant (chi-squared goodness-of-fit test = 12.334; p = 0.03); but the presence of comorbidity was the only significant predictive factor of death (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-LGI cancers cannot be easily predicted and have a poor prognosis. Pathways to streamline investigations for LGI cancer should include computed tomography scans for patients at 'low risk' of LGI cancer to ensure that non-LGI cancers are diagnosed.

Faecal immunochemical testing reduces demand and improves yield of Leicester's 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit

AIM

We look at the effect of introducing the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in the straight-to-test 2-week pathway for change in bowel habit (CIBH).

METHOD

The FIT in primary care triages 2-week wait (2WW) colorectal referrals for patients aged 60 years and above for straight-to-test CT colonography (CTC). We compare the impact of the FIT on numbers of 2WW CTCs, in the year before and after FIT, in both colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and cost-effectiveness at both 4 μg Hb/g faeces and 10 μg Hb/g faeces.

RESULTS

At a threshold of 4 μg Hb/g faeces, the positive predictive value of the FIT for diagnosis of CRC is 5.0% with a negative predictive value of 99.8% and a polyp detection rate of 25.5%. The introduction of the FIT resulted in a reduction in the number of CTCs performed through the CIBH pathway from a mean of 143.9 per month prior to the FIT to 66.8 CTCs per month once the FIT was well established. Given a FIT threshold of 10 μg Hb/g the number of CTCs would be predicted to fall by 70.4% to 42.6 CTCs per month resulting in higher CRC and polyp detection rate, and an estimated annual cost saving of £238 258 in our institution.

CONCLUSION

The FIT use in primary care improves the yield of 2WW referrals for CIBH alone and reduces the burden and cost of investigations to exclude CRC. Improvements may be possible by increasing the cut-off employed, without adversely affecting the risk of missing a cancer.

Improved survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients after introducing patient navigation: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score weighted historic control

OnkoNetwork is a patient navigation program established in the Moritz Kaposi General Hospital to improve the timeliness and completeness of cancer investigations and treatment. The H2020 SELFIE consortium selected OnkoNetwork as a promising integrated care initiative in Hungary and conducted a multicriteria decision analysis based on health, patient experience, and cost outcomes. In this paper, a more detailed analysis of clinical impacts is provided in the largest subgroup, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling new cancer suspect patients with subsequently confirmed NSCLC in two annual periods, before and after OnkoNetwork implementation (control and intervention cohorts, respectively). To control for selection bias and confounding, baseline balance was improved via propensity score weighting. Overall survival was analyzed in univariate and multivariate weighted Cox regression models and the effect was further characterized in a counterfactual analysis. Our analysis included 123 intervention and 173 control NSCLC patients from early to advanced stage, with significant between-cohort baseline differences. The propensity score-based weighting resulted in good baseline balance. A large survival benefit was observed in the intervention cohort, and intervention was an independent predictor of longer survival in a multivariate analysis when all baseline characteristics were included (HR = 0.63, p = 0.039). When post-baseline variables were included in the model, belonging to the intervention cohort was not an independent predictor of survival, but the survival benefit was explained by slightly better stage distribution and ECOG status at treatment initiation, together with trends for broader use of PET-CT and higher resectability rate. In conclusion, patient navigation is a valuable tool to improve cancer outcomes by facilitating more timely and complete cancer diagnostics. Contradictory evidence in the literature may be explained by common sources of bias, including the wait-time paradox and adjustment to intermediate outcomes.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies.

Results

55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes.

Discussion

Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival.

Other

This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

Colorectal cancer outcomes determined by mode of presentation: analysis of population data in England between 2010 and 2014

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between mode of presentation; categorized as emergency, suspected cancer outpatient referral pathway (2-week wait or 2WW pathway), non-cancer suspected outpatient referral (non-2-week wait pathway) or following screening, and stage of diagnosis and survival in patients with colorectal cancer in England.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort observational study of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in England using data from Public Health England collated from regional cancer registries.

