Bolette Danckert1, Alina Zalounina Falborg2, Niels Lyhne Christensen3, Henrik Frederiksen4, Georgios Lyratzopoulos5, Sean McPhail6, Jesper Ryg7, Peter Vedsted2, Linda Aagaard Thomsen1, Henry Jensen8. 1. Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Respiratory Diseases and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Haematological Research Unit, Department of Haematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 6. National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Research Unit of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 8. Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: henry.jensen@ph.au.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of cancer is related to how the cancer is identified, and where in the healthcare system the patient presents, i.e. routes to diagnosis (RtD). We aimed to describe the RtD for patients diagnosed with cancer in Denmark by using routinely collected register-based data and to investigate the association between RtD and prognosis measured as one-year all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a population-based national cohort study by linking routinely collected Danish registry data. We categorised each patient into one of eight specified RtD based on an algorithm using a stepwise logic decision process. We described the proportions of patients with cancer diagnosed by different RtD. We examined associations between RtD and one-year all-cause mortality using logistic regression models adjusting for sex, age, cancer type, year of diagnosis, region of residence, and comorbidity. RESULTS: We included 144,635 cancers diagnosed in 139,023 patients in 2014-2017. The most common RtD were cancer patient pathway from primary care (45.9 %), cancer patient pathway from secondary care (20.0 %), unplanned hospital admission (15.8 %), and population-based screening (7.5 %). The one-year mortality ranged from 1.4 % in screened patients to 53.0 % in patients diagnosed through unplanned hospital admission. Patients with an unplanned admission were more likely to die within the first year after diagnosis (OR = 3.38 (95 %CI: 3.24-3.52)) compared to patients diagnosed through the cancer patient pathway from primary care. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were diagnosed through a cancer patient pathway. The RtD were associated with the prognosis, and the prognosis was worst in patients diagnosed through unplanned admission. The study suggests that linking routinely collected registry data could enable a national framework for RtD, which could serve to identify variations across patient-, health-, and system-related and healthcare factors. This information could be used in future research investigating markers for monitoring purposes.
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of cancer is related to how the cancer is identified, and where in the healthcare system the patient presents, i.e. routes to diagnosis (RtD). We aimed to describe the RtD for patients diagnosed with cancer in Denmark by using routinely collected register-based data and to investigate the association between RtD and prognosis measured as one-year all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a population-based national cohort study by linking routinely collected Danish registry data. We categorised each patient into one of eight specified RtD based on an algorithm using a stepwise logic decision process. We described the proportions of patients with cancer diagnosed by different RtD. We examined associations between RtD and one-year all-cause mortality using logistic regression models adjusting for sex, age, cancer type, year of diagnosis, region of residence, and comorbidity. RESULTS: We included 144,635 cancers diagnosed in 139,023 patients in 2014-2017. The most common RtD were cancerpatient pathway from primary care (45.9 %), cancerpatient pathway from secondary care (20.0 %), unplanned hospital admission (15.8 %), and population-based screening (7.5 %). The one-year mortality ranged from 1.4 % in screened patients to 53.0 % in patients diagnosed through unplanned hospital admission. Patients with an unplanned admission were more likely to die within the first year after diagnosis (OR = 3.38 (95 %CI: 3.24-3.52)) compared to patients diagnosed through the cancerpatient pathway from primary care. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancerpatients were diagnosed through a cancerpatient pathway. The RtD were associated with the prognosis, and the prognosis was worst in patients diagnosed through unplanned admission. The study suggests that linking routinely collected registry data could enable a national framework for RtD, which could serve to identify variations across patient-, health-, and system-related and healthcare factors. This information could be used in future research investigating markers for monitoring purposes.
Authors: Hannah L Conley; C Suzanne Lea; Raven V Delgado; Paul Vos; Eleanor E Harris; Andrew Ju; Kimberly M Rathbun Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2022-10-10
Authors: Line Flytkjær Virgilsen; Peter Vedsted; Alina Zalounina Falborg; Anette Fischer Pedersen; Anders Prior; Henry Jensen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Sean McPhail; Ruth Swann; Shane A Johnson; Matthew E Barclay; Hazem Abd Elkader; Riaz Alvi; Andriana Barisic; Oliver Bucher; Gavin R C Clark; Nicola Creighton; Bolette Danckert; Cheryl A Denny; David W Donnelly; Jeff J Dowden; Norah Finn; Colin R Fox; Sharon Fung; Anna T Gavin; Elba Gomez Navas; Steven Habbous; Jihee Han; Dyfed W Huws; Christopher G C A Jackson; Henry Jensen; Bethany Kaposhi; S Eshwar Kumar; Alana L Little; Shuang Lu; Carol A McClure; Bjørn Møller; Grace Musto; Yngvar Nilssen; Nathalie Saint-Jacques; Sabuj Sarker; Luc Te Marvelde; Rebecca S Thomas; Robert J S Thomas; Catherine S Thomson; Ryan R Woods; Bin Zhang; Georgios Lyratzopoulos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: B Danckert; H Jensen; N L Christensen; A Z Falborg; H Frederiksen; G Lyratzopoulos; S McPhail; A F Pedersen; J Ryg; L A Thomsen; P Vedsted Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Brian David Nicholson; Matthew James Thompson; Frederick David Richard Hobbs; Matthew Nguyen; Julie McLellan; Beverly Green; Jessica Chubak; Jason Lee Oke Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 12.063
Authors: Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton; John Brodersen; Christina Sadolin Damhus; Volkert Siersma; Anna Rubach Birkmose Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655