Cargando…

The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers

BACKGROUND: Appreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus. METHODS: We analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lyratzopoulos, G, Saunders, C L, Abel, G A, McPhail, S, Neal, R D, Wardle, J, Rubin, G P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4385974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.40
_version_ 1782365119166021632
author Lyratzopoulos, G
Saunders, C L
Abel, G A
McPhail, S
Neal, R D
Wardle, J
Rubin, G P
author_facet Lyratzopoulos, G
Saunders, C L
Abel, G A
McPhail, S
Neal, R D
Wardle, J
Rubin, G P
author_sort Lyratzopoulos, G
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Appreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus. METHODS: We analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on 10 953 patients with any of 28 cancers. We calculated summary statistics for the length of the patient and the primary care interval and their ratio, by cancer site. RESULTS: Interval lengths varied greatly by cancer. Laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancers had the longest median patient intervals, whereas renal and bladder cancer had the shortest (34.5 and 30 compared with 3 and 2 days, respectively). Multiple myeloma and gallbladder cancer had the longest median primary care intervals, and melanoma and breast cancer had the shortest (20.5 and 20 compared with 0 and 0 days, respectively). Mean patient intervals were longer than primary care intervals for most (18 of 28) cancers, and notably so (two- to five-fold greater) for 10 cancers (breast, melanoma, testicular, vulval, cervical, endometrial, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, ovarian and thyroid). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the continuing development and evaluation of public health interventions aimed at shortening patient intervals, particularly for cancers with long patient interval and/or high patient interval over primary care interval ratio.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4385974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43859742015-04-07 The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers Lyratzopoulos, G Saunders, C L Abel, G A McPhail, S Neal, R D Wardle, J Rubin, G P Br J Cancer Full Paper BACKGROUND: Appreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus. METHODS: We analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on 10 953 patients with any of 28 cancers. We calculated summary statistics for the length of the patient and the primary care interval and their ratio, by cancer site. RESULTS: Interval lengths varied greatly by cancer. Laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancers had the longest median patient intervals, whereas renal and bladder cancer had the shortest (34.5 and 30 compared with 3 and 2 days, respectively). Multiple myeloma and gallbladder cancer had the longest median primary care intervals, and melanoma and breast cancer had the shortest (20.5 and 20 compared with 0 and 0 days, respectively). Mean patient intervals were longer than primary care intervals for most (18 of 28) cancers, and notably so (two- to five-fold greater) for 10 cancers (breast, melanoma, testicular, vulval, cervical, endometrial, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, ovarian and thyroid). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the continuing development and evaluation of public health interventions aimed at shortening patient intervals, particularly for cancers with long patient interval and/or high patient interval over primary care interval ratio. Nature Publishing Group 2015-03-31 2015-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4385974/ /pubmed/25734380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.40 Text en Copyright © 2015 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Full Paper
Lyratzopoulos, G
Saunders, C L
Abel, G A
McPhail, S
Neal, R D
Wardle, J
Rubin, G P
The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title_full The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title_fullStr The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title_full_unstemmed The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title_short The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
title_sort relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers
topic Full Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4385974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.40
work_keys_str_mv AT lyratzopoulosg therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT saunderscl therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT abelga therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT mcphails therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT nealrd therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT wardlej therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT rubingp therelativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT lyratzopoulosg relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT saunderscl relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT abelga relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT mcphails relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT nealrd relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT wardlej relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers
AT rubingp relativelengthofthepatientandtheprimarycareintervalinpatientswith28commonandrarercancers