Time from first presentation in primary care to treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer: effect on disease stage and survival

Burden of prolonged treatment delay among patients with common cancers in the Philippines

PURPOSE

Prolonged treatment delay often leads to adverse cancer prognosis. However, the demographic and clinical predictors of higher treatment delay burden in the Philippines have not been thoroughly evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study on patients diagnosed with common cancers who received cancer treatment, to quantify the burden of prolonged treatment delay in the Philippines among this population. We analyzed 20,654 patients with common cancers from the Department of Health-Rizal Cancer Registry. The Poisson regression model with robust variance was used to identify demographic and clinical predictors of prolonged treatment delay. In addition, we examined the associations among those receiving different initial treatment types, including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy.

RESULTS

We found 35.1 % of the studied cancer patients experienced initial treatment delay of more than 30 days, as well as 25.2 % and 20.0 % experiencing treatment delays exceeding 60 and 90 days, respectively. We found higher risk of prolonged treatment delay of more than 90 days in those with 0-19 years of age at diagnosis, male gender, cancer treatment at non-private hospitals, diagnoses during the 1990s, more advanced cancer stages, and non-surgical initial treatments. For patients with surgery as the initial treatment, younger age at cancer diagnosis was not significantly associated with increased burden of prolonged treatment delay, unlike for those initially treated with radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

By identifying the characteristics of treated cancer patients with higher risk of protracted treatment delay, our findings will inform the national cancer control program to especially target those patients for treatment delay reduction.

Exploring the policy implementation of a holistic approach to cancer investigation in non-specific symptom pathways in England: An ethnographic study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the policy implementation of non-specific symptom pathways within the English National Health Service.

METHODS

A multi-site ethnographic project was conducted in four hospitals that contained non-specific symptom pathways between November 2021 and February 2023. The research involved observation (44 h), interviews (n = 54), patient shadowing, and document review.

RESULTS

The study examined how the policy concept of 'holistic' care was understood and put into practice within four non-specific symptom pathways. Several challenges associated with providing holistic care were identified. One key challenge was the conflict between delivering holistic care and meeting timed targets, such as the Faster Diagnosis Standard, due to limited availability of imaging and diagnostic tools. The interpretation of a holistic approach varied among participants, with some acknowledging that the current model did not recognise holistic care beyond cancer exclusion. The findings also revealed a lack of clarity and differing opinions on the boundaries of holistic care, resulting in wide variation in NSS pathway implementation across health care providers. Additionally, holistic investigation of non-specific symptoms in younger patients were seen to pose difficulties due to younger patients' history of health anxiety or depression, as well as concerns over radiological risk exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the complexity of implementing non-specific symptom pathways in light of standardised timed cancer targets and local cancer policies. There is a need for appropriately funded organisational models of care that prioritise holistic care in a timely manner over solely meeting cancer targets. Decision-makers should also consider the role of non-specific symptom pathways within the broader context of chronic disease management, with a particular emphasis on expanding diagnostic capacity.

The Real-Life Impact of Primary Tumor Resection of Synchronous Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-From a Clinical Oncologic Point of View

AIM

The complex medical care of synchronous metastatic colorectal (smCRC) patients requires prudent multidisciplinary planning and treatments due to various challenges caused by the primary tumor and its metastases. The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) is currently uncertain; strong arguments exist for and against it. We aimed to define its effect and find its best place in our therapeutic methodology.

METHOD

We performed retrospective data analysis to investigate the clinical course of 449 smCRC patients, considering treatment modalities and the location of the primary tumor and comparing the clinical results of the patients with or without PTR between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 at the Institute of Oncotherapy of the University of Pécs.

RESULTS

A total of 63.5% of the 449 smCRC patients had PTR. Comparing their data to those whose primary tumor remained intact (IPT), we observed significant differences in median progression-free survival with first-line chemotherapy (mPFS1) (301 vs. 259 days; p < 0.0001; 1 y PFS 39.2% vs. 26.6%; OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36-0.87)) and median overall survival (mOS) (760 vs. 495 days; p < 0.0001; 2 y OS 52.4 vs. 26.9%; OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.33-0.53)), respectively. However, in the PTR group, the average ECOG performance status was significantly better (0.98 vs. 1.1; p = 0.0456), and the use of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) (45.3 vs. 28.7%; p = 0.0005) and rate of metastasis ablation (MA) (21.8 vs. 1.2%; p < 0.0001) were also higher, which might explain the difference partially. Excluding the patients receiving MTA and MA from the comparison, the effect of PTR remained evident, as the mOS differences in the reduced PTR subgroup compared to the reduced IPT subgroup were still strongly significant (675 vs. 459 days; p = 0.0009; 2 y OS 45.9 vs. 24.1%; OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.79). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the site of the primary tumor also had a major impact on the outcome considering only the IPT patients; shorter mOS was observed in the extrapelvic IPT subgroup in contrast with the intrapelvic IPT group (422 vs. 584 days; p = 0.0026; 2 y OS 18.2 vs. 35.9%; OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.89)). Finally, as a remarkable finding, it should be emphasized that there were no differences in OS between the smCRC PTR subgroup and metachronous mCRC patients (mOS 760 vs. 710 days, p = 0.7504, 2 y OS OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.26)).

CONCLUSIONS

The role of PTR in smCRC is still not professionally justified. Our survey found that most patients had benefited from PTR. Nevertheless, further prospective trials are needed to clarify the optimal treatment sequence of smCRC patients and understand this cancer disease's inherent biology.

Association between time from diagnosis to treatment and survival of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Treatment delays have frequently been observed in cancer patients. Whether the treatment delays would impair the survival of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is still unclear.

