Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pearson, Clare; Fraser, Jess; Peake, Michael; Valori, Roland; Poirier, Veronique; Coupland, Victoria H.; Hiom, Sara; McPhail, Sean; Moffat, Jodie; Lyratzopoulos, Georgios; Shelton, Jon
• Is Part Of: Cancer epidemiology. Volume 61(2019:Aug.)
• Page Start: 111
• Page End: 118
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Secondary care -- Lung cancer -- Colorectal cancer -- Diagnostic intervals -- Early detection of cancer -- Early diagnosis -- England -- Population-based cancer registries; Cancer -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Carcinogenesis -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.05.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1877-7821

Abstract

Highlights: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval. Secondary care diagnostic interval was calculated for 95% of cancers. This interval varied by route to diagnosis, stage and comorbidities. Routine GP referrals and outpatient routes had longest intervals. Intervals decreased by advancing stage, within each route to diagnosis. Abstract: Background: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. Methods: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014–15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. Results: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. Conclusion: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.