Background: Many countries have implemented standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs) to ensure fast diagnosis of patients suspected of having cancer. Yet, studies are sparse on the impact of such CPPs, and few have distinguished between referral routes. For incident cancer patients, we aimed to determine how often GPs suspected cancer at the time of first presentation of symptoms in general practice and to describe the routes of referral for further investigation. In addition, we aimed to analyse if the GP's suspicion of cancer could predict the choice of referral to a CPP. Finally, we aimed to analyse associations between not only cancer suspicion and time to cancer diagnosis, but also between choice of referral route and time to cancer diagnosis.

BackgroundFrom 2008, Danish general practitioners could refer patients suspected of having cancer to standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs).We aimed to compare the length of the diagnostic interval in 2010 with the length of the diagnostic interval before (2004/05) and during (2007/08) the implementation of CPPs in Denmark for all incident cancer patients who attended general practice prior to the cancer diagnosis.MethodsGeneral practitioner questionnaires and register data on 12,558 patients were used to compare adjusted diagnostic interval across time by quantile regression.ResultsThe median diagnostic interval was 14 (95% CI: 11;16) days shorter during and 17 (95% CI: 15;19) days shorter after the implementation of CPPs than before. The diagnostic interval was 15 (95% CI: 12;17) days shorter for patients referred to a CPP in 2010 than during the implementation, whereas patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 had a 4 (95% CI: 1;7) days longer median diagnostic interval; the pattern was similar, but larger at the 75th and 90th percentiles.ConclusionThe diagnostic interval was significantly lower after CPP implementation. Yet, patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 tended to have a longer diagnostic interval compared to during the implementation. CPPs may thus only seem to expedite the diagnostic process for some cancer patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThis paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses.Design and settingRecruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions.ParticipantsOur target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases.Main outcomesReliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types.ConclusionAn international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.

Longer cancer pathways may contribute to rural-urban survival disparities, but research in this area is lacking. We investigated time to diagnosis and treatment for rural and urban patients with colorectal or breast cancer in Victoria, Australia. Population-based surveys (2013-2014) of patients (aged ≥40, approached within 6 months of diagnosis), primary care physicians (PCPs), and specialists were collected as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Module 4. Six intervals were examined: patient (symptom to presentation), primary care (presentation to referral), diagnostic (presentation/screening to diagnosis), treatment (diagnosis to treatment), health system (presentation to treatment), and total interval (symptom/screening to treatment). Rural and urban intervals were compared using quantile regression including age, sex, insurance, and socioeconomic status. 433 colorectal (48% rural) and 489 breast (42% rural) patients, 621 PCPs, and 370 specialists participated. Compared with urban patients, patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer from rural areas had significantly longer total intervals at the 50th [18 days longer, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9-27], 75th (53, 95% CI: 47-59), and 90th percentiles (44, 95% CI: 40-48). These patients also had longer diagnostic and health system intervals (6-85 days longer). Breast cancer intervals were similar by area of residence, except the patient interval, which was shorter for rural patients with either cancer in the higher percentiles. Rural residence was associated with longer total intervals for colorectal but not breast cancer; with most disparities postpresentation. Interventions targeting time from presentation to diagnosis may help reduce colorectal cancer rural-urban disparities. .

ObjectiveInternational differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia).DesignPatients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients’ primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression.ParticipantsA total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses.Primary and secondary outcome measuresInterval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary).ResultsThe main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was ‘bleeding/blood in stool’. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results.ConclusionICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.

Background

No abstract

BackgroundIn this paper, we describe the settings, content, and possibilities of the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort as well as some of the key findings so far. Further, we describe the future potential of the cohort as an international resource for epidemiological and health services research studies.MethodsThe CaP cohort comprises information from three Danish subcohorts set up in 2004–2005, 2007–2008, and 2010 on newly diagnosed cancer patients aged 18 years or older. General practitioner (GP)-reported and patient-reported data from six questionnaires generated information on causes and consequences of delayed diagnosis of cancer, and these data were supplemented with complete information on, eg, death, migration, health care utilization, medication use, and socioeconomic data from Denmark’s comprehensive health and administrative registers. The cohort is followed up in terms of emigration, death, hospitalization, medication, and socioeconomics, and data are updated regularly.ResultsIn total, we identified 22,169 verified incident cancer cases. Completed GP questionnaires were returned for 17,566 (79%) of the verified cases, and patient questionnaires were completed by 8,937 (40%) respondents. Patients with participating GPs did not differ from patients with nonparticipating GPs in regard to one-year survival, comorbidity, or educational level. However, compared with nonparticipating GPs, patients listed with participating GPs were more likely to be women, younger, to have a higher disposable income, to have more regional or distant spread of tumors, were also more likely to have breast cancer, and were less likely to have prostate cancer. Responding patients were more likely to be women, aged 45–74 years, and diagnosed with breast cancer or malignant melanoma, and have higher one-year survival rates, more localized tumors, higher educational background, and higher disposable income.ConclusionThe cohort is an international resource for epidemiological and health service research, and data are accessible for well defined and approved collaborative studies.