METHODS

The data were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. Patients were divided into groups of timely treatment (<1 month), intermediate delay (1 and 2 months), and long delay (3-6 months). The influence of different treatment delay intervals on long-term survival was evaluated by multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 2,048 patients with NPC were included in our study. There were 551 patients in the early stage (I, II stage: 26.9 %) and 1,497 patients in the advanced stage (III, IV stage: 73.1 %). No significant difference in overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) was observed among the groups with various treatment delay intervals (p = 0.48 in OS and p = 0.43 in CSS, respectively). However, upon adjusting for covariates, a significantly improved OS probability emerged in patients with intermediate treatment delays compared to those who received timely interventions in both the entire study population (adjustedHazard Ratio (aHR)=0.86, 95 % CI: 0.74-0.99, p = 0.043) and the subgroup with advanced stage (aHR=0.85, 95 % CI: 0.72-1.00, p = 0.049). Regarding the CSS probability, similar associations were also observed in the entire study population (aHR=0.84, 95 % CI: 0.71-0.98, p = 0.030) as well as the advanced-stage patients (aHR=0.83, 95 % CI: 0.70-0.99, p =  0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that treatment delays are not associated with worse survival of NPC patients. Tumor-specific characteristics and subsequent treatment modalities play more pivotal roles in the prognosis of NPC.

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.

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.

Relationship between time from symptom's onset to diagnosis and prognosis in patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the relationship of the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with the time from symptom onset to diagnosis. The aim of this study is to investigate this association, with the assumption that this relationship was nonlinear and with adjustment for multiple confounders, such as tumor grade, symptoms, or admission to an emergency department.

METHODS

This multicenter study with prospective follow-up was performed in five regions of Spain from 2010 to 2012. Symptomatic cases of incident CRC from a previous study were examined. At the time of diagnosis, each patient was interviewed, and the associated hospital and clinical records were reviewed. During follow-up, the clinical records were reviewed again to assess survival. Cox survival analysis with a restricted cubic spline was used to model overall and CRC-specific survival, with adjustment for variables related to the patient, health service, and tumor.

RESULTS

A total of 795 patients had symptomatic CRC and 769 of them had complete data on diagnostic delay and survival. Univariate analysis indicated a lower HR for death in patients who had diagnostic intervals less than 4.2 months. However, after adjustment for variables related to the patient, tumor, and utilized health service, there was no relationship of the diagnostic delay with survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer, colon cancer alone, or rectal cancer alone. Cubic spline analysis indicated an inverse association of the diagnostic delay with 5-year survival. However, this association was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that the duration of diagnostic delay had no significant effect on the outcome of patients with CRC. We suggest that the most important determinant of the duration of diagnostic delay is the biological profile of the tumor. However, it remains the responsibility of community health centers and authorities to minimize diagnostic delays in patients with CRC and to implement initiatives that improve early diagnosis and provide better outcomes.

Between-hospital variations in 3-year survival among patients with newly diagnosed gastric, colorectal, and lung cancer

Due to increases in cancer survivability, quality assessments of cancer care must include long-term outcomes. This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated between-hospital variations in the 3-year survival rates of patients with gastric, colorectal, and lung cancer irrespective of treatment modality. We linked cancer registry data and administrative data from patients aged 18–99 years who were diagnosed with gastric, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2013 and 2015 in Osaka Prefecture, Japan. The 3-year survival rates were adjusted for potential prognostic factors using multilevel logistic regression models. Between-hospital variations were visually evaluated using funnel plots. We analyzed 10,296 gastric cancer patients from 30 hospitals, 9276 colorectal cancer patients from 30 hospitals, and 7978 lung cancer patients from 28 hospitals. The 3-year survival rate was 70.2%, 75.2%, and 45.0% for gastric, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively. In the funnel plots, the adjusted survival rates of gastric and colorectal cancer for all hospitals lay between the lower and upper control limits of two standard deviations of the average survival rates. However, the adjusted survival rates of lung cancer for four hospitals lay below the lower limit while that for two hospitals lay above the upper limit. Older age, men, advanced cancer stage, comorbidities, functional disability, emergency admission, current/ex-smokers, and underweight were independently associated with poorer survival. In conclusion, there were between-hospital variations in 3-year survival for lung cancer even after adjusting for case mix. Quality improvement initiatives may be needed to raise the consistency of care.

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.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer patients at an NHS Foundation Trust hospital-A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Current NHS guidelines recommend that treatment of colorectal patients referred through the two-week wait referral system should occur within sixty two days from the date of referral. The COVID-19 pandemic which started in March 2020 has however led to significant delays in the delivery of health services, including colorectal cancer treatments. This study investigates the effects of delayed colorectal cancer treatments during the COVID pandemic on disease progression.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 107 patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer was conducted. The occurrence of cancer upstaging after initial diagnosis was assessed and compared between patients with treatment delays and patients who received treatments within the period recommended by NHS guidelines. A logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between treatment delays beyond 62 days and cancer upstaging.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 71.2 years and 64.5% of the patients were over 65 years. Treatment delays were observed in 53.3% of reviewed patients. Patients with treatment delays received cancer treatments 95.8 (31.0) days on average after referral, compared to 46.3 (11.5) days in patients who experienced no treatment delays (p-value<0.0001). 38.6% of patients with treatment delays experienced cancer upstaging by the time of treatment, compared to 20% in the non-delay group (p-value = 0.036). Patients who received treatment after sixty two days from date of referral were 3.27 times more likely to experience colorectal cancer upstaging compared to those who received timely treatments.

CONCLUSION

Although an effective response to the Covid-19 pandemic requires the reallocation of healthcare resources, there is a need to ensure that treatments and health outcomes of patients with chronic diseases such as colorectal cancer continue to be prioritized and delivered in timely fashion.

