Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

Where are the inequalities in ovarian cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer from more deprived areas may face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, treatments received and hospital delay among patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom, a country with universal healthcare.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED, PsycINFO and HMIC from inception to January 2023. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either treatments received or hospital delay. The inclusion of studies from one country ensured greater comparability. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to PRISMA 2020 and registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022332071].

RESULTS

Out of 2876 references screened, ten were included. Eight studies evaluated treatments received, and two evaluated hospital delays. We consistently observed socioeconomic inequalities in the likelihood of surgery (range of odds ratios 0.24-0.99) and chemotherapy (range of odds ratios 0.70-0.99) among patients from the most, compared with the least, deprived areas. There were no associations between socioeconomic groups and hospital delay.

POLICY SUMMARY

Ovarian cancer treatments differed between socioeconomic groups despite the availability of universal healthcare. Further research is needed to understand why, though suggested reasons include patient choice, health literacy, and financial and employment factors. Qualitative research would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities.

Ovarian cancer symptoms in pre-clinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer - An exploratory analysis nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

OBJECTIVE

UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers.

METHODS

In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032.

RESULTS

1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial.

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

BACKGROUND

Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority.

AIM

To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014.

METHOD

GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models.

RESULTS

Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%).

CONCLUSION

In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Pathways to diagnosis of endometrial and ovarian cancer in the 45 and Up Study cohort

PURPOSE

To determine pathways to endometrial or ovarian cancer diagnosis by comparing health service utilization between cancer cases and matched cancer-free controls, using linked health records.

METHODS

From cancer registry records, we identified 238 incident endometrial and 167 ovarian cancer cases diagnosed during 2006-2013 in the Australian 45 and Up Study cohort (142,973 female participants). Each case was matched to four cancer-free controls on birthdate, sex, place of residence, smoking status, and body mass index. The use of relevant health services during the 13-18-, 7-12-, 0-6-, and 0-1-months pre-diagnosis for cases and the corresponding dates for their matched controls was determined through linkage with subsidized medical services and hospital records.

RESULTS

Healthcare utilization diverged between women with cancer and controls in the 0-6-months, particularly 0-1 months, pre-diagnosis. In the 0-1 months, 74.8% of endometrial and 50.3% of ovarian cases visited a gynecologist/gynecological oncologist, 11.3% and 59.3% had a CA125 test, 5.5% and 48.5% an abdominal pelvic CT scan, and 34.5% and 30.5% a transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, respectively (versus ≤ 1% of matched controls). Moreover, 25.1% of ovarian cancer cases visited an emergency department in the 0-1-months pre-diagnosis (versus 1.3% of matched controls), and GP visits were significantly more common for cases than controls in this period.

CONCLUSION

Most women with endometrial or ovarian cancer accessed recommended specialists and tests in the 0-1-months pre-diagnosis, but a high proportion of women with ovarian cancer visited an emergency department. This reinforces the importance of timely specialist referral.