Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31207483›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology2019

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

Clare Pearson, Jess Fraser, Michael Peake, Roland Valori, Veronique Poirier, Victoria H Coupland, Sara Hiom, Sean McPhail, Jodie Moffat, Georgios Lyratzopoulos and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comorbidity and the diagnosis of symptomatic-but-as-yet-undiagnosed cancer.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
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

11 authors.

Clare PearsonCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK; National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK. Electronic address: clare.pearson@cancer.org.uk.
Jess FraserCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK; National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK.
Michael PeakeNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK; University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Cancer Collaborative, UCLH Cancer Division, 47 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 8SE, UK; Respiratory Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester, Glenfield Hospital, Groby Road, Leicester, LE3 9QP, UK.
Roland ValoriNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK; Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester, GL1 3NN, UK.
Veronique PoirierCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK.
Victoria H CouplandNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK.
Sara HiomCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK.
Sean McPhailNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK; ECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jodie MoffatCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK.
Georgios LyratzopoulosNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, 6th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK; ECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jon SheltonCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD, UK. Electronic address: jon.shelton@cancer.org.uk.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsData AnalysisFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillanceRegistriesColorectal cancerDiagnostic intervalsEarly detection of cancerEarly diagnosisEnglandLung cancerPopulation-based cancer registriesSecondary care

Identifiers

PMID31207483
PMCPMC6650618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.