Dataset Information

Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: Evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Most symptomatic women with breast cancer have relatively short diagnostic intervals but a substantial minority experience prolonged journeys to diagnosis. Atypical presentations (with symptoms other than breast lump) may be responsible.

Methods

We examined the presenting symptoms of breast cancer in women using data from a national audit initiative (n=2316). Symptoms were categorised topographically. We investigated variation in the length of the patient interval (time from symptom onset to presentation) and the primary care interval (time from presentation to specialist referral) across symptom groups using descriptive analyses and quantile regression.

Results

A total of 56 presenting symptoms were described: breast lump was the most frequent (83%) followed by non-lump breast symptoms, (e.g. nipple abnormalities (7%) and breast pain (6%)); and non-breast symptoms (e.g. back pain (1%) and weight loss (0.3%)). Greater proportions of women with 'non-lump only' and 'both lump and non-lump' symptoms waited 90days or longer before seeking help compared to those with 'breast lump only' (15% and 20% vs. 7% respectively). Quantile regression indicated that the differences in the patient interval persisted after adjusting for age and ethnicity, but there was little variation in primary care interval for the majority of women.

Conclusions

About 1 in 6 women with breast cancer present with a large spectrum of symptoms other than breast lump. Women who present with non-lump breast symptoms tend to delay seeking help. Further emphasis of breast symptoms other than breast lump in symptom awareness campaigns is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Koo MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5482318 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: Evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.

Koo Minjoung Monica MM von Wagner Christian C Abel Gary A GA McPhail Sean S Rubin Greg P GP Lyratzopoulos Georgios G

Cancer epidemiology 20170523

<h4>Introduction</h4>Most symptomatic women with breast cancer have relatively short diagnostic intervals but a substantial minority experience prolonged journeys to diagnosis. Atypical presentations (with symptoms other than breast lump) may be responsible.<h4>Methods</h4>We examined the presenting symptoms of breast cancer in women using data from a national audit initiative (n=2316). Symptoms were categorised topographically. We investigated variation in the length of the patient interval (ti ...[more]

PMID: 28549339

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic 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.MethodsWe 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).FindingsWe 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).InterpretationAlthough 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.FundingNational Institute for Health Research and Pancreatic Cancer Action.

Project description:The beliefs that antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are 1) effective only to treat delusions and hallucinations (positive symptoms), 2) that typical and atypical APDs differ only in ability to cause extrapyramidal side effects, and 3) that their efficacy as antipsychotics is due solely to their dopamine D2 receptor blockade are outmoded concepts that prevent clinicians from achieving optimal clinical results when prescribing an APD. Atypical APDs are often more effective than typical APDs in treating negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, and mood symptoms as well as reducing the risk for suicide and decreasing aggression. This applies not only to those diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder but also to bipolar disorder, major depression, and other psychiatric diagnoses. The greater advantage of an atypical APD is not evident in all patients for every atypical APD due, in part, to individual differences in genetic and epigenetic endowment and differences in the pharmacology of the atypical APDs, their mode of action being far more complex than that of the typical APDs. A common misconception is that among the atypical APDs, only clozapine is effective for reducing psychosis in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, and risperidone also can be more effective than typical APDs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; clozapine is uniquely indicated for reducing the risk for suicide. The ability of the atypical APDs to improve cognition and negative symptoms in some patients together with lower propensity to cause tardive dyskinesia (an underappreciated advantage) leads to better overall outcomes. These advantages of the atypical APDs in efficacy and safety are due, in part, to initiation of synaptic plasticity via direct and indirect effects of the atypical APDs on a variety of proteins, especially G proteins, and release of neurotrophins (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor). The typical APDs beneficial effects on psychosis are mainly the result of D2 receptor blockade, which can be associated with serious side effects and lack of tolerability.

Project description:The diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux is currently based on a combination of the patient history of multichannel intraluminal impedance and ambulatory pH (MII-pH); however, none of these findings alone is specific for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. We aimed to compare the baseline characteristics and esophageal baseline impedance values between patients with and without laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms.We retrospectively analyzed data from two groups of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux according to their reflux finding score (RFS) as scored by ENTs. Control patients were nonerosive reflux disease patients without laryngopharyngeal reflux. All MII-pH parameters and baseline impedance were analyzed from six levels and the proximal and distal baseline impedance and the ratio of the proximal to distal baseline impedance levels was calculated.Altogether 123 patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux and 49 control patients were included. A total of 81 of 123 patients had RFS ≥ 7, and 42 of 123 patients had RFS < 7. Baseline impedance analysis showed that patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms had significantly lower proximal baseline impedance values (1997 ± 51 vs 2245 ± 109, p < 0.05) than the control group. Additionally, patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms had a significantly lower proximal-to-distal ratio (1.28 ± 0.05 vs 1.53 ± 0.09, p < 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, patients with RFS < 7 were found to have a significantly lower acid exposure time than either the patients with RFS ≥ 7 (3.85 ± 0.65 vs 8.2 ± 1.52, p < 0.05) or the control group (3.85 ± 0.65 vs 6.1 ± 0.81, p < 0.05). Additionally, patients with RFS ≥ 7 had significantly lower proximal baseline impedance levels than the control group (1970 ± 63 vs 2245 ± 109, p < 0.05).Patients with pathologic laryngopharyngeal reflux symptom scores had lower proximal baseline impedance levels and lower proximal-to-distal ratios, which may reflect the proximal mucosal noxious effect of the refluxate. These results may indicate that laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms may be due to chronic acid exposure in the proximal segments of the esophagus, and the proximal-to-distal ratio may be used as a new metric for diagnosis.

Dataset Information

Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: Evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: Evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets