Luke T A Mounce1, Sarah Price2, Jose M Valderas3, William Hamilton4. 1. Research Fellow, Health Services and Policy Research Group, Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. 2. Research Fellow, Diagnosis of Symptomatic Cancer Optimally (DISCO) and Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, College House, St Luke's Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. 3. Professor of Health Services and Policy Research, Health Services and Policy Research Group, Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Smeall Building, St Luke's Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. 4. Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, Diagnosis of Symptomatic Cancer Optimally (DISCO) and Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, College House, St Luke's Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-existing non-cancer conditions may complicate and delay colorectal cancer diagnosis. METHOD: Incident cases (aged ⩾40 years, 2007-2009) with colorectal cancer were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, UK. Diagnostic interval was defined as time from first symptomatic presentation of colorectal cancer to diagnosis. Comorbid conditions were classified as 'competing demands' (unrelated to colorectal cancer) or 'alternative explanations' (sharing symptoms with colorectal cancer). The association between diagnostic interval (log-transformed) and age, gender, consultation rate and number of comorbid conditions was investigated using linear regressions, reported using geometric means. RESULTS: Out of the 4512 patients included, 72.9% had ⩾1 competing demand and 31.3% had ⩾1 alternative explanation. In the regression model, the numbers of both types of comorbid conditions were independently associated with longer diagnostic interval: a single competing demand delayed diagnosis by 10 days, and four or more by 32 days; and a single alternative explanation by 9 days. For individual conditions, the longest delay was observed for inflammatory bowel disease (26 days; 95% CI 14-39). CONCLUSIONS: The burden and nature of comorbidity is associated with delayed diagnosis in colorectal cancer, particularly in patients aged ⩾80 years. Effective clinical strategies are needed for shortening diagnostic interval in patients with comorbidity.
BACKGROUND: Pre-existing non-cancer conditions may complicate and delay colorectal cancer diagnosis. METHOD: Incident cases (aged ⩾40 years, 2007-2009) with colorectal cancer were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, UK. Diagnostic interval was defined as time from first symptomatic presentation of colorectal cancer to diagnosis. Comorbid conditions were classified as 'competing demands' (unrelated to colorectal cancer) or 'alternative explanations' (sharing symptoms with colorectal cancer). The association between diagnostic interval (log-transformed) and age, gender, consultation rate and number of comorbid conditions was investigated using linear regressions, reported using geometric means. RESULTS: Out of the 4512 patients included, 72.9% had ⩾1 competing demand and 31.3% had ⩾1 alternative explanation. In the regression model, the numbers of both types of comorbid conditions were independently associated with longer diagnostic interval: a single competing demand delayed diagnosis by 10 days, and four or more by 32 days; and a single alternative explanation by 9 days. For individual conditions, the longest delay was observed for inflammatory bowel disease (26 days; 95% CI 14-39). CONCLUSIONS: The burden and nature of comorbidity is associated with delayed diagnosis in colorectal cancer, particularly in patients aged ⩾80 years. Effective clinical strategies are needed for shortening diagnostic interval in patients with comorbidity.
Authors: A Rosemary Tate; Alexander G R Martin; Tarita Murray-Thomas; Sarah R Anderson; Jackie A Cassell Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Fiona M Walter; Jon D Emery; Silvia Mendonca; Nicola Hall; Helen C Morris; Katie Mills; Christina Dobson; Clare Bankhead; Margaret Johnson; Gary A Abel; Matthew D Rutter; William Hamilton; Greg P Rubin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Elizabeth A Shephard; Sally Stapley; Richard D Neal; Peter Rose; Fiona M Walter; William T Hamilton Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Sarah Stevens; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Andrew R H Dalton; Robert I Griffiths; John L Campbell; Tim Doran; Jose M Valderas Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Colleen Webber; Marlo Whitehead; Andrea Eisen; Claire M B Holloway; Patti A Groome Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brian D Nicholson; Clare R Goyder; Clare R Bankhead; Berit S Toftegaard; Peter W Rose; Hans Thulesius; Peter Vedsted; Rafael Perera Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Tanimola Martins; Gary Abel; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Sarah Price; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Frank Chinegwundoh; William Hamilton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Nicole F van Erp; Charles W Helsper; Saskia M Olyhoek; Ramon R T Janssen; Amber Winsveen; Petra H M Peeters; Niek J de Wit Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.166