Risk factors and prognostic implications of diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation): an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McPhail S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9046095 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Risk factors and prognostic implications of diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation): an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.
McPhail Sean S Swann Ruth R Johnson Shane A SA Barclay Matthew E ME Abd Elkader Hazem H Alvi Riaz R Barisic Andriana A Bucher Oliver O Clark Gavin R C GRC Creighton Nicola N Danckert Bolette B Denny Cheryl A CA Donnelly David W DW Dowden Jeff J JJ Finn Norah N Fox Colin R CR Fung Sharon S Gavin Anna T AT Gomez Navas Elba E Habbous Steven S Han Jihee J Huws Dyfed W DW Jackson Christopher G C A CGCA Jensen Henry H Kaposhi Bethany B Kumar S Eshwar SE Little Alana L AL Lu Shuang S McClure Carol A CA Møller Bjørn B Musto Grace G Nilssen Yngvar Y Saint-Jacques Nathalie N Sarker Sabuj S Te Marvelde Luc L Thomas Rebecca S RS Thomas Robert J S RJS Thomson Catherine S CS Woods Ryan R RR Zhang Bin B Lyratzopoulos Georgios G
The Lancet. Oncology 20220406 5
<h4>Background</h4>Greater understanding of international cancer survival differences is needed. We aimed to identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a federated analysis model, in this cross-sectional population-based study, we analysed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundInternational Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage.MethodsData were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated.ResultsThere were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark.ConclusionThis study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.
| S-EPMC9427750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding what influences people to seek help can inform interventions to promote earlier diagnosis of cancer, and ultimately better cancer survival. We aimed to examine relationships between negative cancer beliefs, recognition of cancer symptoms and how long people think they would take to go to the doctor with possible cancer symptoms (anticipated patient intervals). METHODS:Telephone interviews of 20,814 individuals (50+) in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden were carried out using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer Measure (ABC). ABC included items on cancer beliefs, recognition of cancer symptoms and anticipated time to help-seeking for cough and rectal bleeding. The anticipated time to help-seeking was dichotomised as over one month for persistent cough and over one week for rectal bleeding. RESULTS:Not recognising persistent cough/hoarseness and unexplained bleeding as cancer symptoms increased the likelihood of a longer anticipated patient interval for persistent cough (OR = 1.66; 95%CI = 1.47-1.87) and rectal bleeding (OR = 1.90; 95%CI = 1.58-2.30), respectively. Endorsing four or more out of six negative beliefs about cancer increased the likelihood of longer anticipated patient intervals for persistent cough and rectal bleeding (OR = 2.18; 95%CI = 1.71-2.78 and OR = 1.97; 95%CI = 1.51-2.57). Many negative beliefs about cancer moderated the relationship between not recognising unexplained bleeding as a cancer symptom and longer anticipated patient interval for rectal bleeding (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Intervention studies should address both negative beliefs about cancer and knowledge of symptoms to optimise the effect.
| S-EPMC5879768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.SettingPrimary care in 10 jurisdictions.ParticipantData were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPatient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals.ResultsOverall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario).ConclusionsLarge international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.
| S-EPMC9756230 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 measuresInterval 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.
| S-EPMC6886977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInternational differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia).DesignPatients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression.ParticipantsA total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses.Primary and secondary outcome measuresInterval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary).ResultsThe main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results.ConclusionICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.
| S-EPMC6278806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe differences in cancer survival across countries and over time are well recognised, with progress varying even among high-income countries with comparable health systems. Previous research has examined several possible explanations, but the role of leadership in systems providing cancer care has attracted little attention. As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), this study looked at diverse aspects of leadership to identify drivers of change and opportunities for improvement across seven high-income countries.MethodsKey informants in 13 jurisdictions were interviewed: Australia (2 states), Canada (3 provinces), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom (4 countries). Participants represented a range of stakeholders at different tiers of the system. They were recruited through a combination of purposive and 'snowball' strategies and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically drawing on the World Health Organization (WHO) health systems framework and previous work analysing national cancer control programmes (NCCPs).ResultsSeveral facets of leadership were perceived as important for improving outcomes. These included political leadership to initiate and maintain progress, intellectual leadership to support those engaged in local implementation of national policies and drive change, and a coherent vision from leaders at different levels of the system. Clinical leadership was also viewed as vital for translating policy into action.ConclusionCertain aspects of cancer care leadership emerged as underpinning and sustaining improvements, such as appointing a central agency, involving clinicians at every stage, ensuring strong leadership of cancer care with a consistent political mandate. Improving cancer outcomes is challenging and complex, but it is unlikely to be achieved without effective leadership, both political and clinical.