Does delaying curative surgery for colorectal cancer influence long-term disease-free survival? A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Surgical wait list time is a major problem in many health-care systems and its influence on survival is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of wait list time on long-term disease-free survival in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in patients with colorectal cancer scheduled for surgery at a tertiary care center. Wait list time was defined as the time from completion of diagnostic workup to definitive surgery and divided into 2-week intervals from 0 to 6 weeks. The outcome variables were 2-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 602 patients, 364 (60.5%) male, median age 73 years (range = 71) were defined. The median wait list time was 28 days (range = 99). Two and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 521 (86.5%) and 500 (83.1%) respectively. There were no differences in 2-year or 5-year disease-free survival for the whole cohort or by tumor stage between wait list time intervals except for AJCC stage II tumors which showed a higher 5-year disease-free survival for the 2-4 and 4-6-week wait list time interval (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Time from diagnosis to definitive surgery up to 6 weeks is not associated with a decrease in 2-year or 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) in AJCC stage I through III colorectal cancer patients. These are important findings in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a window of opportunity for preoperative optimization and prehabilitation.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Delay: Effect on Stage Shift and Increased Mortality

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a sudden, dramatic impact on healthcare. In Italy, since the beginning of the pandemic, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs have been forcefully suspended. We aimed to evaluate whether screening procedure delays can affect the outcomes of CRC screening.

METHODS

We built a procedural model considering delays in the time to colonoscopy and estimating the effect on mortality due to up-stage migration of patients. The number of expected CRC cases was computed by using the data of the Italian screened population. Estimates of the effects of delay to colonoscopy on CRC stage, and of stage on mortality were assessed by a meta-analytic approach.

RESULTS

With a delay of 0-3 months, 74% of CRC is expected to be stage I-II, while with a delay of 4-6 months there would be a 2%-increase for stage I-II and a concomitant decrease for stage III-IV (P = .068). Compared to baseline (0-3 months), moderate (7-12 months) and long (> 12 months) delays would lead to a significant increase in advanced CRC (from 26% to 29% and 33%, respectively; P = .008 and P < .001, respectively). We estimated a significant increase in the total number of deaths (+12.0%) when moving from a 0-3-months to a >12-month delay (P = .005), and a significant change in mortality distribution by stage when comparing the baseline with the >12-months (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening delays beyond 4-6 months would significantly increase advanced CRC cases, and also mortality if lasting beyond 12 months. Our data highlight the need to reorganize efforts against high-impact diseases such as CRC, considering possible future waves of SARS-CoV-2 or other pandemics.

Factors associated with waiting time to breast cancer diagnosis among symptomatic breast cancer patients: a population-based study from Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE

A prolonged time from first presentation to cancer diagnosis has been associated with worse disease-related outcomes. This study evaluated potential determinants of a long diagnostic interval among symptomatic breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a population-based, cross-sectional study of symptomatic breast cancer patients diagnosed in Ontario, Canada from 2007 to 2015 using administrative health data. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from the earliest breast cancer-related healthcare encounter before diagnosis to the diagnosis date. Potential determinants of the diagnostic interval included patient, disease and usual healthcare utilization characteristics. We used multivariable quantile regression to evaluate their relationship with the diagnostic interval. We also examined differences in diagnostic interval by the frequency of encounters within the interval.

RESULTS

Among 45,967 symptomatic breast cancer patients, the median diagnostic interval was 41 days (interquartile range 20-92). Longer diagnostic intervals were observed in younger patients, patients with higher burden of comorbid disease, recent immigrants to Canada, and patients with higher healthcare utilization prior to their diagnostic interval. Shorter intervals were observed in patients residing in long-term care facilities, patients with late stage disease, and patients who initially presented in an emergency department. Longer diagnostic intervals were characterized by an increased number of physician visits and breast procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of groups at risk of longer diagnostic intervals provides direction for future research aimed at better understanding and improving breast cancer diagnostic pathways. Ensuring that all women receive a timely breast cancer diagnosis could improve breast cancer outcomes.

Interhospital referral of colorectal cancer patients: a Dutch population-based study

PURPOSE

Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital.

RESULTS

In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands.

Age-related and socioeconomic inequalities in timeliness of referral and start of treatment in colorectal cancer: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Poorer colorectal cancer survival in the UK than in similar countries may be partly due to delays in the care pathway. To address this, cancer waiting time targets were established. We investigated if socio-demographic inequalities exist in meeting cancer waiting times for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We identified primary colorectal cancers (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision C18-C20; n=35 142) diagnosed in the period 2001-2010 in the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry area. Using multivariable logistic regression, we calculated likelihood of referral and treatment within target by age group and deprivation quintile.

RESULTS

48% of the patients were referred to hospital within target (≤14 days from general practitioner (GP) referral to first hospital appointment); 52% started treatment within 31 days of diagnosis; and 44% started treatment within 62 days of GP referral. Individuals aged 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ years were significantly more likely to attend a first hospital appointment within 14 days than those aged <60 years (adjusted OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.34; adjusted OR=1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.29; adjusted OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.42, respectively). Older age was significantly associated with lower likelihood of starting treatment within 31 days of diagnosis and 62 days of referral. Deprivation was not related to referral within target but was associated with lower likelihood of starting treatment within 31 days of diagnosis or 62 days of referral (most vs least: adjusted OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with colorectal cancer were less likely to experience referral delays but more likely to experience treatment delays. More deprived patients were more likely to experience treatment delays. Investigation of patient pathways, treatment decision-making and treatment planning would improve understanding of these inequalities.

Trends and Clinical Outcomes in Young-onset Colorectal Cancer Patients

Introduction: Young individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to be diagnosed at advanced stages and are not routinely included in screening programmes. This study describes the incidence, disease pattern and factors affecting overall survival in young- onset CRC. Methods: A retrospective study of young-onset CRC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 in a tertiary hospital was conducted. Results: There were 99 patients, 69.7% had left-sided while 30.3% had right-sided CRC. The mean age was 43.3 years (43.3±5.0) and 62 patients (62.6%) were male. The incidence of young-onset CRC has been on the rise since 2014. Out of 99 patients, 65 (65.7%) underwent elective surgery, 30 (30.3%) underwent emergency surgery and the remainder 5 (4.0%) were palliated. The most common presenting complaints for patients who underwent elective surgery were abdominal pain, per-rectal bleeding and altered bowel habits. For patients who required emergency surgery, 20 (66.6%) presented with intestinal obstruction and 10 (33.3%) had intestinal perforation. There were 42 (42.4%) stage III CRC and 20 (20.2%) stage IV CRC. The most frequent metastatic site was the liver (20/20, 100%). Five patients had signet ring cells (5.1%) in their histology while 15 (15.2%) had mucinous features. The overall 5-year survival of young-onset CRC was 82.0%. Advanced overall stage (hazard ratio (HR) 6.1, CI 1.03–3.62) and signet ring histology (HR 34.2, CI 2.24–5.23) were associated with poor prognosis. Conclusion: Young-onset CRC tend to be left-sided with advanced presentations. However, their 5-year survival remains favourable as compared to the general population. Keywords: Colorectal screening in the young, early-onset colorectal cancer, signet ring cell colorectal cancer

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.

Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and Colorectal Cancer Survival: A Retrospective High-Resolution Population-Based Study in Spain

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Population-based, high-resolution studies are essential for the continuous evaluation and updating of diagnosis and treatment standards. This study aimed to assess adherence to clinical practice guidelines and investigate its relationship with survival. We conducted a retrospective high-resolution population-based study of 1050 incident CRC cases from the cancer registries of Granada and Girona, with a 5-year follow-up. We recorded clinical, diagnostic, and treatment-related information and assessed adherence to nine quality indicators of the relevant CRC guidelines. Overall adherence (on at least 75% of the indicators) significantly reduced the excess risk of death (RER) = 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.45]. Analysis of the separate indicators showed that patients for whom complementary imaging tests were requested had better survival, RER = 0.58 [95% CI 0.46-0.73], as did patients with stage III colon cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, RER = 0.33, [95% CI 0.16-0.70]. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines can reduce the excess risk of dying from CRC by 65% [95% CI 55-72%]. Ordering complementary imagining tests that improve staging and treatment choice for all CRC patients and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients could be especially important. In contrast, controlled delays in starting some treatments appear not to decrease survival.

Impact of time-to-treatment on overall survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients-an analysis of the national cancer database

Background

The association between time-to-treatment and outcomes for lung cancer has not been conclusively established. In this study, we evaluated the effect of time-to-treatment on the overall 5-year survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with cancer stage at diagnosis.

Methods

We analyzed data in the National Cancer Data Base for adult patients newly diagnosed with NSCLC in 2003–2011 (N=693,554). Extended Cox regression with counting process was used to model the effect of time-to-treatment on survival, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Multivariable analyses were performed separately for the groups with different stages at diagnosis. Time-to-treatment was defined as the interval between diagnosis and treatment initiation, with the categories of (I) 0 day, (II) 1 day–4 weeks, (III) 4.1–6.0 weeks, and (IV) >6 weeks (the 1 day–4 weeks group was considered the reference group).

Results

Compared to treatment initiated between 1 day and 4 weeks after diagnosis, time-to-treatment at 4.1–6.0 weeks was associated with a lower risk of death for patients with early-stage cancer [adjusted HR (aHR), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82–0.85)], with locally advanced cancer [aHR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80–0.83)], and with metastatic cancer [aHR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74–0.76)]. Similarly, a lower risk of death was associated with time-to-treatment longer than 6 weeks for patients with any cancer stage at diagnosis. However, a subset analysis for early-stage patients who received surgery only showed that extended time-to-surgery was associated a higher risk of death [aHR _{4.1-6.0 weeks}, 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03–1.09); aHR_{>6 weeks} 1.17 (95% CI, 1.14–1.20)].

Conclusions

The findings show that, although time-to-treatment should not be compromised, it is imperative to ensure that patients receive optimal pre-treatment assessments rather than rushing the treatment. Future research should focus on examining clinical characteristics to determine an optimal time-to-treatment to achieve the best possible survival for NSCLC patients.

Effect of Health Care Provider Delays on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Multicenter Population-Based Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom has lower survival figures for all types of cancers compared to many European countries despite similar national expenditures on health. This discrepancy may be linked to long diagnostic and treatment delays.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether delays experienced by patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) affect their survival.

METHODS

This observational study utilized the Somerset Cancer Register to identify patients with CRC who were diagnosed on the basis of positive histology findings. The effects of diagnostic and treatment delays and their subdivisions on outcomes were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to illustrate group differences.

RESULTS

A total of 648 patients (375 males, 57.9% males) were included in this study. We found that neither diagnostic delay nor treatment delay had an effect on the overall survival in patients with CRC (χ²₃=1.5, P=.68; χ23=0.6, P=.90, respectively). Similarly, treatment delays did not affect the outcomes in patients with CRC (χ²₃=5.5, P=.14). The initial Cox regression analysis showed that patients with CRC who had short diagnostic delays were less likely to die than those experiencing long delays (hazard ratio 0.165, 95% CI 0.044-0.616; P=.007). However, this result was nonsignificant following sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and treatment delays had no effect on the survival of this cohort of patients with CRC. The utility of the 2-week wait referral system is therefore questioned. Timely screening with subsequent early referral and access to diagnostics may have a more beneficial effect.

Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Delays in referral for patients with colorectal cancer may occur if the presenting symptom is falsely attributed to a benign condition.

AIM

To investigate whether delays in referral from primary care are associated with a later stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse prognosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A national retrospective cohort study in England including adult patients with colorectal cancer identified from the cancer registry with linkage to Clinical Practice Research Datalink, who had been referred following presentation to their GP with a 'red flag' or 'non-specific' symptom.

