ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Diagnostic intervals and imaging use in lung cancer: a national real-world study in England.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis is critical for improving lung cancer outcomes, yet diagnostic pathways in England remain complex and variable. Real-world evidence examining imaging use, delays and emergency care during the diagnostic interval is limited.
methodsWe conducted a national retrospective cohort study using linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Diagnostic Imaging Dataset for adults newly diagnosed with lung cancer between April 2018 and March 2019. Diagnostic intervals were defined from first chest imaging to diagnosis. We assessed imaging utilisation, diagnostic pathways and A&E attendance, with subgroup analyses by ethnicity, deprivation and diagnostic interval.
resultsAmong 21 052 patients, the median diagnostic interval was 56 days: 25% experienced intervals ≥113 days. Patients underwent a median of three chest scans, and 25% received four or more. Multimodality imaging was strongly associated with prolonged intervals. One-third of patients attended A&E during the diagnostic pathway, rising to 45% among those with the longest intervals. Asian patients experienced the longest diagnostic intervals (median: 67 days). Patterns were consistent across deprivation quintiles, with diagnostic intervals and high A&E attendance observed across all strata, indicating systemic gaps in coordinated diagnostic pathways.
conclusionA substantial proportion of patients with lung cancer in England experience prolonged diagnostic intervals, often accompanied by high emergency care utilisation. Prolonged diagnostic intervals may reflect underlying differences in patient pathways. Multimodality imaging was associated with longer diagnostic timelines, which could represent clinical complexity, diagnostic challenges or possibly fragmentation of diagnostic pathways. These findings highlight the need for streamlined imaging processes, timely follow-up after initial chest imaging and stronger primary care engagement to support earlier diagnosis and alignment with the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway.
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.