Are alarm symptoms predictive of cancer survival?: population-based cohort study

The Stockholm early detection of cancer study (STEADY-CAN): rationale, design, data collection, and baseline characteristics for 2.7 million participants

The Stockholm Early Detection of Cancer Study (STEADY-CAN) cohort was established to investigate strategies for early cancer detection in a population-based context within Stockholm County, the capital region of Sweden. Utilising real-world data to explore cancer-related healthcare patterns and outcomes, the cohort links extensive clinical and laboratory data from both inpatient and outpatient care in the region. The dataset includes demographic information, detailed diagnostic codes, laboratory results, prescribed medications, and healthcare utilisation data. Since its inception, STEADY-CAN has collected longitudinal data on 2,732,005 individuals aged ≥ 18 years old living in or having access to health care in Stockholm County during the years 2011-2021. Focusing on cancer, the cohort includes 140,042 (5.1%) individuals with incident cancer and a control group of 2,591,963 (94.9%) cancer-free individuals. The cohort's diverse adult population enables robust analyses of early symptom detection, incidental findings, and the impact of comorbidities on cancer diagnoses. Utilizing the wide range of available laboratory data and clinical variables allow for advanced statistical analyses and adjustments for important confounding factors. The cohort's primary focus is to improve understanding of the early diagnostic phase of cancer, offering a crucial resource for studying cancer detection in clinical practice. Its comprehensive data collection provides unique opportunities for research into comorbidities and cancer outcomes, making the cohort a useful resource for ongoing cancer surveillance and public health strategies. The present study gives a detailed description of the rationale for creating the STEADY-CAN cohort, its design, the data collection procedure, and baseline characteristics of collected data.

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.

The SYMPTOM-upper gastrointestinal study: A mixed methods study exploring symptom appraisal and help-seeking in Australian upper gastrointestinal cancer patients

Objective

There is limited evidence on the development of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer, how patients decide to seek help and the factors impacting help‐seeking. Our study, the first in Australia, aimed to explore symptom appraisal and diagnostic pathways in these patients. A secondary aim was to examine the potential to recruit cancer patients through a cancer quality registry.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with pancreatic or oesophagogastric cancer were recruited through Monash University's Upper‐Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry. Data collected through general practitioners (GP) and patient questionnaires included symptoms and their onset, whereas patient interviews focused on the patient's decision‐making in seeking help from healthcare pracitioners. Data collection and analysis was informed by the Aarhus statement. Coding was inductive, and themes were mapped onto the Model of Pathways to Treatment.

Results

Between November 2018 and March 2020, 27 patient questionnaires and 13 phone interviews were completed. Prior to diagnosis, patients lacked awareness of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms, leading to the normalisation, dismissal and misattribution of the symptoms. Patients initially self‐managed symptoms, but worsening of symptoms and jaundice triggered help‐seeking. Competing priorities, beliefs about illnesses and difficulties accessing healthcare delayed help‐seeking.

Conclusion

Increased awareness of insidious pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms in patients and general practitioners may prompt more urgent investigations and lead to earlier diagnosis.

Does Preoperative Waiting Time Affect the Short-Term Outcomes and Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer Patients? A Retrospective Study from the West of China

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of preoperative waiting time on the short-term outcomes and prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 3744 CRC patients who underwent primary CRC surgery at a single clinical medical center from Jan 2011 to Jan 2020. The baseline information, short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared among the short-waiting group, the intermediate-waiting group, and the long-waiting group.

