Dataset Information

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Redaniel MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4416709 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Redaniel Maria Theresa MT Martin Richard M RM Ridd Matthew J MJ Wade Julia J Jeffreys Mona M

PloS one 20150501 5

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 H ...[more]

PMID: 25933397

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTime from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis (diagnostic interval) is an important, and modifiable, part of the patient's cancer pathway, and can be affected by various factors such as age, gender and type of presenting symptoms. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationships of diagnostic interval with these variables in 15 cancers diagnosed between 2007 and 2010 using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the UK.MethodsSymptom lists for each cancer were prepared from the literature and by consensus amongst the clinician researchers, which were then categorised into either NICE qualifying (NICE) or not (non-NICE) based on NICE Urgent Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer criteria. Multivariable linear regression models were fitted to examine the relationship between diagnostic interval (outcome) and the predictors: age, gender and symptom type.Results18,618 newly diagnosed cancer patients aged ≥40 who had a recorded symptom in the preceding year were included in the analysis. Mean diagnostic interval was greater for older patients in four disease sites (difference in days per 10 year increase in age; 95% CI): bladder (10.3; 5.5 to 15.1; P<0.001), kidney (11.0; 3.4 to 18.6; P=0.004), leukaemia (18.5; 8.8 to 28.1; P<0.001) and lung (10.1; 6.7 to 13.4; P<0.001). There was also evidence of longer diagnostic interval in older patients with colorectal cancer (P<0.001). However, we found that mean diagnostic interval was shorter with increasing age in two cancers: gastric (-5.9; -11.7 to -0.2; P=0.04) and pancreatic (-6.0; -11.2 to -0.7; P=0.03). Diagnostic interval was longer for females in six of the gender non-specific cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (12.2; 0.8 to 23.6; P=0.04), colorectal (10.4; 4.3 to 16.5; P=0.001), gastric (14.3; 1.1 to 27.6; P=0.03), head and neck (31.3; 6.2 to 56.5; P=0.02), lung (8.0; 1.2 to 14.9; P=0.02), and lymphoma (19.2; 3.8 to 34.7; P=0.01). Evidence of longer diagnostic interval was found for patients presenting with non-NICE symptoms in 10 of 15 cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (62.9; 48.7 to 77.2; P<0.001), breast (115.1; 105.9 to 124.3; P<0.001), cervical (60.3; 31.6 to 89.0; P<0.001), colorectal (25.8; 19.6 to 31.9; P<0.001), gastric (24.1; 3.4 to 44.8; P=0.02), kidney (22.1; 4.5 to 39.7; P=0.01), oesophageal (67.0; 42.1 to 92.0; P<0.001), pancreatic (48.6; 28.1 to 69.1; P<0.001), testicular (36.7; 17.0 to 56.4; P< 0.001), and endometrial (73.8; 60.3 to 87.3; P<0.001). Pooled analysis across all cancers demonstrated highly significant evidence of differences overall showing longer diagnostic intervals with increasing age (7.8 days; 6.4 to 9.1; P<0.001); for females (8.9 days; 5.5 to 12.2; P<0.001); and in non-NICE symptoms (27.7 days; 23.9 to 31.5; P<0.001).ConclusionsWe found age and gender-specific inequalities in time to diagnosis for some but not all cancer sites studied. Whilst these need further explanation, these findings can inform the development and evaluation of interventions intended to achieve timely diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes, such as to provide equity across all age and gender groupings.

Project description:ObjectivesThe optimal method of identifying people with asthma from electronic health records in primary care is not known. The aim of this study is to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of different algorithms using clinical codes and prescription data to identify people with asthma in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).Methods684 participants registered with a general practitioner (GP) practice contributing to CPRD between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2015 were selected according to one of eight predefined potential asthma identification algorithms. A questionnaire was sent to the GPs to confirm asthma status and provide additional information to support an asthma diagnosis. Two study physicians independently reviewed and adjudicated the questionnaires and additional information to form a gold standard for asthma diagnosis. The PPV was calculated for each algorithm.Results684 questionnaires were sent, of which 494 (72%) were returned and 475 (69%) were complete and analysed. All five algorithms including a specific Read code indicating asthma or non-specific Read code accompanied by additional conditions performed well. The PPV for asthma diagnosis using only a specific asthma code was 86.4% (95% CI 77.4% to 95.4%). Extra information on asthma medication prescription (PPV 83.3%), evidence of reversibility testing (PPV 86.0%) or a combination of all three selection criteria (PPV 86.4%) did not result in a higher PPV. The algorithm using non-specific asthma codes, information on reversibility testing and respiratory medication use scored highest (PPV 90.7%, 95% CI (82.8% to 98.7%), but had a much lower identifiable population. Algorithms based on asthma symptom codes had low PPVs (43.1% to 57.8%)%).ConclusionsPeople with asthma can be accurately identified from UK primary care records using specific Read codes. The inclusion of spirometry or asthma medications in the algorithm did not clearly improve accuracy.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this research was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for MHRA Database Research (protocol number15_257) and the approved protocol was made available to the journal and reviewers during peer review. Generic ethical approval for observational research using the CPRD with approval from ISAC has been granted by a Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands-Derby, REC reference number 05/MRE04/87).The results will be submitted for publication and will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Drugs for dementia have been available in England since 1997. Since their launch, there have been several changes to national guidelines and initiatives that may have influenced prescribing. These include changes in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, several government dementia strategies, the addition of dementia to the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and the expiry of drug patents. Despite this, there has been little research into the effect of these events on prescribing. This paper examines prescribing trends in England using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink since the launch of drugs for dementia up to 1st January 2016. METHODS:We considered the monthly proportion of patients eligible for treatment, with a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease, receiving their first prescription for each drug class-namely, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (memantine). Trend analysis using joinpoint models was then applied to identify up to two trend changes per treatment of interest. RESULTS:The overall trend was for increasing prescriptions in each drug class over the period in which they were studied. This was indicated by the average monthly percentage change, which was 6.0% (95% CI, -?6.4 to 19.9; June 1997 to December 2015) for AChE inhibitors and 15.4% (95% CI, -?77.1 to 480.9; January 2003 to December 2015) for NMDA receptor antagonists. Prescriptions of AChE inhibitors increased at the end of 2012, probably in response to the patent expiry of these drugs earlier that year. The Prime Minister's Dementia Challenge launched in May 2012 may also have contributed to the observed increase. However, neither this strategy nor patent expiry appeared to influence prescriptions of NMDA receptor antagonists. Instead trend changes in this drug class were driven by NICE guidance released in 2011 that allowed access to these drugs outside of clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS:Dementia drug prescribing does not always respond to factors such as regulatory guidance, recommendations, or patent expiry, and when it does, not necessarily in a predictable way. This suggests that communication with clinicians may need to be improved to use drugs for dementia more cost-effectively.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Publications

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets