Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29503844›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Child & adolescent health2018

Diagnostic timeliness in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.

Annie Herbert, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Jeremy Whelan, Rachel M Taylor, Julie Barber, Faith Gibson, Lorna A Fern

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Associations between Ambient Air Pollution and Cardiovascular and Respiratory Healthcare Visits in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Clinical activity in general practice before sarcoma diagnosis: an Australian cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  16. Access to Care for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the United States: State of the Literature.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Childhood bone tumours in primary care: helping GPs to identify 'the needle in the haystack'.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Annie HerbertEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Sciences & Health, University College London, London, UK.
Georgios LyratzopoulosEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Sciences & Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jeremy WhelanCancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel M TaylorCancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Julie BarberDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Faith GibsonCentre for Outcomes and Experience Research in Children's Health, Illness and Disability (ORCHID), Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Lorna A FernCancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
University College London · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK C18081/A18180Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are thought to experience prolonged intervals to cancer diagnosis, but evidence quantifying this hypothesis and identifying high-risk patient subgroups is insufficient. We aimed to investigate diagnostic timeliness in a cohort of AYAs with incident cancers and to identify factors associated with variation in timeliness. Methods: We did a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort, which included AYAs aged 12-24 years recruited within an average of 6 months from new primary cancer diagnosis from 96 National Health Service hospitals across England between July 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015. Participants completed structured, face-to-face interviews to provide information on their diagnostic experience (eg, month and year of symptom onset, number of consultations before referral to specialist care); demographic information was extracted from case report forms and date of diagnosis and cancer type from the national cancer registry. We analysed these data to assess patient interval (time from symptom onset to first presentation to a general practitioner [GP] or emergency department), the number of prereferral GP consultations, and the symptom onset-to-diagnosis interval (time from symptom onset to diagnosis) by patient characteristic and cancer site, and examined associations using multivariable regression models. Findings: Of 1114 participants recruited to the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort, 830 completed a face-to-face interview. Among participants with available information, 204 (27%) of 748 had a patient interval of more than a month and 242 (35%) of 701 consulting a general practitioner had three or more prereferral consultations. The median symptom onset-to-diagnosis interval was 62 days (IQR 29-153). Compared with male AYAs, female AYAs were more likely to have three or more consultations (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·6 [95% CI 1·1-2·3], p=0·0093) and longer median symptom onset-to-diagnosis intervals (adjusted median interval longer by 24 days [95% CI 11-37], p=0·0005). Patients with lymphoma or bone tumours (adjusted OR 1·2 [95% CI 0·6-2·1] compared with lymphoma) were most likely to have three or more consultations and those with melanoma least likely (0·2 [0·1-0·7] compared with lymphoma). The adjusted median symptom onset-to-diagnosis intervals were longest in AYAs with bone tumours (51 days [95% CI 29-73] longer than for lymphoma) and shortest in those with leukaemia (33 days [17-49] shorter than for lymphoma). Interpretation: The findings provide a benchmark for diagnostic timeliness in young people with cancer and help to identify subgroups at higher risk of a prolonged diagnostic journey. Further research is needed to understand reasons for these findings and to prioritise and stratify early diagnosis initiatives for AYAs. Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Teenage Cancer Trust, and Cancer Research UK.

Indexed as

AdolescentCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDelayed DiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29503844
PMCPMC5824669
OpenAlexW2786191874

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.