RESULTS

A total of 3744 eligible CRC patients were enrolled for analysis. There were no significant differences in all of the baseline information and short-term outcomes among the three groups. In multivariate analysis, older age (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.631-2.324; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.693, 95% CI = 1.445-1.983), advanced clinical stage (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.301, 95% CI = 1.161-1.457; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.262, 95% CI = 1.139-1.400), overall complications (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.613, 95% CI = 1.303-1.895; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.560, 95% CI = 1.312-1.855), and major complications (OS: p=0.001, HR = 1.812, 95% CI = 1.338-2.945; DFS: p=0.006, HR = 1.647, 95% CI = 1.153-2.352) were independent factors of OS and DFS. In addition, no significant difference was found in all stages (OS, p=0.203; DFS, p=0.108), stage I (OS, p=0.419; DFS, p=0.579), stage II (OS, p=0.465; DFS, p=0.385), or stage III (OS, p=0.539; DFS, p=0.259) in terms of OS and DFS among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative waiting time did not affect the short-term outcomes or prognosis in CRC patients.

Impact of time-to-treatment on survival for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in the Netherlands: a nationwide observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The assumption that more rapid treatment improves survival of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not yet been proven. We studied the relation between time-to-treatment and survival in advanced stage NSCLC patients in a large multicentric nationwide retrospective cohort. Additionally, we identified factors associated with delay.

METHOD

We selected 10 306 patients, diagnosed and treated between 2014 and 2019 for clinical stage III and IV NSCLC, from the Netherlands Cancer Registry that includes nationwide data from 109 Dutch hospitals. Associations between survival and time-to-treatment were tested with Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Time-to-treatment was adjusted for multiple covariates including diagnostic procedures and type of therapy. Factors associated with delay were identified by multilevel logistic regression.

RESULTS

Risk of death significantly decreased with longer time-to-treatment for stage III patients receiving only radiotherapy (adjusted HR, aHR >21 days: 0.59 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.73)) or any type of systemic therapy (aHR >49 days: 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.91)) and stage IV patients receiving chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (aHR >21 days: 0.81 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.88)). No significant association was found for stage III patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and stage IV patients treated with targeted therapy. More complex diagnostic procedures often delay treatment.

CONCLUSION

Although in general it is important to start treatment as early as possible, our study finds no evidence that a more rapid start of treatment improves outcomes in advanced stage NSCLC patients. The benefit of urgent treatment is probably confounded by unmeasured patient and tumour characteristics and, clinical urgency dictating timelines of treatment. Time-to-treatment and its impact should be continuously evaluated as therapeutic strategies continue to evolve and improve.

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.

Effect of pre-existing conditions on bladder cancer stage at diagnosis: a cohort study using electronic primary care records in the UK

Background

Pre-existing concurrent medical conditions (multimorbidity) complicate cancer diagnosis when they provide plausible diagnostic alternatives for cancer symptoms.

Aim

To investigate associations in bladder cancer between: first, pre-existing condition count and advanced-stage diagnosis; and, second, comorbidities that share symptoms with bladder cancer and advanced-stage diagnosis.

Design and setting

This observational UK cohort study was set in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with Public Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service linkage.

Method

Included participants were aged ≥40 years with an incident diagnosis of bladder cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015, and primary care records of attendance for haematuria, dysuria, or abdominal mass in the year before diagnosis. Stage at diagnosis (stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4) was the outcome variable. Putative explanatory variables using logistic regression were examined, including patient-level count of pre-existing conditions and ‘alternative-explanations’, indicating whether pre-existing condition(s) were plausible diagnostic alternatives for the index cancer symptom.

Results

In total, 1468 patients (76.4% male) were studied, of which 399 (35.6%) males and 217 (62.5%) females had alternative explanations for their index cancer symptom, the most common being urinary tract infection with haematuria. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 2.18; P = 0.001). Alternative explanations were strongly associated with advanced-stage diagnosis in both sexes (aOR 1.69; 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.39; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Alternative explanations were associated with advanced-stage diagnosis of bladder cancer. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, but the effect was not driven entirely by alternative explanations.

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.

