Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25978414›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Age and Gender Variations in Cancer Diagnostic Intervals in 15 Cancers: Analysis of Data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Nafees U Din, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Greg Rubin, William Hamilton, Ben Carter, Sal Stapley, Richard D Neal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of factors associated with the patient and diagnostic intervals in gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nafees U DinNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Wrexham, United Kingdom.
Obioha C UkoumunneNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Greg RubinSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
William HamiltonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Ben CarterInstitute of Primary Care & Public Health, Cardiff School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Sal StapleyUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Richard D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Wrexham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTime from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis (diagnostic interval) is an important, and modifiable, part of the patient's cancer pathway, and can be affected by various factors such as age, gender and type of presenting symptoms. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationships of diagnostic interval with these variables in 15 cancers diagnosed between 2007 and 2010 using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the UK.

methodsSymptom lists for each cancer were prepared from the literature and by consensus amongst the clinician researchers, which were then categorised into either NICE qualifying (NICE) or not (non-NICE) based on NICE Urgent Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer criteria. Multivariable linear regression models were fitted to examine the relationship between diagnostic interval (outcome) and the predictors: age, gender and symptom type.

results18,618 newly diagnosed cancer patients aged ≥40 who had a recorded symptom in the preceding year were included in the analysis. Mean diagnostic interval was greater for older patients in four disease sites (difference in days per 10 year increase in age; 95% CI): bladder (10.3; 5.5 to 15.1; P<0.001), kidney (11.0; 3.4 to 18.6; P=0.004), leukaemia (18.5; 8.8 to 28.1; P<0.001) and lung (10.1; 6.7 to 13.4; P<0.001). There was also evidence of longer diagnostic interval in older patients with colorectal cancer (P<0.001). However, we found that mean diagnostic interval was shorter with increasing age in two cancers: gastric (-5.9; -11.7 to -0.2; P=0.04) and pancreatic (-6.0; -11.2 to -0.7; P=0.03). Diagnostic interval was longer for females in six of the gender non-specific cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (12.2; 0.8 to 23.6; P=0.04), colorectal (10.4; 4.3 to 16.5; P=0.001), gastric (14.3; 1.1 to 27.6; P=0.03), head and neck (31.3; 6.2 to 56.5; P=0.02), lung (8.0; 1.2 to 14.9; P=0.02), and lymphoma (19.2; 3.8 to 34.7; P=0.01). Evidence of longer diagnostic interval was found for patients presenting with non-NICE symptoms in 10 of 15 cancers (mean difference in days; 95% CI): bladder (62.9; 48.7 to 77.2; P<0.001), breast (115.1; 105.9 to 124.3; P<0.001), cervical (60.3; 31.6 to 89.0; P<0.001), colorectal (25.8; 19.6 to 31.9; P<0.001), gastric (24.1; 3.4 to 44.8; P=0.02), kidney (22.1; 4.5 to 39.7; P=0.01), oesophageal (67.0; 42.1 to 92.0; P<0.001), pancreatic (48.6; 28.1 to 69.1; P<0.001), testicular (36.7; 17.0 to 56.4; P< 0.001), and endometrial (73.8; 60.3 to 87.3; P<0.001). Pooled analysis across all cancers demonstrated highly significant evidence of differences overall showing longer diagnostic intervals with increasing age (7.8 days; 6.4 to 9.1; P<0.001); for females (8.9 days; 5.5 to 12.2; P<0.001); and in non-NICE symptoms (27.7 days; 23.9 to 31.5; P<0.001).

conclusionsWe found age and gender-specific inequalities in time to diagnosis for some but not all cancer sites studied. Whilst these need further explanation, these findings can inform the development and evaluation of interventions intended to achieve timely diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes, such as to provide equity across all age and gender groupings.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsBiomedical ResearchDatabases, FactualEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsSex FactorsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25978414
PMCPMC4433335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.