OBJECTIVE: to determine the current delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) and establish whether there has been any improvement in the past 25 years in the same healthcare setting using the same methods. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 152 patients undergoing surgery at our unit were personally interviewed during their hospital stay to determine the delay incurred for the diagnosis and treatment of their CRC. SPSS software was used for univariate and multivariate analysis of the data obtained. RESULTS: the study population was comprised of 152 patients of mean age 71 years (SD 10; range 36 to 90 years), 82 men and 70 women (53.9 and 46.1% respectively; p > 0.05). The diagnostic delay for CRC at our unit currently runs at 7.28 months despite the fact that in 58% of patients the disease produced obvious symptoms such as rectal bleeding. Although this delay in diagnosis is reduced over that observed 25 years ago, the difference is statistically not significant in terms of both doctor-attributed or patient-attributed delay (doctor-attributed delay was 3.28 months in 1985 versus 1.89 at present and patient-attributed delay was 3.18 months versus today´s 2.75; p > 0.05). Unlike the situation 25 years ago, no link was detected between diagnostic delay and tumor stage. Paradoxically, stage D disease was diagnosed earlier (at 5.71 months) than stage A disease (at 11.16 months) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: the diagnostic delay for CRC at our centre is 7.28 months. This delay is excessive for a disease that produces evident symptoms in 90% of patients. Over the last 25 years little improvement has been noted in the overall delay in diagnosing CRC, al though the delay attributed to the care provider has significantly improved. No relationship was detected between diagnostic delay and disease stage upon diagnosis. We feel the high prevalence of CRC, the failure of campaigns to increase awareness of early symptoms and no real improvement in its prognosis justify the introduction of large-scale colonoscopy screening for this disease.
OBJECTIVE: to determine the current delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) and establish whether there has been any improvement in the past 25 years in the same healthcare setting using the same methods. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 152 patients undergoing surgery at our unit were personally interviewed during their hospital stay to determine the delay incurred for the diagnosis and treatment of their CRC. SPSS software was used for univariate and multivariate analysis of the data obtained. RESULTS: the study population was comprised of 152 patients of mean age 71 years (SD 10; range 36 to 90 years), 82 men and 70 women (53.9 and 46.1% respectively; p > 0.05). The diagnostic delay for CRC at our unit currently runs at 7.28 months despite the fact that in 58% of patients the disease produced obvious symptoms such as rectal bleeding. Although this delay in diagnosis is reduced over that observed 25 years ago, the difference is statistically not significant in terms of both doctor-attributed or patient-attributed delay (doctor-attributed delay was 3.28 months in 1985 versus 1.89 at present and patient-attributed delay was 3.18 months versus today´s 2.75; p > 0.05). Unlike the situation 25 years ago, no link was detected between diagnostic delay and tumor stage. Paradoxically, stage D disease was diagnosed earlier (at 5.71 months) than stage A disease (at 11.16 months) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: the diagnostic delay for CRC at our centre is 7.28 months. This delay is excessive for a disease that produces evident symptoms in 90% of patients. Over the last 25 years little improvement has been noted in the overall delay in diagnosing CRC, al though the delay attributed to the care provider has significantly improved. No relationship was detected between diagnostic delay and disease stage upon diagnosis. We feel the high prevalence of CRC, the failure of campaigns to increase awareness of early symptoms and no real improvement in its prognosis justify the introduction of large-scale colonoscopy screening for this disease.
Authors: Jie Chai; Jianbo Zhang; Dali Han; Wei Dong; Li Han; Lei Zou; Bin Feng; Baosheng Li; Wanli Ma Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Antonieta Medina-Lara; Bogdan Grigore; Ruth Lewis; Jaime Peters; Sarah Price; Paolo Landa; Sophie Robinson; Richard Neal; William Hamilton; Anne E Spencer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Henry Jensen; Marie Louise Tørring; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Frede Olesen; Jens Overgaard; Peter Vedsted Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Helen M Shields; Elena M Stoffel; Daniel C Chung; Thomas D Sequist; Justin W Li; Stephen R Pelletier; Justin Spencer; Jean M Silk; Bonita L Austin; Susan Diguette; Jean E Furbish; Ruth Lederman; Saul N Weingart Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: R D Neal; P Tharmanathan; B France; N U Din; S Cotton; J Fallon-Ferguson; W Hamilton; A Hendry; M Hendry; R Lewis; U Macleod; E D Mitchell; M Pickett; T Rai; K Shaw; N Stuart; M L Tørring; C Wilkinson; B Williams; N Williams; J Emery Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 7.640