Delays in referral from primary care are associated with a worse survival in patients with esophagogastric cancer

NICE referral guidelines for suspected cancer were introduced to improve prognosis by reducing referral delays. However, over 20% of patients with esophagogastric cancer experience three or more consultations before referral. In this retrospective cohort study, we hypothesize that such a delay is associated with a worse survival compared with patients referred earlier. By utilizing Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a national primary care linked database, the first presentation, referral date, a number of consultations before referral and stage for esophagogastric cancer patients were determined. The risk of a referral after one or two consultations compared with three or more consultations was calculated for age and the presence of symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria. The risk of death according to the number of consultations before referral was determined, while accounting for stage and surgical management. 1307 patients were included. Patients referred after one (HR 0.80 95% CI 0.68-0.93 p = 0.005) or two consultations (HR 0.81 95% CI 0.67-0.98 p = 0.034) demonstrated significantly improved prognosis compared with those referred later. The risk of death was also lower for patients who underwent a resection, were younger or had an earlier stage at diagnosis. Those presenting with a symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria (OR 0.27 95% CI 0.21-0.35 p < 0.0001) were more likely to be referred earlier. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between a delay in referral and worse prognosis in esophagogastric patients. These findings should prompt further research to reduce primary care delays.

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.

Symptoms and patient factors associated with diagnostic intervals for pancreatic cancer (SYMPTOM pancreatic study): a prospective cohort study

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the UK; however, outcomes are poor, in part due to late diagnosis. We aimed to identify symptoms and other clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with pancreatic cancer diagnosis and diagnostic intervals.

Methods

We did this prospective cohort study at seven hospitals in two regions in England. We recruited participants aged 40 years or older who were referred for suspicion of pancreatic cancer. Data were collected by use of a patient questionnaire and primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses were done to examine associations between symptoms and patient factors with the total diagnostic interval (time from onset of the first symptom to the date of diagnosis), comprising patient interval (time from first symptom to first presentation) and health system interval (time from first presentation to diagnosis).

Findings

We recruited 391 participants between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2014 (24% response rate). 119 (30%) participants were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (41 [34%] had metastatic disease), 47 (12%) with other cancers, and 225 (58%) with no cancer. 212 (54%) patients had multiple first symptoms whereas 161 (41%) patients had a solitary first symptom. In this referred population, no initial symptoms were reported more frequently by patients with cancer than by those with no cancer. Several subsequent symptoms predicted pancreatic cancer: jaundice (51 [49%] of 105 patients with pancreatic cancer vs 25 [12%] of 211 patients with no cancer; p<0·0001), fatigue (48/95 [51%] vs 40/155 [26%]; p=0·0001), change in bowel habit (36/87 [41%] vs 28/175 [16%]; p<0·0001), weight loss (55/100 [55%] vs 41/184 [22%]; p<0·0001), and decreased appetite (41/86 [48%] vs 41/156 [26%]; p=0·0011). There was no difference in any interval between patients with pancreatic cancer and those with no cancer (total diagnostic interval: median 117 days [IQR 57–234] vs 131 days [IQR 66–284]; p=0·32; patient interval 18 days [0–37] vs 15 days [1–62]; p=0·22; health system interval 76 days [28–161] vs 79 days [30–156]; p=0·68). Total diagnostic intervals were shorter when jaundice (hazard ratio [HR] 1·38, 95% CI 1·07–1·78; p=0·013) and decreased appetite (1·42, 1·11–1·82; p=0·0058) were reported as symptoms, and longer in patients presenting with indigestion (0·71, 0·56–0·89; p=0·0033), back pain (0·77, 0·59–0·99; p=0·040), diabetes (0·71, 0·52–0·97; p=0·029), and self-reported anxiety or depression, or both (0·67, 0·49–0·91; p=0·011). Health system intervals were likewise longer with indigestion (0·74, 0·58–0·95; p=0·0018), back pain (0·76, 0·58–0·99; p=0·044), diabetes (0·63, 0·45–0·89; p=0·0082), and self-reported anxiety or depression, or both (0·63, 0·46–0·88; p=0·0064), but were shorter with male sex (1·41, 1·1–1·81; p=0·0072) and decreased appetite (1·56, 1·19–2·06; p=0·0015). Weight loss was associated with longer patient intervals (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·54–0·89; p=0·0047).

