ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2007
Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2015Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce primary care delay in cancer referral: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Pooled it
- Implementation of immunochemical faecal occult blood test in general practice: a study protocol using a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge design.BMC cancer · 2016Trial
- The effect of direct access to CT scan in early lung cancer detection: an unblinded, cluster-randomised trial.BMC cancer · 2015Trial
- Implementing direct access to low-dose computed tomography in general practice--method, adaption and outcome.PloS one · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Recanalization therapy in stroke patients with malignancies: in-hospital outcomes by cancer subtype in a nationwide administrative data analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- GP referrals for suspected cancer in Ireland: protocol for a cross-sectional study (GRACCHUS).HRB open research · 2025Article
- Occult metastases and survival of lung cancer by clinical diagnosis and CT screening: A simulation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of cancer in the Emergency Department: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Pathways to ovarian cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Prehospital care for ovarian cancer in Catalonia: could we do better in primary care? Retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Ovarian cancer symptoms, routes to diagnosis and survival - Population cohort study in the 'no screen' arm of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).Gynecologic oncology · 2020Article
- Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVery few studies have reported cancer outcomes of patients referred through different routes, despite the prominence of current UK cancer urgent referral guidance.
aimThis study aimed to compare outcomes of cancer patients referred through the urgent referral guidance with those who were not, with respect to stage at diagnosis, survival, and delays in diagnosis. DESIGN OF STUDY: Analysis of hospital records.
settingOne hospital trust in England.
methodThe records of 889 patients diagnosed in 2000-2001 with one of four types of cancer were analysed: 409 with lung cancer; 239 with colorectal cancer; 146 with prostate cancer; and 95 with ovarian cancer. Outcome measures were diagnostic stage, survival, referral and secondary care delays.
resultsFor lung cancer, urgent referrals had more advanced TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) stage than patients diagnosed through other routes (P = 0.035) and poorer survival (P = 0.020). There was no difference in stage or survival for the other cancers. For each cancer, a higher proportion of urgent referrals was seen within 2 weeks. Secondary care delays for lung and colorectal cancer were shorter for inter-specialty referrals.
conclusionFor patients with lung cancer, the guidance appears to be prioritising those in the more advanced stages of disease. This was not the case for the other three cancers. Referral delays were shorter for patients urgently referred, as is the intention of the guidance. The avoidance of delays in outpatient diagnostics probably accounts for shorter secondary care delays for inter-specialty referrals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17359608PMC2042569What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.