RESULTS

The most common route to diagnosis among 167,501 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer was via the non-cancer suspect (non-2WW) outpatient referral pathway (35.1%) followed by the suspected cancer (2WW) referral pathway (31.6%), emergency presentation (22.8%) and most infrequently following screening (10.6%) (p < 0.01). Screening confers the greatest likelihood of early-stage diagnosis (61.6%) compared to other modes of presentation. The 5-year overall survival was 81.8%, 53.3%, 53.0% and 27.6% in those diagnosed via screening, 2WW, non-2WW pathway and emergency presentation, respectively. Patients from most deprived regions were more likely to be diagnosed following emergency presentation (27.7 vs 19.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely via screening (8.1 vs 12%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic individuals diagnosed following screening have earlier stage cancers and better survival, the opposite was observed in those diagnosed following emergency presentation. Patients referred via the 2WW pathway do not have better survival outcomes when compared to those referred via the non-2WW pathway. In addition, this study has identified socio-economic groups that need to be targeted with public health campaigns to improve screening uptake.

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in patients older than 65 years: analysis of 3 year Real World data of practice patterns and outcomes in England

BACKGROUND

We wished to examine treatment and outcome patterns in older diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients, with a focus on the effect of route-to-diagnosis to outcome.

METHODS

Data were extracted from Public Health England's National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service between 2013 and 2015 included route-to-diagnosis, disease characteristics and survival for 9186 patients ≥65 years. Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy data identified front-line regimens, cycles and doses.

RESULTS

Route-to-diagnosis were emergency (34%), NHS urgent cancer pathway (rapid haemato-oncologist review <2 weeks), (29%) and standard GP referral (25%). The most common regimen was R-CHOP (n = 4392). 313 patients received R-miniCHOP (7% of R-CHOP). For all patients, 3-year overall survival (OS) for 65-79 years was 57% and for ≥80 years was 32%. Three-year OS for R-CHOP-treated patients diagnosed via emergency presentation was 54% (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, p < 0.01) and 75% (adjusted HR 0.81, p < 0.01) on the NHS urgent cancer pathway (reference HR:1.00: GP referrals). 3-year OS was 54% for both R-miniCHOP and R-CHOP in ≥80 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comprehensive population analysis is the first to show that the NHS urgent cancer pathway is associated with a superior survival after adjusting for multiple confounders. Equivalent survival for R-CHOP and R-mini-CHOP was demonstrated in those ≥80 years.

The regional and referral compliance of online healthcare systems by Indonesia National Health Insurance agency and health-seeking behavior in Indonesia

PURPOSE

Whether the provision of online health care referral systems by the Indonesia National Health Insurance Agency has ensured healthcare referral compliance raises much concern due to the continuing deficit. This study examines the pattern of healthcare referral process, regional and referral compliance from 2015 to 2016. To provide comprehensive analysis on how people seek treatment, this study also aims to understand health-seeking behavior in Indonesia, the utilization of alternative treatment, and health information-seeking behavior on social media.

METHOD

The data come from three data files, namely the National Health Insurance membership master data, the First Level Health Facilities transaction data and the Advanced Referral Health Facilities transaction data of 1,697,452 individuals. The regional compliance applies a logit regression model, while referral compliance applies descriptive statistics of the referral pathway. This study also follows a quantitative approach using an online questionnaire, with 463 respondents who have National Health Insurance which applies an ordered logit model.

RESULT

We found that several demographic variables and regional health facility availability affect regional compliance. Moreover, we found 19.3% of the transactions did not comply with the prescribed referral sequence. The prescribed referral sequence was mostly followed for patients with malignant diseases. We also found men who perceive that their health condition is healthy will less likely seek health services compared to women. Further, the tendency of alternative treatment increases health-seeking behavior, and the tendency of seeking health information on social media increases the frequency seeking health services.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the prescribed referral sequence to be re-evaluated especially for patients with malignant disease; the referral process should not be based on hospital classes but on the competency of the healthcare facility which may indirectly address the deficit issue. It is imperative that the government evaluate health promotion approaches to men and women, both direct and indirect through their significant others.

Adoption of faecal immunochemical testing for 2-week-wait colorectal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study reporting a new service at a regional centre

AIM

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the near-complete loss of routine endoscopy services. We describe a major reorganization of service at a regional referral centre (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust) to manage the crisis. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was implemented for triage to make optimum use of limited diagnostic resources. Consultations were switched from face-to-face to telephone. Our aim was to evaluate the impact FIT had on resource allocation and patient diagnoses in the first 3 months of use.

METHOD

All colorectal 2-week-wait patient referrals were posted a pack requesting FIT and notification of telephone consultation. A prepaid envelope was included for return of the samples. At consultation, FIT was incorporated with the presenting symptoms to guide the choice of investigation and triage urgency. FIT ≥10 μg/g was interpreted as positive. Outcome data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective audit data from prepandemic levels across 3 months.

RESULTS

From 26 March 2020 to 2 July 381 patients were referred who were invited to provide FIT samples and underwent telephone consultations. Three hundred and fifty eight FIT samples were returned (94%). Onward referral for colonoscopy reduced from 62% to 34% (P < 0.001). There were 14 colorectal cancers (CRC) (3.7%) diagnosed, which was not statistically different from the prepandemic level of 3.9% (P = 0.995). Twelve of the 14 patients with a CRC diagnosis had provided samples; all 12 had FIT ≥10 μg/g and were offered fast-track investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of FIT optimized the allocation of limited resources to triage those who required urgent colonic investigation for detecting CRC.

Survival outcomes of elderly patients referred to the lower gastrointestinal 2-week wait service

AIM

The benefit to elderly patients (≥80 years old) of referral to the resource-intensive lower gastrointestinal 2-week wait (LGI-2WW) pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the survival outcome of elderly patients referred to a LGI-2WW service.

METHOD

This study comprised a retrospective analysis of a prospectively gathered database of patients referred to a single-centre LGI-2WW service and conformed to STROBE guidelines. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was performed with the chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier survival curves compared with the generalized log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 10 155 patients referred to the LGI-2WW service between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018 were analysed; median follow-up was 37.0 months (range 0-66 months). Six hundred and ninety one cancers were diagnosed (6.8% detection rate); 551 (80%) of these were lower GI cancers (LGICas) [517 (75%) colorectal; 34 (5%) anal]. Forty per cent of LGICas were diagnosed via the LGI-2WW service. Patients aged ≥80 years with LGICa were more likely to be treated with palliative intent [age <80 years, 92/360 (26%) vs. age ≥80 years, 105/191 (55%); p < 0.001]. LGICa patients aged <85 years had a survival difference between those treated with curative intent (LGICa-Cur) or palliative intent (LGICa-Pal) (median survival for patients aged 80-84 years: LGICa-Cur 57 months vs. LGICa-Pal 15 months; p < 0.001). Patients aged ≥85 years did not have any survival difference by treatment intent (median survival for patients aged 85-89 years: LGICa-Cur 31 months vs. LGICa-Pal 16 months; p = 0.062; median survival for patients aged ≥90 years: LGICa-Cur 14 months vs. LGICa-Pal 16 months; p = 0.703).

CONCLUSION

Patients with LGICa aged ≥85 years have similar survival whether treated with curative or palliative intent. This can inform management discussions with patients and LGI-2WW referral pathway prioritization approaches.

Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included.

RESULTS

Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.

The effectiveness of the Guy's Rapid Diagnostic Clinic (RDC) in detecting cancer and serious conditions in vague symptom patients

BACKGROUND

Rapid Diagnostic Clinics (RDC) are being expanded nationally by NHS England. Guy's RDC established a pathway for GPs and internal referrals for patients with symptoms concerning for malignancy not suitable for a site-specific 2WW referral. However, little data assessing the effectiveness of RDC models are available in an English population.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients referred to Guy's RDC between December 2016 and June 2019 (n = 1341) to assess the rate of cancer diagnoses, frequency of benign conditions and effectiveness of the service.