| S-EPMC9808244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore differences in position emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) service provision internationally to further understand the impact variation may have upon cancer services. To identify areas of further exploration for researchers and policymakers to optimize PET-CT services and improve the quality of cancer services. Comparative analysis using data based on pre-defined PET-CT service metrics from PET-CT stakeholders across seven countries. This was further informed via document analysis of clinical indication guidance and expert consensus through round-table discussions of relevant PET-CT stakeholders. Descriptive comparative analyses were produced on use, capacity and indication guidance for PET-CT services between jurisdictions. PET-CT services across 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK). None. None. None. PET-CT service provision has grown over the period 2006-2017, but scale of increase in capacity and demand is variable. Clinical indication guidance varied across countries, particularly for small-cell lung cancer staging and the specific acknowledgement of gastric cancer within oesophagogastric cancers. There is limited and inconsistent data capture, coding, accessibility and availability of PET-CT activity across countries studied. Variation in PET-CT scanner quantity, acquisition over time and guidance upon use exists internationally. There is a lack of routinely captured and accessible PET-CT data across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries due to inconsistent data definitions, data linkage issues, uncertain coverage of data and lack of specific coding. This is a barrier in improving the quality of PET-CT services globally. There needs to be greater, richer data capture of diagnostic and staging tools to facilitate learning of best practice and optimize cancer services.
| S-EPMC7896108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychological distress in medical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) is not well studied. Our aim was to investigate the extent of psychological distress in a broad and unselected medical patient sample 30 days after ED admission and its association with socio-demographic and clinical variables.MethodWe used data from a prospective observational cohort study including 1575 consecutive adult medical patients presenting to the ED with acute somatic conditions. Outcome variables were patient's psychological distress measured by the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) and self-rated health assessed 30 days after ED admission using telephone interviews. Risk factors included socio-demographic variables (e.g. gender, marital status), clinical presentation (e.g. illness severity, main initial diagnosis) and course of illness (e.g. rehospitalisation, length of hospital stay).ResultsA total of 38 % of patients had evidence for psychological distress 30 days after ED admission. Multivariate analysis found female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.35, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.78), comorbid psychiatric disorder (aOR 1.63, 95 % CI 1.08 to 2.62), discharge to a post-acute care institution (aOR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.03 to 2.09), unplanned rehospitalisation (aOR 2.38, 95 % CI 1.47 to 3.86), and unplanned visit at general practitioner (aOR 4.75, 95 % CI 2.57 to 8.80) to be associated with distress at day 30 following ED admission.ConclusionsOne month after ED admission a significant number of patients still show a moderate amount of psychophysical distress. Strongest related variables were course of illness, in particular unplanned general practitioner visits. Future interventional studies should assess possibilities to reduce distress in patients at increased risk.Trial registrationNCT01768494 , January 9, 2013 (registration date), February 25, 2013 (enrolment of first participant).
| S-EPMC4997757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults have complex medical needs that causes increased use of resources at the emergency department (ED). The prevalence of non-specific complaint (NSC) as a chief-complaint in the ED is common among older adults and is not prioritized even though possibly having worse clinical outcome. The objective was to study hospital admission and mortality for older adults visiting the ED with NSC compared to specific complaints such as dyspnea, chest pain and abdominal pain.MethodsA retrospective observational study of older adults visiting the ED with NSC and specific complaints; dyspnea, chest pain and abdominal pain was performed. Chief-complaint were collected from electronic medical records. Fatigue, confusion, non-specific complaints, generalized weakness and risk of falling were defined as non-specific complaint (NSC) when registered as chief-complaint at the ED. Admission rate and 30-days mortality were the primary outcomes.ResultsA total of 4927 patients were included in the study based on chief-complaint; patients with chest pain 1599 (32%), dyspnea 1343 (27%), abdominal pain 1460 (30%) and NSC 525 (11%). Patients with dyspnea and NSC had the highest hospital admission rate 79% vs 70% compared to patients with chest pain (63%) and abdominal pain (61%) (p = < 0.001). Patients with NSC had a mean LOS 4.7 h at the ED which was significantly higher compared to chest pain, dyspnea and abdominal pain. Mean bed-days for the whole population was 4.2 days compared to patients with NSC who had a mean LOS of 5.6 days. NSC and dyspnea were both associated with the highest 30-day mortality.ConclusionOlder patients who present with NSC at the ED are associated with a high risk for admission and 30-days mortality. In addition, patients with NSC have a longer LOS at the ED, a high admission rate and the highest number of bed-days once admitted. This study indicates that ED staff should be more vigilant when an elderly patient presents with NSC at the ED. Further studies and guidelines are needed to improve the management of these individuals.
| S-EPMC10762826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation.ResultsFive Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy.ConclusionThe recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.
| S-EPMC9596933 | biostudies-literature