Literature DB >> 33486544

Factors associated with waiting time to breast cancer diagnosis among symptomatic breast cancer patients: a population-based study from Ontario, Canada.

Colleen Webber1, Marlo Whitehead2, Andrea Eisen3,4, Claire M B Holloway3,5, Patti A Groome6,7,8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A prolonged time from first presentation to cancer diagnosis has been associated with worse disease-related outcomes. This study evaluated potential determinants of a long diagnostic interval among symptomatic breast cancer patients.
METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study of symptomatic breast cancer patients diagnosed in Ontario, Canada from 2007 to 2015 using administrative health data. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from the earliest breast cancer-related healthcare encounter before diagnosis to the diagnosis date. Potential determinants of the diagnostic interval included patient, disease and usual healthcare utilization characteristics. We used multivariable quantile regression to evaluate their relationship with the diagnostic interval. We also examined differences in diagnostic interval by the frequency of encounters within the interval.
RESULTS: Among 45,967 symptomatic breast cancer patients, the median diagnostic interval was 41 days (interquartile range 20-92). Longer diagnostic intervals were observed in younger patients, patients with higher burden of comorbid disease, recent immigrants to Canada, and patients with higher healthcare utilization prior to their diagnostic interval. Shorter intervals were observed in patients residing in long-term care facilities, patients with late stage disease, and patients who initially presented in an emergency department. Longer diagnostic intervals were characterized by an increased number of physician visits and breast procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: The identification of groups at risk of longer diagnostic intervals provides direction for future research aimed at better understanding and improving breast cancer diagnostic pathways. Ensuring that all women receive a timely breast cancer diagnosis could improve breast cancer outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Administrative data; Breast neoplasms; Delayed diagnosis; Early detection of cancer; Health services research; Registries

Year:  2021        PMID: 33486544     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-06051-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  34 in total

Review 1.  Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  M A Richards; A M Westcombe; S B Love; P Littlejohns; A J Ramirez
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-04-03       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Psychological distress associated with the diagnostic phase for suspected breast cancer: systematic review.

Authors:  Mariann Montgomery; Susan H McCrone
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.187

3.  The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: an international collaboration to inform cancer policy in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  John Butler; Catherine Foot; Martine Bomb; Sara Hiom; Michel Coleman; Heather Bryant; Peter Vedsted; Jane Hanson; Mike Richards
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2013-05-18       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 4.  The faster the better?—A systematic review on distress in the diagnostic phase of suspected cancer, and the influence of rapid diagnostic pathways.

Authors:  Pepijn Brocken; Judith B Prins; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Henricus F M van der Heijden
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  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

Review 6.  Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review.

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

7.  Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey.

Authors:  Peter W Rose; Greg Rubin; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Sigrun Saur Almberg; Andriana Barisic; Martin Dawes; Eva Grunfeld; Nigel Hart; Richard D Neal; Marie Pirotta; Jeffrey Sisler; Gerald Konrad; Berit Skjødeberg Toftegaard; Hans Thulesius; Peter Vedsted; Jane Young; Willie Hamilton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter?

Authors:  R D Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  The size of the prize for earlier diagnosis of cancer in England.

Authors:  M A Richards
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation.

Authors:  David Weller; Peter Vedsted; Chantelle Anandan; Alina Zalounina; Evangelia Ourania Fourkala; Rakshit Desai; William Liston; Henry Jensen; Andriana Barisic; Anna Gavin; Eva Grunfeld; Mats Lambe; Rebecca-Jane Law; Martin Malmberg; Richard D Neal; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Donna Turner; Victoria White; Martine Bomb; Usha Menon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.