METHOD

The hazard ratios (HR) of death were calculated for delays in referral of between 2 weeks and 3 months, and >3 months, compared with referrals within 2 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 4527 (63.5%) patients with colon cancer and 2603 (36.5%) patients with rectal cancer were included in the study. The percentage of patients presenting with red-flag symptoms who experienced a delay of >3 months before referral was 16.9% of those with colon cancer and 13.5% of those with rectal cancer, compared with 35.7% of patients with colon cancer and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer who presented with non-specific symptoms. Patients referred after 3 months with red-flag symptoms demonstrated a significantly worse prognosis than patients who were referred within 2 weeks (colon cancer: HR 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 1.81; rectal cancer: HR 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.60). This association was not seen for patients presenting with non-specific symptoms. Delays in referral were associated with a significantly higher proportion of late-stage cancers.

CONCLUSION

The first presentation to the GP provides a referral opportunity to identify the underlying cancer, which, if missed, is associated with a later stage in diagnosis and worse survival.

ACORN: Observational Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With First-Line Chemotherapy for Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is worse than expected in the United Kingdom. Real-world data are needed to better understand UK-specific treatment practices that may explain this.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Avastin ColORectal Non-interventional (ACORN) study is a multicenter, prospective, UK-based, observational, phase 4 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01506167) that recruited patients with metastatic colorectal cancer scheduled to receive bevacizumab in combination with first-line chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice. Primary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (AEs), and grade 3 to 5 bevacizumab-related AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 714 patients were recruited between August 30, 2012, and February 4, 2014. Median follow-up was 16.4 months. Median first-line chemotherapy duration was 5.6 months, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (265 [37.1%]) being the most common regimen. Median total chemotherapy duration was 8.1 months and did not vary by geographic location in the UK. Median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) was 8.7 (8.2-9.1) months, and median OS was 17.8 (16.1-19.3) months. There was no significant difference in efficacy by chemotherapy regimen administered. Ninety-nine patients (13.9%) received bevacizumab after disease progression. The safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with previous studies.

CONCLUSION

ACORN provided evidence that there were no clear differences observed in outcomes between bevacizumab with capecitabine-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil-based regimens, and confirmed the safety profile of bevacizumab in a real-world UK-based population. The lower-than-expected OS is likely due to the short total chemotherapy duration, less frequent use of bevacizumab after disease progression, and higher rates of in-situ primary tumors.

Artificial Neural Network Individualised Prediction of Time to Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Aim

Colorectal cancer pathway targets mandate prompt treatment although practicalities may mean patients wait for surgery. This variable period could be utilised for patient optimisation; however, there is currently no reliable predictive system for time to surgery. If individualised surgical waits were prospectively known, tailored prehabilitation could be introduced.

Methods

A dedicated, prospectively populated elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with a curative intent database was utilised. Primary endpoint was the prediction of the individualised waiting time for surgery. A multilayered perceptron artificial neural network (ANN) model was trained and tested alongside uni- and multivariate analyses.

Results

668 consecutive patients were included. 8.5% underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The mean time from diagnosis to surgery was 53 days (95% CI 48.3-57.8). ANN correctly identified those having surgery in <8 (97.7% and 98.8%) and <12 weeks (97.1% and 98.8%) of the training and testing cohorts with area under the receiver operating curves of 0.793 and 0.865, respectively. After neoadjuvant treatment, an ASA physical status score was the most important potentially modifiable risk factor for prolonged waits (normalised importance 64%, OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.5-16). The ANN findings were accurately cross-validated with a logistic regression model.

Conclusion

Artificial neural networks using demographic and diagnostic data successfully predict individual time to colorectal cancer surgery. This could assist the personalisation of preoperative care including the incorporation of prehabilitation interventions.

Wait times to diagnosis and treatment in patients with colorectal cancer in Hungary

BACKGROUND

Mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) in Hungary is the highest in Europe. It was the aim of the present study to determine the wait times from first presentation to diagnosis, in a sample of Hungarian patients with CRC, as well as to assess the stages of CRC at diagnosis.

METHODS

A retrospective study based on data from 212 patients with CRC in Baranya county was carried out. Data extraction was performed from 26 GP practices and from the database of the University of Pécs Clinical Center. Total Diagnostic Interval (TDI) was determined as the number of days from the first patient-physician consultation with symptoms until the pathologically confirmed date of diagnosis. Total Treatment Interval (TTI) was calculated until the first day of any form of treatment. Statistical analyses, descriptive analysis and analysis of variance, were performed.

RESULTS

A minority (36.8%) of the diagnosed CRC cases were early stage cancers (Stages I-II), while the majority (59.9%) of the cases were diagnosed as advanced stage (Stages III-IV) cancers. The median TDI was 41 days, and the median TTI was 67 days. There was a wide range between minimum and maximum waiting times regarding both diagnosis and initiation of therapy (369-371 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Wait times to diagnosis and treatment of CRC in Hungary are similar to Western countries however the ratio of advanced cancers at diagnosis is higher. The cause of late diagnosis may be due to patient delay, indicating the need for implementation of primary and secondary prevention.

Effect of length of time from diagnosis to treatment on colorectal cancer survival: A population-based study

Evidence is limited regarding the effect of diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) on the survival of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. In addition, previous studies on treatment delay and CRC survival have largely grouped patients from all stages (I-IV) into one cohort. Our study provides analysis on each stage individually. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with 39,000 newly diagnosed CRC patients obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database from 2004–2010 to examine the effect of DTIs on overall survival. DTIs were divided into 3 groups: ≤ 30 days (36,115 patients, 90.5% of study patients), 31–150 days (2,533, 6.4%), and ≥ 151 days (1,252, 3.15%). Risk of death was increased for DTI 31–150 days (hazard ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval 1.43–1.59) and DTI ≥ 151 days (1.64; 1.54–1.76) compared to DTI ≤ 30. This risk was consistent across all cancer stages. Additional factors that increased risk of death include male gender, age >75, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥7, other catastrophic illnesses, lack of multidisciplinary team involvement, and treatment in a low volume center. From these results, we advise that the DTI for all CRC patients, regardless of cancer staging, should be 30 days or less.

