Line Flytkjær Virgilsen1, Anette Fischer Pedersen2,3, Peter Vedsted2,3, Gitte Stentebjerg Petersen4, Henry Jensen2. 1. Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. line.virgilsen@ph.au.dk. 2. Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 82, 8200, Aarhus C, Denmark. 4. Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49,, 2100, København Ø, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in the diagnosis of cancer. It is crucial to identify factors influencing the decision to refer for suspected cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's suspicion of cancer in the first clinical encounter and the association with the time interval from the first symptom presentation until the first referral to specialist care, i.e. the primary care interval (PCI). METHOD: The study was performed as a cross-sectional study using survey data on patients diagnosed with incident cancer in 2010 or 2016 and their GPs in Denmark. We defined four alignment groups: 1) patient worry and GP suspicion, 2) GP suspicion only, 3) patient worry only, and 4) none of the two. A long PCI was defined as an interval longer than the 75th percentile. RESULTS: Among the 3333 included patients, both patient worry and GP suspicion was seen in 39.5%, only GP suspicion was seen in 28.2%, only patient worry was seen in 13.6%, and neither patient worry nor GP suspicion was seen in 18.2%. The highest likelihood of long PCI was observed in group 4 (group 4 vs. group 1: PPR 3.99 (95% CI 3.34-4.75)), mostly pronounced for easy-to-diagnose cancer types. CONCLUSION: Misalignment between the patient's worry and the GP's suspicion was common at the first cancer-related encounter. Importance should be given to the patient interview, due to a potential delayed GP referral among patients diagnosed with "easy-to-diagnose" cancer types presenting with unspecific symptoms.
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in the diagnosis of cancer. It is crucial to identify factors influencing the decision to refer for suspected cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's suspicion of cancer in the first clinical encounter and the association with the time interval from the first symptom presentation until the first referral to specialist care, i.e. the primary care interval (PCI). METHOD: The study was performed as a cross-sectional study using survey data on patients diagnosed with incident cancer in 2010 or 2016 and their GPs in Denmark. We defined four alignment groups: 1) patient worry and GP suspicion, 2) GP suspicion only, 3) patient worry only, and 4) none of the two. A long PCI was defined as an interval longer than the 75th percentile. RESULTS: Among the 3333 included patients, both patient worry and GP suspicion was seen in 39.5%, only GP suspicion was seen in 28.2%, only patient worry was seen in 13.6%, and neither patient worry nor GP suspicion was seen in 18.2%. The highest likelihood of long PCI was observed in group 4 (group 4 vs. group 1: PPR 3.99 (95% CI 3.34-4.75)), mostly pronounced for easy-to-diagnose cancer types. CONCLUSION: Misalignment between the patient's worry and the GP's suspicion was common at the first cancer-related encounter. Importance should be given to the patient interview, due to a potential delayed GP referral among patients diagnosed with "easy-to-diagnose" cancer types presenting with unspecific symptoms.
Entities:
Keywords:
Denmark; Early diagnosis; General practice; Neoplasms; Primary health care; Signs and symptoms
Authors: Greg Rubin; Annette Berendsen; S Michael Crawford; Rachel Dommett; Craig Earle; Jon Emery; Tom Fahey; Luigi Grassi; Eva Grunfeld; Sumit Gupta; Willie Hamilton; Sara Hiom; David Hunter; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Una Macleod; Robert Mason; Geoffrey Mitchell; Richard D Neal; Michael Peake; Martin Roland; Bohumil Seifert; Jeff Sisler; Jonathan Sussman; Stephen Taplin; Peter Vedsted; Teja Voruganti; Fiona Walter; Jane Wardle; Eila Watson; David Weller; Richard Wender; Jeremy Whelan; James Whitlock; Clare Wilkinson; Niek de Wit; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Melina Arnold; Mark J Rutherford; Aude Bardot; Jacques Ferlay; Therese M-L Andersson; Tor Åge Myklebust; Hanna Tervonen; Vicky Thursfield; David Ransom; Lorraine Shack; Ryan R Woods; Donna Turner; Suzanne Leonfellner; Susan Ryan; Nathalie Saint-Jacques; Prithwish De; Carol McClure; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Heather Stuart-Panko; Gerda Engholm; Paul M Walsh; Christopher Jackson; Sally Vernon; Eileen Morgan; Anna Gavin; David S Morrison; Dyfed W Huws; Geoff Porter; John Butler; Heather Bryant; David C Currow; Sara Hiom; D Max Parkin; Peter Sasieni; Paul C Lambert; Bjørn Møller; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Freddie Bray Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Usha Menon; Peter Vedsted; David Weller; Alina Zalounina Falborg; Henry Jensen; Andriana Barisic; Anne Kari Knudsen; Rebecca J Bergin; David H Brewster; Victoria Cairnduff; Anna T Gavin; Eva Grunfeld; Elizabeth Harland; Mats Lambe; Rebecca-Jane Law; Yulan Lin; Martin Malmberg; Donna Turner; Richard D Neal; Victoria White; Samantha Harrison; Irene Reguilon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.692