BACKGROUND: Wait times in cancer diagnosis and treatment may significantly affect a patient's treatment outcome, prognosis and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to capture wait time intervals for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT) at the Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and to compare patients diagnosed in a rapid diagnostic unit (RDU) versus the usual community referral process. METHODS: Patients agreed to participate in the study during their RT planning sessions. A semi-structured interview and chart abstraction was conducted to record key wait time milestones. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients participated in the study: 44 RDU patients and 43 community patients. The median overall wait time intervals from suspicion of prostate cancer to RT was 138 and 183 days, respectively (p = 0.046). There were statistically significant differences observed for other key wait time intervals favouring the RDU cohort: suspicion to decision-to-treat (DTT; p = 0.012), urologist visit to diagnosis (p = 0.0094), diagnosis to DTT (p = 0.018), and diagnosis to treatment (p = 0.016). Risk category and Gleason sum was independently predictive of longer intervals from diagnosis to DTT. INTERPRETATION: Wait time intervals from suspicion to treatment are significantly shorter for prostate cancer patients in 2011 to 2012 than in 2003 when patients were diagnosed and referred in the community setting. A prostate-specific RDU further reduced a number of key wait time intervals supporting more multidisciplinary RDUs for common diseases. Further work needs to be done to identify why delays are occurring and to develop new processes to minimize delays.
BACKGROUND: Wait times in cancer diagnosis and treatment may significantly affect a patient's treatment outcome, prognosis and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to capture wait time intervals for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT) at the Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and to compare patients diagnosed in a rapid diagnostic unit (RDU) versus the usual community referral process. METHODS:Patients agreed to participate in the study during their RT planning sessions. A semi-structured interview and chart abstraction was conducted to record key wait time milestones. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients participated in the study: 44 RDU patients and 43 community patients. The median overall wait time intervals from suspicion of prostate cancer to RT was 138 and 183 days, respectively (p = 0.046). There were statistically significant differences observed for other key wait time intervals favouring the RDU cohort: suspicion to decision-to-treat (DTT; p = 0.012), urologist visit to diagnosis (p = 0.0094), diagnosis to DTT (p = 0.018), and diagnosis to treatment (p = 0.016). Risk category and Gleason sum was independently predictive of longer intervals from diagnosis to DTT. INTERPRETATION: Wait time intervals from suspicion to treatment are significantly shorter for prostate cancerpatients in 2011 to 2012 than in 2003 when patients were diagnosed and referred in the community setting. A prostate-specific RDU further reduced a number of key wait time intervals supporting more multidisciplinary RDUs for common diseases. Further work needs to be done to identify why delays are occurring and to develop new processes to minimize delays.
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Richard Whittington; Sophia Koo; Delray Schultz; Kerri B Cote; Marian Loffredo; Elizabeth McMahon; Andrew A Renshaw; John E Tomaszewski; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Brita Danielson; Michael Brundage; Robert Pearcey; Brenda Bass; Tom Pickles; Jean-Paul Bahary; Kimberley Foley; William Mackillop Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michel Bolla; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Ignace Billiet; José Lopez Torecilla; Raphael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Theodore Van der Kwast; Laurence Collette Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Grunfeld; J M Watters; R Urquhart; K O'Rourke; J Jaffey; D E Maziak; C Morash; D Patel; W K Evans Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David Guy; Gabriella Ghanem; Andrew Loblaw; Roger Buckley; Beverly Persaud; Patrick Cheung; Hans Chung; Cyril Danjoux; Gerard Morton; Jeff Noakes; Les Spevack; David Hajek; Stanley Flax Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862