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Time from colorectal cancer diagnosis to laparoscopic curative surgery-is there a safe window for prehabilitation?

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in the adoption of formal prehabilitation programmes prior to elective surgery but regulatory targets mandate prompt treatment following cancer diagnosis. We aimed to investigate if time from diagnosis to surgery is linked to short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

An exploratory analysis was performed utilising a dedicated, prospectively populated database. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery with curative intent. Demographics, date of diagnosis and surgery was captured with patients dichotomised using 4-, 8- and 12-week time points. All patients were followed in a standardised pathway for 5 years. Overall survival was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier log-rank method.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients met inclusion criteria. Mean time from diagnosis to surgery was 53 days (95% CI 48.3-57.8). Identified risk factors for longer time to surgery were males (OR 1.92 [1.2-3.1], p = 0.008), age ≤ 65 (OR 1.9 [1.2-3], p = 0.01), higher ASA scores (p = 0.01) stoma formation (OR 6.9 [4.1-11], p < 0.001) and neoadjuvant treatment (OR 5.06 [3.1-8.3], p < 0.001). There was no association between time to surgery and BMI (p = 0.36), conversion (16.3%, p = 0.5), length of stay (p = 0.33) and readmission or reoperation (p = 0.3). No differences in five-year survival were seen in those operated within 4, 8 and 12 weeks (p = 0.397, p = 0.962 and p = 0.611, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed time from diagnosis to surgery was not associated with five-year overall survival (HR 0.99, p = 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Time from colorectal cancer diagnosis to curative laparoscopic surgery did not impact on overall survival. This finding may allow preoperative pathway alteration without compromising safety.

Compliance with the 62-day target does not improve long-term survival

AIMS

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines require patients with colorectal cancer to wait no longer than 62 days from first referral to initiation of definitive treatment. We previously demonstrated that failure to meet with these guidelines did not appear to lead to poor outcomes in the short term. This study investigates whether this holds true over a longer period.

METHODS

The survival status of 1,012 patients treated for colorectal cancer between January 1999 and June 2005 was reviewed. As in the previous audit, patients were placed into four groups, standard met (elective), standard met (emergency), standard failed (elective) and standard failed (emergency). Parameters analysed were pathological staging, 30-day mortality, long-term survival and cause of death. Data was analysed using log rank and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Operative mortality was higher in patients meeting the standard (7% elective, 20% emergency) compared to those who did not meet the standard (4% elective, 7% emergency). The proportion of early stage disease (Dukes' A and B) was highest in elective patients who failed the standard (50%) and lowest in emergencies meeting the standard (30%). Long-term survival was greatest in elective patients who failed the standard with 52% alive in October 2011 compared to 34% of elective cases meeting the standard. The most common cause of recorded death was colorectal cancer in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who were not treated within the time frame set by the SIGN guidelines survived for longer following surgery. Reasons for this are likely to be multifactorial and include pathological cancer stage.

Evidence of advanced stage colorectal cancer with longer diagnostic intervals: a pooled analysis of seven primary care cohorts comprising 11 720 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.

Volume-outcome relationship for colorectal cancer in primary care: a prospective cohort study

Purpose Higher caseloads are associated with better outcomes for many conditions treated in secondary and tertiary care settings, including colorectal cancer (CRC). There is little known whether such volume-outcome relationship exist in primary care settings. The purpose of this paper is to examine general practitioner (GP) CRC-specific caseload for possible associations with referral pathways, disease stage and CRC patients' overall survival. Design/methodology/approach The paper retrospectively analyses a prospectively maintained CRC database for 2009-2014 in a single district hospital providing bowel cancer screening and tertiary rectal cancer services. Findings Of 1,145 CRC patients, 937 (81.8 per cent) were diagnosed as symptomatic cancers. In total, 210 GPs from 44 practices were stratified according to their CRC caseload over the study period into low volume (LV, 1-4); medium volume (MV, 5-7); and high volume (HV, 8-21 cases). Emergency presentation (LV: 49/287 (17.1 per cent); MV: 75/264 (28.4 per cent); HV: 105/386 (27.2 per cent); p=0.007) and advanced disease at presentation (LV: 84/287 (29.3 per cent); MV: 94/264 (35.6 per cent); HV: 144/386 (37.3 per cent); p=0.034) was more common amongst HV GPs. Three-year mortality risk was significantly higher for HV GPs (MV: (hazard ratio) HR 1.185 (confidence interval=0.897-1.566), p=0.231, and HV: HR 1.366 (CI=1.061-1.759), p=0.016), but adjustment for emergency presentation and advanced disease largely accounted for this difference. There was some evidence that HV GPs used elective cancer pathways less frequently (LV: 166/287 (57.8 per cent); MV: 130/264 (49.2 per cent); HV: 182/386 (47.2 per cent); p=0.007) and more selectively (CRC/referrals: LV: 166/2,743 (6.1 per cent); MV: 130/2,321 (5.6 per cent); HV: 182/2,508 (7.3 per cent); p=0.048). Originality/value Higher GP CRC caseload in primary care may be associated with advanced disease and poorer survival; more work is required to determine the reasons and to develop targeted intervention at local level to improve elective referral rates.

Impact of travel time and rurality on presentation and outcomes of symptomatic colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported a survival disadvantage for rural dwellers who develop colorectal cancer, but the underlying mechanisms remain obscure. Delayed presentation to GPs may be a contributory factor, but evidence is lacking.

