Hannah L Conley1, C Suzanne Lea2, Raven V Delgado3, Paul Vos4, Eleanor E Harris5, Andrew Ju6, Kimberly M Rathbun7. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, College of Allied Health Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brody School of Medicine, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA. jua@ecu.edu. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Augusta University/University of Georgia Medical Partnership, Athens, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients whose cancer was found during an Emergency Department (ED) visit often present at later stages when survival outcomes are worse. Limited research has characterized the survival experience of cancer patients who receive their diagnosis through the ED versus those who do not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified all patients presenting to the ED between 2014 and 2015 in a rural, regional hospital system with a visit or resulting admission associated with an oncologic ICD-9 code. The chart was abstracted to determine a new cancer diagnosis versus an existing case. Cox proportional hazards (HR) estimated survival time. Patient and cancer characteristics were compared between those who were newly diagnosed through the ED and patients who were not. FINDINGS: Thirty-nine percent of patients in our sample received their new cancer diagnosis as a result of an ED visit. The median survival was lower in cancer cases diagnosed through the ED (13 vs. 39 months, P < .001), men (20 vs. 32 months, P < .001), and patients aged ≥ 65 (22 months vs. 32 months, P < .001). Factors associated with lower survival were having a type of cancer location other than breast (HR = 1.96; P < .001), followed by being newly diagnosed with cancer through the ED (HR = 1.71; P < .001), and stage IV at diagnosis (HR = 1.70; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received a new cancer diagnosis through the ED and required subsequent hospitalization had shorter overall survival and presented with advanced disease. Future research should address socioeconomic factors that may influence these patterns of cancer presentation.
PURPOSE: Patients whose cancer was found during an Emergency Department (ED) visit often present at later stages when survival outcomes are worse. Limited research has characterized the survival experience of cancer patients who receive their diagnosis through the ED versus those who do not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified all patients presenting to the ED between 2014 and 2015 in a rural, regional hospital system with a visit or resulting admission associated with an oncologic ICD-9 code. The chart was abstracted to determine a new cancer diagnosis versus an existing case. Cox proportional hazards (HR) estimated survival time. Patient and cancer characteristics were compared between those who were newly diagnosed through the ED and patients who were not. FINDINGS: Thirty-nine percent of patients in our sample received their new cancer diagnosis as a result of an ED visit. The median survival was lower in cancer cases diagnosed through the ED (13 vs. 39 months, P < .001), men (20 vs. 32 months, P < .001), and patients aged ≥ 65 (22 months vs. 32 months, P < .001). Factors associated with lower survival were having a type of cancer location other than breast (HR = 1.96; P < .001), followed by being newly diagnosed with cancer through the ED (HR = 1.71; P < .001), and stage IV at diagnosis (HR = 1.70; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received a new cancer diagnosis through the ED and required subsequent hospitalization had shorter overall survival and presented with advanced disease. Future research should address socioeconomic factors that may influence these patterns of cancer presentation.
Authors: William C Livingood; Carmen Smotherman; Katryne Lukens-Bull; Petra Aldridge; Dale F Kraemer; David L Wood; Carmine Volpe Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Margaret J Rogers; Leigh M Matheson; Brooke Garrard; Violet Mukaro; Sue Riches; Michael Sheridan; David Ashley; Graham Pitson Journal: Aust J Rural Health Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 1.662
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
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