RESULTS

There were 96 new cancer diagnoses (7.2%): lung (16%), haematological (13%) and colorectal (12%)-with stage IV being most frequent (40%). Median time to definitive cancer diagnosis was 28 days (IQR 15-47) and treatment 56 days (IQR 32-84). In all, 75% were suitable for treatment: surgery (26%), systemic (24%) and radiotherapy (14%). Over 180 serious non-neoplastic conditions were diagnosed (35.8%) of patients with no significant findings in two-third of patients (57.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

RDCs provide GPs with a streamlined pathway for patients with complex non-site-specific symptoms that can be challenging for primary care. The 7% rate of cancer diagnosis exceeds many 2WW pathways and a third of patients presented with significant non-cancer diagnoses, which justifies the need for rapid diagnostics. Rapid Diagnostic Centres (RDCs) are being rolled out nationally by NHS England and NHS Improvement as part of the NHS long-term plan. The aim is for a primary care referral pathway that streamlines diagnostics, patient journey, clinical outcomes and patient experience. This pilot study of 1341 patients provides an in-depth analysis of the largest single RDC in England. Cancer was diagnosed in 7% of patients and serious non-cancer conditions in 36%-justifying the RDC approach in vague symptom patients.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

Patients undergoing primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer: how many are referred on the two-week wait pathway and by whom?

INTRODUCTION

Available data suggest that the two-week wait referral pathway is ineffective at expediting diagnosis of cancer due to large numbers of inappropriate referrals. This study aimed to compare the referral pathway of 125 patients who had undergone primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer with 100 who had been two-week wait referrals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a case note review.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients who underwent surgery; 47 (38%) were referred via the 2WW pathway. GPs had referred 25 (53%) of the 47 patients and general dental practitioners 22 (47%). The tumour stage was similar regardless of referral pathway (two-week wait or routine). GPs recognised that the two-week wait pathway was needed in 49% of the patients they had referred, whereas the equivalent figure for GDPs was 40%. Of the 100 2WW patients, 52 were biopsied. Of these, nine (9%) were diagnosed with a malignancy. GPs referred 61% of the 100 two-week wait patients and accurately diagnosed five of the cancers (although two were basal cell carcinomas), general dental practitioners the remainder (including one basal cell carcinoma). Overall, 41% of the patients referred on the two-week wait pathway by GPs needed a biopsy, compared with 69% of those referred by general dental practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

While the criteria for referral on the two-week wait pathway lack discrimination and the majority of referrals proved benign, nearly 40% of surgically treated patients were referred via this pathway, suggesting that it does serve a useful purpose. More patients with cancer were referred by GPs, but more two-week wait referrals by general dental practitioners warranted biopsy.

Removing hospital-based triage from suspected colorectal cancer pathways: the impact and learning from a primary care-led electronic straight-to-test pathway

BACKGROUND

The 2-week wait referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer was introduced in England to improve time from referral from a general practitioner (GP) to diagnosis and treatment. Patients are required to be seen by a hospital clinician within 2 weeks if their symptoms meet the criteria set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and to start cancer treatment within 62 days. To achieve this, many hospitals have introduced a straight-to-test (STT) strategy requiring hospital-based triage of referrals. We describe the impact and learning from a new pathway which has removed triage and moved the process of requesting tests from hospital to GPs in primary care.

METHOD

An electronic STT pathway was introduced allowing GPs to book tests supported by a decision aid based on NICE guidance eliminating the need for a standard referral form or triage process. The hospital identified referrals as being on a cancer pathway and dealt with all ongoing management. Routinely collected cancer data were used to identify time to cancer diagnosis compared with national data RESULTS: 11357 patients were referred via the new pathway over 3 years. Time from referral to diagnosis reduced from 39 to 21 days and led to a dramatic improvement in patients starting treatment within 62 days. Challenges included adapting to a change in referral criteria and developing a robust hospital system to monitor the pathway.

CONCLUSION

We have changed the way patients with suspected colorectal cancer are managed within the National Health Service by giving GPs the ability to order tests electronically within a monitored cancer pathway halving time from referral to diagnosis.

