Background:Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981–1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan.Materials and method:We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996–2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996–2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001–2003 (initialisation) and 2004–2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods.Results:Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis.Conclusion:The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups.
Background:More than 20% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed following an emergency presentation. We aimed to examine pre-diagnostic primary-care consultations and related symptoms comparing patients diagnosed as emergencies with those diagnosed through non-emergency routes.Methods:Cohort study of colorectal cancers diagnosed in England 2005 and 2006 using cancer registration data individually linked to primary-care data (CPRD/GPRD), allowing a detailed analysis of clinical information referring to the 5-year pre-diagnostic period.Results:Emergency diagnosis occurred in 35% and 15% of the 1029 colon and 577 rectal cancers. ‘Background' primary-care consultations (2–5 years before diagnosis) were similar for either group. In the year before diagnosis, >95% of emergency and non-emergency presenters had consulted their doctor, but emergency presenters had less frequently relevant symptoms (colon cancer: 48% vs 71% (P<0.001); rectal cancer: 49% vs 61% (P=0.043)). ‘Alarm' symptoms were recorded less frequently in emergency presenters (e.g., rectal bleeding: 9 vs 24% (P=0.002)). However, about 1/5 of emergency presenters (18 and 23% for colon and rectal cancers) had ‘alarm' symptoms the year before diagnosis.Conclusions:Emergency presenters have similar ‘background' consultation history as non-emergency presenters. Their tumours seem associated with less typical symptoms, however opportunities for earlier diagnosis might be present in a fifth of them.
. (2016) Extra-gastrointestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease may be less common than previously reported. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 61 (9).
ObjectiveTo describe the age pattern and temporal evolution of symptoms and signs of intracranial tumours in children and young adults before diagnosis.
Design and settingA record linkage study using population-based data from the National Cancer Registry, linked to Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).
Patient cohortPatients aged 0-24 years when diagnosed with a primary intracranial tumour between 1989 and 2006 in England.
MethodsLinked records of relevant symptoms and signs in primary care and hospitals were extracted from CPRD (1989CPRD ( -2006 and HES (1997HES ( -2006. Temporal and agespecific changes in presentation rates before diagnosis of an intracranial tumour, for each of eight symptom groups, were estimated in generalised additive models.
Results
All
ConclusionsNon-localising symptoms and signs were more than twice as common as focal neurological signs.An intracranial tumour should be considered in patients with relevant symptoms that do not resolve or that progress rapidly.4
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.