Interpretation

Although we identified no initial symptoms that differentiated people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from those without pancreatic cancer, key additional symptoms might signal the disease. Health-care professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of pancreatic cancer in patients with evolving gastrointestinal and systemic symptoms, particularly in those with diabetes or mental health comorbidities.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research and Pancreatic Cancer Action.

Effect of diagnostic delay on survival in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Disparate and contradictory results make studies necessary to investigate in more depth the relationship between diagnostic delay and survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The aim of this study is to analyse the relationship between the interval from first symptom to diagnosis (SDI) and survival in CRC.

Methods

Retrospective study of n = 942 CRC patients. SDI was calculated as the time from the diagnosis of cancer and the first symptoms of CRC.

Cox regression was used to estimate five-year mortality hazard ratios as a function of SDI, adjusting for age and gender. SDI was modelled according to SDI quartiles and as a continuous variable using penalized splines.

Results

Median SDI was 3.4 months. SDI was not associated with stage at diagnosis (Stage I = 3.6 months, Stage II-III = 3.4, Stage IV = 3.2; p = 0.728). Shorter SDIs corresponded to patients with abdominal pain (2.8 months), and longer SDIs to patients with muchorrhage (5.2 months) and rectal tenesmus (4.4 months).

Adjusting for age and gender, in rectum cancers, patients within the first SDI quartile had lower survival (p = 0.003), while in colon cancer no significant differences were found (p = 0.282). These results do not change after adjusting for TNM stage.

The splines regression analysis revealed that, for rectum cancer, 5-year mortality progressively increases for SDIs lower than the median (3.7 months) and decreases as the delay increases until approximately 8 months. In colon cancer, no significant relationship was found between SDI and survival.

Conclusions

Short diagnostic intervals are significantly associated with higher mortality in rectal but not in colon cancers, even though a borderline significant effect is also observed in colon cancer. Longer diagnostic intervals seemed not to be associated with poorer survival. Other factors than diagnostic delay should be taken into account to explain this “waiting-time paradox”.

Symptoms and patient factors associated with longer time to diagnosis for colorectal cancer: results from a prospective cohort study

Background:

The objective of this study is to investigate symptoms, clinical factors and socio-demographic factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and time to diagnosis.

Methods:

Prospective cohort study of participants referred for suspicion of CRC in two English regions. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses examined associations between symptoms and patient factors with total diagnostic interval (TDI), patient interval (PI), health system interval (HSI) and stage.

Results:

A total of 2677 (22%) participants responded; after exclusions, 2507 remained. Participants were diagnosed with CRC (6.1%, 56% late stage), other cancers (2.0%) or no cancer (91.9%). Half the cohort had a solitary first symptom (1332, 53.1%); multiple first symptoms were common. In this referred population, rectal bleeding was the only initial symptom more frequent among cancer than non-cancer cases (34.2% vs 23.9%, P=0.004). There was no evidence of differences in TDI, PI or HSI for those with cancer vs non-cancer diagnoses (median TDI CRC 124 vs non-cancer 138 days, P=0.142). First symptoms associated with shorter TDIs were rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, ‘feeling different' and fatigue/tiredness. Anxiety, depression and gastro-intestinal co-morbidities were associated with longer HSIs and TDIs. Symptom duration-dependent effects were found for rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit.

Conclusions:

Doctors and patients respond less promptly to some symptoms of CRC than others. Healthcare professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of CRC in patients with relevant symptoms and mental health or gastro-intestinal comorbidities.

Use of the English urgent referral pathway for suspected cancer and mortality in patients with cancer: cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the overall effect of the English urgent referral pathway on cancer survival.

SETTING

8049 general practices in England.

DESIGN

Cohort study. Linked information from the national Cancer Waiting Times database, NHS Exeter database, and National Cancer Register was used to estimate mortality in patients in relation to the propensity of their general practice to use the urgent referral pathway.

PARTICIPANTS

215,284 patients with cancer, diagnosed or first treated in England in 2009 and followed up to 2013.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Hazard ratios for death from any cause, as estimated from a Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

During four years of follow-up, 91,620 deaths occurred, of which 51,606 (56%) occurred within the first year after diagnosis. Two measures of the propensity to use urgent referral, the standardised referral ratio and the detection rate, were associated with reduced mortality. The hazard ratio for the combination of high referral ratio and high detection rate was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.99), applying to 16% (n=34,758) of the study population. Patients with cancer who were registered with general practices with the lowest use of urgent referral had an excess mortality (hazard ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.08); 37% (n=79,416) of the study population). The comparator group for these two hazard ratios was the remaining 47% (n=101,110) of the study population. This result in mortality was consistent for different types of cancer (apart from breast cancer) and with other stratifications of the dataset, and was not sensitive to adjustment for potential confounders and other details of the statistical model.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the urgent referral pathway could be efficacious. General practices that consistently have a low propensity to use urgent referrals could consider increasing the use of this pathway to improve the survival of their patients with cancer.

Dysphagia is not a Valuable Indicator of Tumor Response after Preoperative Chemotherapy for R0 Resected Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction

Background:

Monitoring treatment response to preoperative chemotherapy is of utmost importance to avoid treatment toxicity, especially in non-responding patients. Currently, no reliable methods exist for tumor response assessment after preoperative chemotherapy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate dysphagia as a predictor of tumor response after preoperative chemotherapy and as a predictor of recurrence and survival.

Methods:

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction, treated between 2010 and 2012, were retrospectively reviewed. Dysphagia scores (Mellow-Pinkas) were obtained before and after three cycles of perioperative chemotherapy together with clinicopathological patient characteristics. A clinical response was defined as improvement of dysphagia by at least 1 score from the baseline. The tumor response was defined as down staging of T-stage from initial computer tomography (CT) scan (cT-stage) to pathologic staging of surgical specimen (pT-stage). Patients were followed until death or censored on June 27th, 2014.

Results:

Of the 110 included patients, 59.1% had improvement of dysphagia after three cycles of perioperative chemotherapy, and 31.8% had a chemotherapy-induced tumor response after radical resection of tumor. Improvement of dysphagia was not correlated with the tumor response in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.23). Moreover, the presence of dysphagia was not correlated with recurrence (p = 0.92) or survival (p = 0.94) in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion:

In our study, improvement of dysphagia was not valid for tumor response evaluation after preoperative chemotherapy and was not correlated with the tumor response. The presence of dysphagia does not seem to be a predictor of recurrence or survival.

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.

Critical items for assessing risk of lung and colorectal cancer in primary care: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Patients with lung or colorectal cancer often present late and have a poor prognosis. Identifying diagnostic indicators to optimally assess the risk of these cancers in primary care would support early identification and timely referral for patients at increased risk.

AIM

To obtain consensus regarding potential diagnostic indicators that are important for assessing the risk of lung or colorectal cancer in primary care consulters presenting with lung or abdominal symptoms.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A Delphi study was conducted with 28 participants from primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Europe.

METHOD

Indicators were obtained from systematic reviews, recent primary studies and consultation with experts prior to the Delphi study being conducted. Over three rounds, participants rated each diagnostic indicator in terms of its importance, ranked them in order of importance, and rated each item as crucial or not crucial to assess during a GP consultation.

RESULTS

The final round resulted in 25 items remaining for each type of cancer, including established cancer symptoms such as rectal bleeding for colorectal cancer and haemoptysis for lung cancer, but also less frequently used indicators such as patients' concerns about cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the items clinicians feel would be most crucial to include in the clinical assessment of primary care patients, a number of which have rarely been noted in the previous literature. Their importance in assessing the risk of lung or colorectal cancer will be tested as part of a large prospective cohort study (CANDID).