Dataset Information

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN:Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS:Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS:With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION:There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

SUBMITTER: Menon U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. Persistent regional and international differences in survival represent many avoidable deaths. Differences in survival have prompted or guided cancer control strategies. This is the first study in a programme to investigate international survival disparities, with the aim of informing health policy to raise standards and reduce inequalities in survival.MethodsData from population-based cancer registries in 12 jurisdictions in six countries were provided for 2·4 million adults diagnosed with primary colorectal, lung, breast (women), or ovarian cancer during 1995-2007, with follow-up to Dec 31, 2007. Data quality control and analyses were done centrally with a common protocol, overseen by external experts. We estimated 1-year and 5-year relative survival, constructing 252 complete life tables to control for background mortality by age, sex, and calendar year. We report age-specific and age-standardised relative survival at 1 and 5 years, and 5-year survival conditional on survival to the first anniversary of diagnosis. We also examined incidence and mortality trends during 1985-2005.FindingsRelative survival improved during 1995-2007 for all four cancers in all jurisdictions. Survival was persistently higher in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, intermediate in Norway, and lower in Denmark, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, particularly in the first year after diagnosis and for patients aged 65 years and older. International differences narrowed at all ages for breast cancer, from about 9% to 5% at 1 year and from about 14% to 8% at 5 years, but less or not at all for the other cancers. For colorectal cancer, the international range narrowed only for patients aged 65 years and older, by 2-6% at 1 year and by 2-3% at 5 years.InterpretationUp-to-date survival trends show increases but persistent differences between countries. Trends in cancer incidence and mortality are broadly consistent with these trends in survival. Data quality and changes in classification are not likely explanations. The patterns are consistent with later diagnosis or differences in treatment, particularly in Denmark and the UK, and in patients aged 65 years and older.FundingDepartment of Health, England; and Cancer Research UK.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We suggested cervical cancer screening strategies for women living with HIV (WLHIV) by comparing their precancer risks to general population women, and then compared our suggestions with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. DESIGN:We compared risks of biopsy-confirmed cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (bHSIL+), calculated among WLHIV in the Women's Interagency HIV Study, to 'risk benchmarks' for specific management strategies in the general population. METHODS:We applied parametric survival models among 2423 WLHIV with negative or atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASC-US) cytology during 2000-2015. Separately, we synthesized published general population bHSIL+ risks to generate 3-year risk benchmarks for a 3-year return (after negative cytology, i.e. 'rescreening threshold'), a 6-12-month return (after ASC-US), and immediate colposcopy [after low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL)]. RESULTS:Average 3-year bHSIL+ risks among general population women ('risk benchmarks') were 0.69% for a 3-year return (after negative cytology), 8.8% for a 6-12-month return (after ASC-US), and 14.4% for colposcopy (after LSIL). Most CDC guidelines for WLHIV were supported by comparing risks in WLHIV to these benchmarks, including a 3-year return with CD4 greater than 500 cells/?l and after either three negative cytology tests or a negative cytology/oncogenic human papillomavirus cotest (all 3-year risks?1.3%); a 1-year return after negative cytology with either positive oncogenic human papillomavirus cotest (1-year risk?=?1.0%) or CD4 cell count less than 500 cells/?l (1-year risk?=?1.1%); and a 6-12-month return after ASC-US (3-year risk?=?8.2% if CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/?l; 10.4% if CD4 cell count?=?350-499 cells/?l). Other suggestions differed modestly from current guidelines, including colposcopy (vs. 6-12 month return) for WLHIV with ASC-US and CD4 cell count less than 350 cells/?l (3-year risk?=?16.4%) and a lengthened 2-year (vs. 1-year) interval after negative cytology with CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/?l (2-year risk?=?0.98%). CONCLUSIONS:Current cervical cancer screening guidelines for WLHIV are largely appropriate. CD4 cell count may inform risk-tailored strategies.

Dataset Information

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets