Dataset Information

Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Very few studies have reported cancer outcomes of patients referred through different routes, despite the prominence of current UK cancer urgent referral guidance.

Aim

This study aimed to compare outcomes of cancer patients referred through the urgent referral guidance with those who were not, with respect to stage at diagnosis, survival, and delays in diagnosis.

Design of study

Analysis of hospital records.

Setting

One hospital trust in England.

Method

The records of 889 patients diagnosed in 2000-2001 with one of four types of cancer were analysed: 409 with lung cancer; 239 with colorectal cancer; 146 with prostate cancer; and 95 with ovarian cancer. Outcome measures were diagnostic stage, survival, referral and secondary care delays.

Results

For lung cancer, urgent referrals had more advanced TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) stage than patients diagnosed through other routes (P = 0.035) and poorer survival (P = 0.020). There was no difference in stage or survival for the other cancers. For each cancer, a higher proportion of urgent referrals was seen within 2 weeks. Secondary care delays for lung and colorectal cancer were shorter for inter-specialty referrals.

Conclusion

For patients with lung cancer, the guidance appears to be prioritising those in the more advanced stages of disease. This was not the case for the other three cancers. Referral delays were shorter for patients urgently referred, as is the intention of the guidance. The avoidance of delays in outpatient diagnostics probably accounts for shorter secondary care delays for inter-specialty referrals.

SUBMITTER: Neal RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2042569 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.

Neal Richard D RD Allgar Victoria L VL Ali Nasreen N Leese Brenda B Heywood Phil P Proctor Gill G Evans Joyce J

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 20070301 536

<h4>Background</h4>Very few studies have reported cancer outcomes of patients referred through different routes, despite the prominence of current UK cancer urgent referral guidance.<h4>Aim</h4>This study aimed to compare outcomes of cancer patients referred through the urgent referral guidance with those who were not, with respect to stage at diagnosis, survival, and delays in diagnosis.<h4>Design of study</h4>Analysis of hospital records.<h4>Setting</h4>One hospital trust in England.<h4>Method ...[more]

PMID: 17359608

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are major innate immune cells that constitute up to 50% of the cell mass of human tumors. TAMs are highly heterogeneous cells that originate from resident tissue-specific macrophages and from newly recruited monocytes. TAMs' variability strongly depends on cancer type, stage, and intratumor heterogeneity. Majority of TAMs are programmed by tumor microenvironment to support primary tumor growth and metastatic spread. However, TAMs can also restrict tumor growth and metastasis. In this review, we summarized the knowledge about the role of TAMs in tumor growth, metastasis and in the response to cancer therapy in patients with five aggressive types of cancer: breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers that are frequently metastasize into distant organs resulting in high mortality of the patients. Two major TAM parameters are applied for the evaluation of TAM correlation with the cancer progression: total amount of TAMs and specific phenotype of TAMs identified by functional biomarkers. We summarized the data generated in the wide range of international patient cohorts on the correlation of TAMs with clinical and pathological parameters of tumor progression including lymphatic and hematogenous metastasis, recurrence, survival, therapy efficiency. We described currently available biomarkers for TAMs that can be measured in patients' samples (tumor tissue and blood). CD68 is the major biomarker for the quantification of total TAM amounts, while transmembrane receptors (stabilin-1, CD163, CD206, CD204, MARCO) and secreted chitinase-like proteins (YKL-39, YKL-40) are used as biomarkers for the functional TAM polarization. We also considered that specific role of TAMs in tumor progression can depend on the localization in the intratumoral compartments. We have made the conclusion for the role of TAMs in primary tumor growth, metastasis, and therapy sensitivity for breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers. In contrast to other cancer types, majority of clinical studies indicate that TAMs in colorectal cancer have protective role for the patient and interfere with primary tumor growth and metastasis. The accumulated data are essential for using TAMs as biomarkers and therapeutic targets to develop cancer-specific immunotherapy and to design efficient combinations of traditional therapy and new immunomodulatory approaches.

Project description:BackgroundThe 5-year overall survival rate of lung cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although screening for lung cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers.MethodsA total of 77 464 participants, aged 55-74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsCompliance with screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%-7.1% at subsequent screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (P(trend) < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screen-detected cancers and 87% were non-small cell lung cancers. Among non-small cell lung cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected cancers and 33.3% of interval cancers were early (I-II) stage.ConclusionsThe PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.

Project description:IntroductionIdentification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately.MethodsProspective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided.ResultsDuring follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites.ConclusionThe PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Project description:ImportanceMany studies have evaluated the long-term benefits of aspirin use; however, the association of aspirin use with cancer incidence and survival in older individuals remains uncertain. Additional population-based evidence of this association is necessary to better understand any possible protective effects of aspirin in older adults.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of aspirin use with risk of developing new cancers and site-specific cancer-associated survival in bladder, breast, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, and uterine cancers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Participants were aged 65 years or older at baseline (1993-2001) or reached age 65 during follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from January to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of and survival from the investigated cancer types. Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling, adjusting for covariates. Multivariable models for incidence included time-varying covariates.ResultsA total of 139 896 individuals (mean [SD] age at baseline, 66.4 [2.4] years; 71 884 [51.4%] women; 123 824 [88.5%] non-Hispanic White individuals) were included in the analysis. During the study period, 32 580 incident cancers (1751 [5.4%] bladder, 4552 [14.0%] breast, 332 [1.0%] esophageal, 397 [1.2%] gastric, 878 [2.7%] pancreatic, and 716 [2.2%] uterine cancers) were reported. Aspirin use was not associated with incidence of any of the investigated cancer types among individuals aged 65 years or older. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that aspirin use at least 3 times/week was associated with increased survival among patients with bladder (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.88) and breast (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96) cancers but not among those with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer. A similar association of any aspirin use with bladder (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98) and breast (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99) cancer survival was observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn the current study, any aspirin use and aspirin use at least 3 times/week was associated with improved bladder and breast cancer survival. Associations between aspirin use and incidence of any of the investigated cancers or between aspirin use and esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer survival were not observed.

Dataset Information

Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.

Background

Aim

Design of study

Setting

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets