ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Cancer diagnoses, referrals, and survival in people with a learning disability in the UK: a population-based, matched cohort study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bowel cancer care in individuals with an intellectual disability: a population-based cohort study of symptoms, diagnostic pathways, treatment and survival.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Inequalities in cancer diagnostic outcomes for patients with a learning disability: a retrospective cohort study in England.BMJ oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: People with a learning disability (LD, also known as intellectual disability) face poorer health outcomes, yet the burden of cancer in this population is poorly understood. This study investigated cancer-related outcomes in people with a LD compared to the general population. Methods: A matched cohort study was conducted using linked primary care, hospital, mortality, and cancer registry data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum. In total, 180,911 individuals with a LD were matched with 3,405,467 controls. Outcomes included urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals, cancer diagnoses, treatment within six months, and overall survival (OS) post-diagnosis. Findings: Individuals with a LD had fewer USC referrals within 28 days of possible cancer symptoms (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.55). LD was associated with several cancers, including sarcoma (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.98, 1.65-2.39), central nervous system (aHR 3.42, 2.99-3.90), testicular (aHR 2.06, 1.61-2.62), and uterine cancers (aHR 1.69, 1.40-2.05) as well as cancer before age 50 years (aHR 1.74, 1.63-1.86). Absolute incidence was lower in individuals with a LD compared to without (3396 [1.9%] vs 67,506 [2.0%]) due to increased all-cause mortality (aHR 3.19, 3.12-3.27). LD was associated with fewer diagnoses via USC referrals (aRR 0.81, 0.76-0.86), fewer treatments within six months (aRR 0.83, 0.80-0.85) and shorter OS (median 4.4 years, 95% CI 3.9-5.1 vs 9.1 years, 8.8-9.5; aHR 1.73, 1.65-1.83). Melanoma, breast, and prostate cancers were less common but had up to a fourfold increased risk of death after diagnosis in individuals with a LD. Interpretation: Individuals with a LD have higher cancer risk, more diagnoses outside USC pathways, fewer treatments, and poorer prognosis. Fewer diagnoses of some cancers, alongside worse outcomes, may indicate under-investigation. As premature all-cause mortality improves, cancer burden in this population may rise disproportionately. Funding: NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (NIHR204295).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.