INTRODUCTION: Wait times for cancer diagnosis and treatment are a significant concern for Canadians. Men with prostate cancer experience longer waiting times for diagnosis and treatment than those observed for other cancers. Longer waits are associated with both patient and family psychosocial distress and may be associated with worse prognosis. METHODS: Men referred for treatment of prostate cancer at a single Canadian cancer centre were interviewed. The intervals from suspicion to definitive therapy were calculated, factors associated with delays along this pathway were identified, and common causes of delay identified by patients were described. RESULTS: A total of 41 consecutive patients participated. The median interval from suspicion to the first fraction of radiotherapy for all patients was 247 days (interquartile range [IQR] 168-367 d). The median diagnostic interval was 53 days (IQR 28-166 d). The median treatment interval was 127 days (IQR 100-180 d). Patients under 70 years old and patients with <T2c disease had shorter intervals from suspicion to treatment. From diagnosis to start of radiotherapy, patients with low-risk disease had longer intervals. Seventy percent of patients perceived a delay in their care, of which 45%, 31% and 24% of patients felt the delays were due to the health care system, patient or physician factors, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In this study, 12% and 0% of patients met Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists wait time recommendations, respectively. A large component of wait time is patient driven. Alternate strategies should be developed and measured to shorten the intervals between the suspicion and treatment of prostate cancer.
INTRODUCTION: Wait times for cancer diagnosis and treatment are a significant concern for Canadians. Men with prostate cancer experience longer waiting times for diagnosis and treatment than those observed for other cancers. Longer waits are associated with both patient and family psychosocial distress and may be associated with worse prognosis. METHODS:Men referred for treatment of prostate cancer at a single Canadian cancer centre were interviewed. The intervals from suspicion to definitive therapy were calculated, factors associated with delays along this pathway were identified, and common causes of delay identified by patients were described. RESULTS: A total of 41 consecutive patients participated. The median interval from suspicion to the first fraction of radiotherapy for all patients was 247 days (interquartile range [IQR] 168-367 d). The median diagnostic interval was 53 days (IQR 28-166 d). The median treatment interval was 127 days (IQR 100-180 d). Patients under 70 years old and patients with <T2c disease had shorter intervals from suspicion to treatment. From diagnosis to start of radiotherapy, patients with low-risk disease had longer intervals. Seventy percent of patients perceived a delay in their care, of which 45%, 31% and 24% of patients felt the delays were due to the health care system, patient or physician factors, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In this study, 12% and 0% of patients met Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists wait time recommendations, respectively. A large component of wait time is patient driven. Alternate strategies should be developed and measured to shorten the intervals between the suspicion and treatment of prostate cancer.
Authors: Fred Saad; Antonio Finelli; George Dranitsaris; Larry Goldenberg; Scott Bagnell; Martin Gleave; Neil Fleshner Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Margaret I Fitch; Ross E Gray; Tom McGowan; Ian Brunskill; Shawn Steggles; Scott Sellick; Andrea Bezjak; Donna McLeese Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2003 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Robert K Nam; Michael A S Jewett; Murray D Krahn; Michael A Robinette; John Tsihlias; Ants Toi; Minnie Ho; Andrew Evans; Joan Sweet; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Martha K Terris Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: K Tran; C Sandoval; R Rahal; G Porter; R Siemens; J Hernandez; S Fung; C Louzado; J Liu; H Bryant Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Olufunmilade A Omisanjo; Olawale O Ogunremi; Olufemi O Akinola; Olaolu O Adebayo; Olufemi Ojewuyi; Mofeyisayo O Omorinde; Abimbola A Abolarinwa; Stephen O Ikuerowo; Fatai A Balogun Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-08-16
Authors: E M Bolton; B D Kelly; M R Quinlan; F T D'Arcy; M Azar; C M Dowling; M Power; P McCarthy; C Roche; K Walsh; E Rogers; G C Durkan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Marc Zanaty; Mansour Alnazari; Khaled Ajib; Kelsey Lawson; Mounsif Azizi; Emad Rajih; Abdullah Alenizi; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Côme Tolmier; Malek Meskawi; Fred Saad; Raisa S Pompe; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226