Benefits Of Timely Care In Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review To Navigate Through The Contradictory Evidence

The evidence base of policies that improve the timeliness of cancer care is under ongoing debate. Pancreatic cancer is frequently diagnosed in a stage when curative therapy is not feasible; hence, it is an important target for timelier healthcare interventions. The objectives of our research were to identify all clinical studies on pancreatic cancer care delays via a systematic literature review, to assess the study methodologies for possible biases, to conclude on the available evidence, and to formulate research recommendations on evidence gaps. Nineteen studies were identified and eight reported multivariate analyses. Although many sources of bias shifted the results towards negative or paradoxical findings, a statistically significant association of shorter delays with better clinical outcomes was demonstrated in the majority of studies reporting multivariate analyses. Noninferiority analyses were not published. Further efforts to provide timely care for pancreatic cancer patients are encouraged, and studies on the associations of delay with patient experience and healthcare resource utilization are warranted.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of over 90 000 patients. Does fast-track review diagnose colorectal cancer earlier?

BACKGROUND

National UK data on colorectal cancer (CRC) stage at diagnosis is incomplete. Site-specific fast-track (2-week wait) cancer data are not collected directly by NHS England. Policy making based on these data alone can lead to inaccuracy.

AIMS

To review available data on key outcomes (cancer conversion rate and stage at diagnosis) for the UK's lower gastrointestinal 2-week wait pathway.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted between 2000 and 2017. Primary outcomes were cancer conversion rate and cancer stage at diagnosis. Results were expressed as proportions with 95% CIs. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis; heterogeneity was assessed by I² .

RESULTS

Of 95 papers reviewed, 49 were included in analysis with a total study population of 93,655. Cancer conversion rate was 7.7% (95% CI: 6.9-8.5). The proportion presenting at Dukes A = 11.2% (95% CI 7.4-15.6), B = 36.7% (95% CI 30.8-42.8), C = 35.7% (95% CI: 30.8-40.8) and D = 11.1% (95% CI 7.3-15.5). No colonic pathology was diagnosed in 54.6% (95% CI: 46.2-62.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Only 7.7% of patients referred by the 2-week wait pathway were found to have CRC. No beneficial effect on stage at diagnosis was found compared to non-2-week wait referral pathways. Over half of patients had no colonic pathology and detection of adenomas was very low. These results should prompt a reconsideration of the benefits of the 2-week wait pathway in CRC diagnosis and outcomes, with more focus on strategies to improve patient selection.

Impact of ‘two-week wait’ referral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival in upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers

Background

The ‘two-week wait’(2WW) referral pathway was introduced in the United Kingdom to reduce waiting times for treatment of cancer. There has been a debate regarding the efficacy of 2WW pathway since its implementation.

Methods

A singleinstitutional analysis of upper gastrointestinal(UGI) and lower gastrointestinal(LGI) malignancies treated between 1April 2015 and 31March 2017 was undertaken to analyse the impact of 2WWreferral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival.

Results

2WW referral does not achieve an earlier diagnosis compared with non-2WW routes of referral in UGI (χ2(3)=2.6, p=0.458) and LGI (χ2(3)=0.884, p=0.829) malignancies. 2WW referral does not lead to an improvement in curative treatment in UGI (OR1.48, 95%CI0.68to3.21, p=0.321) and LGI (OR1.59, 95%CI0.97to2.62, p=0.067) malignancies. No improvement in survival is seen in UGI (HR0.99, 95%CI0.56to1.75, p=0.963) and LGI (HR1.10, 95%CI0.60to1.99, p=0.764) malignancies by virtue of 2WW referral. Emergency presentation is the most common presenting route in UGI malignancy(40%) and is associated with poor survival (HR0.55, 95%CI0.30to0.97, p=0.045).Non-emergency route of presentation is associated with higher rates of curative treatment in UGI malignancies (OR3.49, 95%CI1.57to7.76, p=0.002). Lower rate of curative treatment (OR 0.27, 95%CI0.16to0.43, p<0.001) and poor survival (HR0.44, 95%CI0.26to0.76, p=0.003) is also observed in emergency presentation of LGI malignancy(29%) which is the secondmost common route of presentation in this group.

Conclusion

2WW referral does not achieve early diagnosis nor does it lead to an improvement in the rate of curative treatment in UGI and LGI malignancies. No improvement in short-term survival is seen in UGI malignancies nor in LGI malignancies on multivariate analysis by virtue of 2WW referral.