Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31776134›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

Usha Menon, Peter Vedsted, Alina Zalounina Falborg, Henry Jensen, Samantha Harrison, Irene Reguilon, Andriana Barisic, Rebecca J Bergin, David H Brewster, John Butler and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

26 authors.

Usha Menon *Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK u.menon@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3708-1732
Peter Vedsted *Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Alina Zalounina FalborgResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1616-9455
Henry JensenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4040-7334
Samantha HarrisonPolicy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK.
Irene ReguilonPolicy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4246-6357
Andriana BarisicDepartment of Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca J BerginCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David H BrewsterCentre for Population Health Sciences, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5346-5608
John ButlerThe Royal Marsden, London, UK.
Odd Terje BrustugunInstitute for Cancer Research, Olso University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Oliver BucherDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Victoria CairnduffNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Anna GavinNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Eva GrunfeldHealth Services Research Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth HarlandDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Jatinderpal KalsiInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Anne Kari KnudsenEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Olso University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mats LambeDepartment of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rebecca-Jane LawNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University, Wrexham, UK.
Yulan LinEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Olso University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Martin MalmbergDepartment of Oncology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Donna TurnerPopulation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Richard D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University, Wrexham, UK.
Victoria WhiteCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David Weller *Centre for Population Health Sciences, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR_UU_12023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDifferences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer.

designNewly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity.

participantsConsecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary).

resultsWith the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%.

conclusionThere are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

Indexed as

RegistriesAdultAgedBenchmarkingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlobal HealthHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesTime Factorsinternational health systemslung cancerroutes to diagnosissymptomatic presentationtime intervals

Identifiers

PMID31776134
PMCPMC6886977

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.