AIM

To examine the association between rurality and travel time on diagnosis and survival of colorectal cancer in a cohort from northeast Scotland.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The authors used a database linking GP records to routine data for patients diagnosed between 1997 and 1998, and followed up to 2011.

METHOD

Primary outcomes were alarm symptoms, emergency admissions, stage, and survival. Travel time in minutes from patients to GP was estimated. Logistic and Cox regression were used to model outcomes. Interaction terms were used to determine if travelling time impacted differently on urban versus rural patients.

RESULTS

Rural patients and patients travelling farther to the GP had better 3-year survival. When the travel outcome associations were explored using interaction terms, the associations differed between rural and urban areas. Longer travel in urban areas significantly reduced the odds of emergency admissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, P<0.05), and increased survival (hazard ratio 0.75, P<0.05). Longer travel also increased the odds of presenting with alarm symptoms in urban areas; this was nearly significant (OR 1.34, P = 0.06). Presence of alarm symptoms reduced the likelihood of emergency admissions (OR 0.36, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Living in a rural area, and travelling farther to a GP in urban areas, may reduce the likelihood of emergency admissions and poor survival. This may be related to how patients present with alarm symptoms.

Factors that influence treatment delay in patients with colorectal cancer

A prospective study was performed of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), distinguishing between colonic and rectal location, to determine the factors that may provoke a delay in the first treatment (DFT) provided.2749 patients diagnosed with CRC were studied. The study population was recruited between June 2010 and December 2012. DFT is defined as time elapsed between diagnosis and first treatment exceeding 30 days.Excessive treatment delay was recorded in 65.5% of the cases, and was more prevalent among rectal cancer patients. Independent predictor variables of DFT in colon cancer patients were a low level of education, small tumour, ex-smoker, asymptomatic at diagnosis and following the application of screening. Among rectal cancer patients, the corresponding factors were primary school education and being asymptomatic.We conclude that treatment delay in CRC patients is affected not only by clinicopathological factors, but also by sociocultural ones. Greater attention should be paid by the healthcare provider to social groups with less formal education, in order to optimise treatment attention.

Association Between Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment and Survival in Patients with Curable Gastric Cancer: A Population-Based Study in the Netherlands

Background

In the Netherlands, a maximum waiting time from diagnosis to treatment (WT) of 5 weeks is recommended for curative cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the association between WT and overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer.

Methods

This nationwide study included data from patients diagnosed with curable gastric adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2014 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into two groups: patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by gastrectomy, or patients who underwent gastrectomy as primary surgery. WT was analyzed as a categorical (≤5 weeks [Reference], 5–8 weeks, >8 weeks) and as a discrete variable. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the influence of WT on OS.

Results

Among 3778 patients, 1701 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy, and 2077 underwent primary gastrectomy. In the neoadjuvant group, median WT to neoadjuvant treatment was 4.6 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 3.4–6.0), and median OS was 32 months. In the surgery group, median WT to surgery was 6.0 weeks (IQR 4.3–8.4), and median OS was 25 months. For both groups, WT did not influence OS (neoadjuvant: 5–8 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, p = 0.068; >8 weeks, HR 0.85, p = 0.354; each additional week WT, HR 0.96, p = 0.078; surgery: 5–8 weeks, HR 0.91, p = 0.175; >8 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.314; each additional week WT, HR 0.99, p = 0.264).

Conclusions

Longer WT until the start of curative treatment for gastric cancer is not associated with worse OS. These results could help to put WT into perspective as indicator of quality of care and reassure patients with gastric cancer.

Time to diagnosis and stage of symptomatic colorectal cancer determined by three different sources of information: A population based retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Survival rates from colorectal cancer (CRC) are highly variable in Europe. This variability could potentially be explained by differences in healthcare system delays in diagnosis. However, even when such delays are reduced, the relationship of the diagnostic interval (time from presentation with symptoms to diagnosis) with outcome is uncertain.

METHODS

A total of 795 patients with CRC from 5 regions of Spain were retrospectively examined in this population-based multicenter study. Consecutive incident cases of CRC were identified from pathology services. The total diagnostic interval (TDI) was defined as the time from the first presentation with symptoms to diagnosis based on 3 different sources of information: (i) patient-recorded data (PR-TDI) by interview, (ii) hospital-recorded data (HR-TDI), and (iii) general practitioner-recorded data (GPR-TDI). Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to estimate the agreement of 3 different TDIs. The TDIs of patients with different stages of CRC were also compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

The median TDI was 131days based on patient interview data, 91days based on HR data, and 111days based on GPR data. Overall, the agreement of these TDIs was poor (CCC_PRvsHR=0.399, CCC_PRvsGPR=0.518, CCC_HRvsGPR=0.383). Univariate analysis indicated that the TDI was greater in those with less advanced CRC for all 3 methods of calculation, but this association was only statistically significant for the HR-TDI (p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that patients with more advanced CRC have longer TDIs. In fact, we found an inverse relationship between the TDI and CRC stage, an example of the "waiting time paradox". This association may likely be due to the presence of unmeasured confounders as the stage when symptoms appear or the tumour aggressiveness.

Impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on survival in esophageal cancer patients - A population-based study in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether the waiting time from diagnosis to treatment with curative intent for esophageal cancer impacts oncologic outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients treated by esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma in 2005-2013 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who underwent multimodality treatment and patients treated with surgery only were analyzed separately. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates. Cox regression was applied to estimate the influence of waiting time on overall survival. Analyses were performed with the original scale and in three categorized groups of waiting time (≤5 weeks, 5-8 weeks, and >8 weeks) based on guidelines and previous studies.

RESULTS

Of 3839 patients, 2589 underwent multimodality treatment and 1250 were treated with surgery only. In both groups, pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates were not significantly influenced by waiting time (p-values >0.05). Also, waiting time was not significantly associated with overall survival in the multimodality treatment group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, p = 0.171; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.21, p = 0.167), nor in the surgery only group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.432; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.00, p = 0.973).

