Literature DB >> 20854236

Pathways to the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer in Australia.

Susan J Jordan1, Jane E Francis, Anne E Nelson, Helen M Zorbas, Karen A Luxford, Penelope M Webb.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnostic pathways experienced by a large, representative group of Australian women with ovarian cancer, and to document the time between first presentation to a medical professional and clinical diagnosis. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1463 women with epithelial ovarian cancer from an Australia-wide population-based study (2002-2005) completed a telephone interview in which they described the events that led to the diagnosis of their cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of doctors consulted, investigations performed, referral patterns and the time from first presentation to diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of the 1463 women, 145 had their cancer diagnosed incidentally and were excluded from analysis. Most of the remaining 1318 women (1222, 93%) presented first to their general practitioner. As a result of their first medical consultation, 75 women (6%) were given a diagnosis, and 484 (37%) were referred to a gynaecologist, gynaecological oncologist or oncologist for further assessment. Overall, 85% of women visited three or fewer doctors before their cancer was diagnosed; 66% of cancers were diagnosed within 1 month of the initial presentation, and 80% were diagnosed within 3 months. For 12% of women, the diagnostic process took longer than 6 months; this was more likely for women residing in remote Australia, those with lower incomes, and those presenting with abdominal pain or bowel symptoms, or with more than one symptom.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite anecdotal suggestions to the contrary, most women with ovarian cancer in Australia are investigated and diagnosed promptly. The diagnostic process is more protracted for a minority of women, and the factors we found to be associated with diagnostic delay warrant further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20854236     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb04065.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  6 in total

1.  The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  D Weller; P Vedsted; G Rubin; F M Walter; J Emery; S Scott; C Campbell; R S Andersen; W Hamilton; F Olesen; P Rose; S Nafees; E van Rijswijk; S Hiom; C Muth; M Beyer; R D Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Authors:  Lovney Kanguru; Annemieke Bikker; Debbie Cavers; Karen Barnett; David H Brewster; David Weller; Christine Campbell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Enhancing ovarian cancer care: a systematic review of guideline adherence and clinical variation.

Authors:  Kahren M White; Holly Seale; Reema Harrison
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Factors impacting the time to ovarian cancer diagnosis based on classic symptom presentation in the United States.

Authors:  Sarah P Huepenbecker; Charlotte C Sun; Shuangshuang Fu; Hui Zhao; Kristin Primm; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors.

Authors:  Pauline Williams; Peter Murchie; Christine Bond
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Developing an Australian multi-module clinical quality registry for gynaecological cancers: a protocol paper.

Authors:  Natalie Heriot; Alison Brand; Paul Cohen; Sue Hegarty; Simon Hyde; Yee Leung; John R Zalcberg; Robert Rome
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.