Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26032603›Full record

Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2016

Time to diagnosis of Type I or II invasive epithelial ovarian cancers: a multicentre observational study using patient questionnaire and primary care records.

Aww Lim, D Mesher, A Gentry-Maharaj, N Balogun, M Widschwendter, I Jacobs, P Sasieni, U Menon

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Temporal trends of healthcare system use between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.Gynecologic oncology research and practice · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Aww LimCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
D MesherCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
A Gentry-MaharajGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
N BalogunGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
M WidschwendterGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
I JacobsGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
P SasieniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
U MenonGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK C8162/A10406Cancer Research UK C8162/A6138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare time to diagnosis of the typically slow-growing Type I (low-grade serous, low-grade endometrioid, mucinous, clear cell) and the more aggressive Type II (high-grade serous, high-grade endometrioid, undifferentiated, carcinosarcoma) invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC).

designMulticentre observational study.

settingTen UK gynaecological oncology centres. POPULATION: Women diagnosed with primary EOC between 2006 and 2008.

methodsSymptom data were collected before diagnosis using patient questionnaire and primary-care records. We estimated patient interval (first symptom to presentation) using questionnaire data and diagnostic interval (presentation to diagnosis) using primary-care records. We considered the impact of first symptom, referral and stage on intervals for Type I and Type II iEOC.

main outcome measuresPatient and diagnostic intervals.

resultsIn all, 78% of 60 Type I and 21% of 134 Type II iEOC were early-stage. Intervals were comparable and independent of stage [e.g. median patient interval for Type I: early-stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3-3.0) versus late-stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3-4.5), P = 0.8]. Twenty-seven percent of women with Type I and Type II had diagnostic intervals of at least 9 months. First symptom (questionnaire) was also similar, except for the infrequent abnormal bleeding (Type I 15% versus Type II 4%, P = 0.01). More women with Type I disease (57% versus 41%, P = 0.04) had been referred for suspected gynaecological cancer. Median time from referral to diagnosis was 1.4 months for women with iEOC referred via a 2-week cancer referral to any specialty compared with 2.6 months (interquartile range 2.0-3.7) for women who were referred routinely to gynaecology.

conclusionOverall, shorter diagnostic delays were seen when a cancer was suspected, even if the primary tumour site was not recognised to be ovarian. Despite differences in carcinogenesis and stage for Type I and Type II iEOC, time to diagnosis and symptoms were similar. Referral patterns were different, implying subtle symptom differences. If symptom-based interventions are to impact on ovarian cancer survival, it is likely to be through reduced volume rather than stage-shift. Further research on histological subtypes is needed. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: No difference in time to diagnosis for Type I versus Type II invasive epithelial ovarian cancers.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareReferral and ConsultationAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialDelayed DiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMedical RecordsMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesDelaysearly diagnosisovarian cancersymptomsType I and II epithelial ovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID26032603
PMCPMC4855631

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.