CONCLUSION

This large population-based cohort study demonstrates that longer waiting time from diagnosis to treatment in patients treated for esophageal cancer with curative intent does not negatively impact pT-status, pN-status, R0 resection rates, and overall survival.

Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Delays in diagnostic testing after a positive result from a screening test can undermine the benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but there are few empirical data on the effects of such delays. We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the consequences of time to colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

METHODS

We used an established microsimulation model to simulate an average-risk United States population cohort that underwent annual FIT screening (from ages 50 to 75 years), with follow-up colonoscopy examinations for individuals with positive results (cutoff, 20 μg/g) at different time points in the following 12 months. Main evaluated outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality; additional outcomes were total life-years lost and net costs of screening.

RESULTS

For individuals who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy within 2 weeks of a positive result from an FIT, the estimated lifetime risk of CRC incidence was 35.5/1000 persons, and mortality was 7.8/1000 persons. Every month added until colonoscopy was associated with a 0.1/1000 person increase in cancer incidence risk (an increase of 0.3%/month, compared with individuals who received colonoscopies within 2 weeks) and mortality risk (increase of 1.4%/month). Among individuals who received colonoscopy examinations 12 months after a positive result from an FIT, the incidence of CRC was 37.0/1000 persons (increase of 4%, compared with 2 weeks), and mortality was 9.1/1000 persons (increase of 16%). Total years of life gained for the entire screening cohort decreased from an estimated 93.7/1000 persons with an almost immediate follow-up colonoscopy (cost savings of $208 per patient, compared with no colonoscopy) to 84.8/1000 persons with follow-up colonoscopies at 12 months (decrease of 9%; cost savings of $100/patient, compared with no colonoscopy).

CONCLUSIONS

By using a microsimulation model of an average-risk United States screening cohort, we estimated that delays of up to 12 months after a positive result from an FIT can produce proportional losses of up to nearly 10% in overall screening benefits. These findings indicate the importance of timely follow-up colonoscopy examinations of patients with positive results from FITs.

For which cancers might patients benefit most from expedited symptomatic diagnosis? Construction of a ranking order by a modified Delphi technique

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to answer the question 'for which cancers, in a symptomatic patient, does expediting the diagnosis provide an improvement in mortality and/or morbidity?'

METHODS

An initial ranking was constructed from previous work identifying 'avoidable deaths' for 21 common cancers in the UK. In a two-round modified Delphi exercise, 22 experts, all experienced across multiple cancers, used an evidence pack summarising recent relevant publications and their own experience to adjust this ranking. Participants also answered on a Likert scale whether they anticipated mortality or morbidity benefits for each cancer from expedited diagnosis.

RESULTS

Substantial changes in ranking occurred in the Delphi exercise. Finally, expedited diagnosis was judged to provide the greatest mortality benefit in breast cancer, uterine cancer and melanoma, and least in brain and pancreatic cancers. Three cancers, prostate, brain and pancreas, attracted a median answer of 'disagree' to whether they expected mortality benefits from expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can guide future research, with emphasis given to studying interventions to improve symptomatic diagnosis of those cancers ranked highly. In contrast, research efforts for cancers with the lowest rankings could be re-directed towards alternative avenues more likely to yield benefit, such as screening or treatment.

Rapid diagnostic pathways for suspected colorectal cancer: views of primary and secondary care clinicians on challenges and their potential solutions

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the challenges associated with implementation of the 2-week wait referral criteria and waiting time targets for colorectal cancer and to identify recommendations for improvements to the pathway.

DESIGN

Qualitative research using semistructured interviews and applying thematic analysis using the method of constant comparison.

SETTING

10 primary care surgeries and 6 secondary care centres from 3 geographical areas in the England.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 24 clinicians (10 general practitioners (GPs), 7 oncologists and 7 colorectal surgeons).

RESULTS

GPs and specialists highlighted delays in patient help-seeking, difficulties applying the colorectal cancer referral criteria due to their low predictive value, and concerns about the stringent application of targets because of potential impact on individual care and associated penalties for breaching. Promoting patient awareness and early presentation, clarifying predictive symptoms, allowing flexibility, optimising resources and maximising care coordination were suggested as improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges during diagnosis and treatment persist, with guidelines and waiting time targets producing the perception of unintended harms at individual and organisational levels. This has led to variations in how guidelines are implemented. These require urgent evaluation, so that effective practices can be adopted more widely.

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Rapid diagnostic pathways for cancer have been implemented, but evidence whether shorter diagnostic intervals (time from primary care presentation to diagnosis) improves survival is lacking. Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified patients diagnosed with female breast (8,639), colorectal (5,912), lung (5,737) and prostate (1,763) cancers between 1998 and 2009, and aged >15 years. Presenting symptoms were classified as alert or non-alert, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We used relative survival and excess risk modeling to determine associations between diagnostic intervals and five-year survival. The survival of patients with colorectal, lung and prostate cancer was greater in those with alert, compared with non-alert, symptoms, but findings were opposite for breast cancer. Longer diagnostic intervals were associated with lower mortality for colorectal and lung cancer patients with non-alert symptoms, (colorectal cancer: Excess Hazards Ratio, EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.72-1.00; Lung cancer: EHR 3-6 months vs <1 month: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.95; EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89). Prostate cancer mortality was lower in patients with longer diagnostic intervals, regardless of type of presenting symptom. The association between diagnostic intervals and cancer survival is complex, and should take into account cancer site, tumour biology and clinical practice. Nevertheless, unnecessary delay causes patient anxiety and general practitioners should continue to refer patients with alert symptoms via the cancer pathways, and actively follow-up patients with non-alert symptoms in the community.