The effect of patient's delay and doctor's delay in patients with malignant germ cell tumours

Epidemiology, Management, and Survival Outcomes of Germ Cell Cancer in Southern Portugal: A Population-Based Study (2008-2012)

INTRODUCTION

Building on previous suboptimal survival results, we aimed to perform a study of the epidemiological status, management, and outcomes of germ cell tumors (GCT) in the Portuguese population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective populational study of GCT cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2012 in southern Portugal. Joinpoint regression was used to compute average annual percentage change (AAPC) in incidence rate. ESMO/EAU guidelines served as references to evaluate compliance. Association between compliance with guidelines and hospital GCT case load was performed by generalized estimating equation. Survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier and prognostic factors by Cox models.

RESULTS

The study included 401 GCT male cases. The AAPC was 5.4% (IC 95% 3.3-7.4, P < .001) from 1999 (an earlier cohort published) to 2012. The median time to diagnosis was 63 days (Q25 = 33 days; Q75 = 114 days; IQR = 81 days). For stage II/III the median time to start chemotherapy was 34 days (Q25 = 22 days; Q75 = 56 days; IQR = 22 days). In 86% cases there was noncompliance with guidelines for the orchiectomy report, 6% for staging, 38% for tumor markers evaluation, 20% for treatment and 25% for chemotherapy dose intensity. The 5-year overall survival was 93.8% (95% CI, 91.3%-96.4%). Hospitals that managed ≤ 3 GCT cases/ year had higher odds for noncompliance with guidelines of blood markers, treatment and dose intensity. None of GCT healthcare access and management factors studied were associated with prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of GCT is rising in Portugal. Although survival has improved, efforts must be made to nationally enhance training and expertise in GCT and support region adapted models of centralization of care.

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.

Priorities in testis cancer care during Covid-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

There is little information on how to prioritize testis cancer (TC) patients' care during COVID-19 pandemic in order to relieve its pressure on the health care systems.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with TC amidst COVID- 19 pandemic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed search and review of the main urological association guidelines on TC.

RESULTS

The biology of TC requires immediate care of patients during diagnosis, initial surgical therapy and management of recurrent disease. Active surveillance is the first choice of management and should be offered to all compliant clinical stage I TC patients provided they understand the need to self-isolate. Active surveillance may also help decrease the demand for intensive care unit beds, ventilators, personal protective equipment, and other critical hospital and human resources by minimizing surgeries without compromising patient outcomes. Complications of therapy and symptomatic patients represent medical emergencies and should be treated immediately. Telemedicine may be useful during follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Most stages of testis cancer require urgent care; however, all recommendations must be adapted to local health care priorities considering that most of these patients are at low risk of severe COVID-19 infection.

How will the Two-Weeks-Wait Rule Affect Delays in Management of Urological Cancers?

The UK National Health Service has now specified a maximum interval of two weeks between general practitioner (GP) referral and specialist assessment for patients with suspected cancer. We examined progress through the cancer pathway in 160 patients with potentially curable cancers of the prostate, bladder, kidney and testis before implementation of this rule. Median intervals with interquartile ranges were quantified from the first GP consultation to hospital referral, then to the first hospital consultation, confirmation of diagnosis and definitive surgery.

34% of patients were seen at the hospital within two weeks of referral. The overall median interval from GP consultation to radical surgery was 137 days, the longest being for prostate cancer (median 244). For prostate, bladder and renal cancers the principal element of delay was from the time of diagnosis to surgery (76, 73 and 26 days respectively).

These results indicate that, under the two-weeks-wait rule, 2 out of every 3 patients achieve earlier initial assessment. However, the overall delay will not be substantially reduced without concomitant increases in diagnostic facilities, theatre time and human resources.

Delay in Diagnosis of Testicular Cancer; A Need for Awareness Programs

Background Aim

To gain insight into patient and doctor delay in testicular cancer (TC) and factors associated with delay.

Materials and Methods

Sixty of the 66 eligible men; median age 26 (range 17–45) years, diagnosed with TC at the University Medical Center Groningen completed a questionnaire on patients’ delay: interval from symptom onset to first consultation with a general practitioner (GP) and doctors’ delay: interval between GP and specialist visit.

Results

Median patient reported delay was 30 (range 1–365) days. Patient delay and TC tumor stage were associated (p = .01). Lower educated men and men embarrassed about their scrotal change reported longer patient delay (r = -.25, r = .79 respectively). Age, marital status, TC awareness, warning signals, nor perceived limitations were associated with patient delay. Median patient reported time from GP to specialist (doctors’ delay) was 7 (range 0–240) days. Referral time and disease stage were associated (p = .04). Six patients never reported a scrotal change. Of the 54 patients reporting a testicular change, 29 (54%) patients were initially ‘misdiagnosed’, leading to a median doctors’ delay of 14 (1–240) days, which was longer (p< .001) than in the 25 (46%) patients whose GP suspected TC (median doctors’ delay 1(0–7 days).

Conclusions

High variation in patients’ and doctors’ delay was found. Most important risk variables for longer patient delay were embarrassment and lower education. Most important risk variable in GP’s was ‘misdiagnosis’. TC awareness programs for men and physicians are required to decrease delay in the diagnosis of TC and improve disease free survival.

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Timely Diagnosis of Testicular Cancer

Early detection of testicular tumors has been touted as beneficial for more than 100 years. In earlier eras, early detection was virtually the only way to improve outcomes. According to statistics that have been tracked in the literature, however, the delay from initial symptoms to definitive diagnosis by radical orchiectomy has averaged 4 to 5 months. In the modern era of effective chemotherapy, the effects of a delayed diagnosis on survival can be overcome but at the cost of a more morbid treatment regimen. Although screening on a population basis is not currently recommended by the National Cancer Institute, teaching testicular self examination to young men, particularly those who have risk factors, is reasonable.

How will the two-weeks-wait rule affect delays in management of urological cancers?

The UK National Health Service has now specified a maximum interval of two weeks between general practitioner (GP) referral and specialist assessment for patients with suspected cancer. We examined progress through the cancer pathway in 160 patients with potentially curable cancers of the prostate, bladder, kidney and testis before implementation of this rule. Median intervals with interquartile ranges were quantified from the first GP consultation to hospital referral, then to the first hospital consultation, confirmation of diagnosis and definitive surgery. 34% of patients were seen at the hospital within two weeks of referral. The overall median interval from GP consultation to radical surgery was 137 days, the longest being for prostate cancer (median 244). For prostate, bladder and renal cancers the principal element of delay was from the time of diagnosis to surgery (76, 73 and 26 days respectively). These results indicate that, under the two-weeks-wait rule, 2 out of every 3 patients achieve earlier initial assessment. However, the overall delay will not be substantially reduced without concomitant increases in diagnostic facilities, theatre time and human resources.

The changing distribution of stage in nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumours, from 1977 to 1996

OBJECTIVE

To determine the changes between 1977 and 1996 in the distribution of stages of testicular cancer (TC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The stage distribution was assessed, using various classifications, i.e. the Royal Marsden (RM), Indiana, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) and the Medical Research Council (MRC), in 517 patients with nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumours (NSTGCTs) diagnosed at a single institution between 1977 and 1996.

RESULTS

The number of patients in four consecutive 5-year periods (1977-81, 1982-86, 1987-91, 1992-96) was 119, 141, 141, and 116, respectively. Frequency analyses showed a significant increase of RM stage I, in proportion to stage II-IV, in 1982-86 (55%, odds ratio, OR, 2.54), 1987-91 (53%, OR 2.33) and 1992-96 (61%, OR 3.24) compared to the period 1977-81 (33%). A separate analysis of patients with disseminated disease showed a proportionate significant decrease of RM stage II in 1992-96 (29%, OR 0.43) compared with 1977-81 (49%). There was also a relative decrease of good-prognosis patients with disseminated disease in 1992-96 compared with 1977-81, using analyses of the Indiana (from 56% to 33%, OR 0.39) and EORTC classification (from 78% to 56%, OR 0.36). Analyses of the IGCCCG and MRC classification showed a significant decrease of good-prognosis patients in the 1982-86 compared with the first 5-year period (for IGCCCG, from 54% to 35%, OR 0.46, and for MRC, from 43% to 24%, OR 0.42).

CONCLUSION

The stage distribution of NSTGCT over the past two decades has changed. The proportion of stage I patients has increased since the early 1980s, apparently resulting from a shift of low-extent disseminated disease to stage I disease. This finding is relevant in reducing the treatment required in a higher proportion of patients and the subsequent reduction of long-term risk from treatment.

The dangers of a long urological waiting list

Statistics on urological waiting lists suggest that there is considerable regional variation in delay before treatment. This clearly depends on many factors but is unlikely to indicate significant variation in morbidity either at presentation or during subsequent admission for surgery. Managers and politicians should be extremely wary if encouraged to base major changes in distribution of funding and equipment on a casual examination of waiting list figures. It is doubtful if delay in diagnosis or treatment seriously influences morbidity and mortality from urological illness.

Patients' delay in the presentation of testis cancer in Ireland

A study of 217 cases of testis cancer in Ireland revealed a longer duration of symptoms (median 2.8 months, mean 10 months) than elsewhere: 32% of patients waited at least 6 months before seeking medical advice. Delay was associated with metastases (P = 0.001), diminished prospects of cure (P = 0.001) and increased mortality (P = 0.002) but not with marker status or complexity of treatment required. Eleven per cent did not notice a detectable swelling and 25% waited at least 3 months after such a discovery. These facts and the incidence of maldescent (12%, with more than two-thirds untreated) highlight the need for better health education in this area.