Relationship between time from symptom's onset to diagnosis and prognosis in patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the relationship of the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with the time from symptom onset to diagnosis. The aim of this study is to investigate this association, with the assumption that this relationship was nonlinear and with adjustment for multiple confounders, such as tumor grade, symptoms, or admission to an emergency department. METHODS: This multicenter study with prospective follow-up was performed in five regions of Spain from 2010 to 2012. Symptomatic cases of incident CRC from a previous study were examined. At the time of diagnosis, each patient was interviewed, and the associated hospital and clinical records were reviewed. During follow-up, the clinical records were reviewed again to assess survival. Cox survival analysis with a restricted cubic spline was used to model overall and CRC-specific survival, with adjustment for variables related to the patient, health service, and tumor. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients had symptomatic CRC and 769 of them had complete data on diagnostic delay and survival. Univariate analysis indicated a lower HR for death in patients who had diagnostic intervals less than 4.2 months. However, after adjustment for variables related to the patient, tumor, and utilized health service, there was no relationship of the diagnostic delay with survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer, colon cancer alone, or rectal cancer alone. Cubic spline analysis indicated an inverse association of the diagnostic delay with 5-year survival. However, this association was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that the duration of diagnostic delay had no significant effect on the outcome of patients with CRC. We suggest that the most important determinant of the duration of diagnostic delay is the biological profile of the tumor. However, it remains the responsibility of community health centers and authorities to minimize diagnostic delays in patients with CRC and to implement initiatives that improve early diagnosis and provide better outcomes.

Correction: Emergency presentation of colorectal patients in Spain.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203556.].

Emergency presentation of colorectal patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Europe. Survival is poorer in patients admitted to hospitals through the emergency department than in electively admitted patients. Knowledge of factors associated with a cancer diagnosis through presentation at an emergency department may reduce the likelihood of an emergency diagnosis. This study evaluated factors influencing the diagnosis of CRC in the emergency department. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a cross-sectional study in 5 Spanish regions; subjects were incident cases of CRC diagnosed in 9 public hospitals, between 2006 and 2008. Data were obtained from patient interviews and primary care and hospital clinical records. We found that approximately 40% of CRC patients first contacted a hospital for CRC through an emergency service. Women were more likely than men to be emergency presenters. The type of symptom associated with emergency presentation differed between patients with colon cancer and those with rectal cancer, in that the frequency of "alarm symptoms" was significantly lower in colon than in rectal cancer patients who initially presented to emergency services. Soon after symptom onset, some patients went to a hospital emergency service, whereas others contacted their GP. Lack of contact with a GP for CRC-related symptoms was consistently related to emergency presentation. Among patients who contacted a GP, a higher number of consultations for CRC symptoms and any referral to outpatient consultations reduced the likelihood of emergency presentation. All diagnostic time intervals were shorter in emergency presenters than in elective patients. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency presenters are not a uniform category and can be divided into categories according to their symptoms, help seeking behavior trajectory and interaction with their GPs. Time constraints for testing and delays in obtaining outpatient appointments led patients to visit a hospital service either on their own or after referral by their GP.

Time to diagnosis and stage of symptomatic colorectal cancer determined by three different sources of information: A population based retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates from colorectal cancer (CRC) are highly variable in Europe. This variability could potentially be explained by differences in healthcare system delays in diagnosis. However, even when such delays are reduced, the relationship of the diagnostic interval (time from presentation with symptoms to diagnosis) with outcome is uncertain. METHODS: A total of 795 patients with CRC from 5 regions of Spain were retrospectively examined in this population-based multicenter study. Consecutive incident cases of CRC were identified from pathology services. The total diagnostic interval (TDI) was defined as the time from the first presentation with symptoms to diagnosis based on 3 different sources of information: (i) patient-recorded data (PR-TDI) by interview, (ii) hospital-recorded data (HR-TDI), and (iii) general practitioner-recorded data (GPR-TDI). Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to estimate the agreement of 3 different TDIs. The TDIs of patients with different stages of CRC were also compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The median TDI was 131days based on patient interview data, 91days based on HR data, and 111days based on GPR data. Overall, the agreement of these TDIs was poor (CCCPRvsHR=0.399, CCCPRvsGPR=0.518, CCCHRvsGPR=0.383). Univariate analysis indicated that the TDI was greater in those with less advanced CRC for all 3 methods of calculation, but this association was only statistically significant for the HR-TDI (p=0.021). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that patients with more advanced CRC have longer TDIs. In fact, we found an inverse relationship between the TDI and CRC stage, an example of the "waiting time paradox". This association may likely be due to the presence of unmeasured confounders as the stage when symptoms appear or the tumour aggressiveness.

Age differences in presentation, diagnosis pathway and management of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The gap in survival between older and younger European cancer patients is getting wider. It is possible that cancer in the elderly is being managed or treated differently than in their younger counterparts. This study aims to explore age disparities with respect to the clinical characteristics of the tumour, diagnostic pathway and treatment of colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross sectional study in 5 Spanish regions. Consecutive incident cases of CRC were identified from pathology services. MEASUREMENTS: From patient interviews, hospital and primary care clinical records, we collected data on symptoms, stage, doctors investigations, time duration to diagnosis/treatment, quality of care and treatment. RESULTS: 777 symptomatic cases, 154 were older than 80 years. Stage was similar by age group. General symptoms were more frequent in the eldest and abdominal symptoms in the youngest. No differences were found regarding perception of symptom seriousness and symptom disclosure between age groups as no longer duration to diagnosis or treatment was observed in the oldest groups. In primary care, only ultrasound is more frequently ordered in those <65 years. Those >80 years had a significantly higher proportion of iron testing and abdominal XR requested in hospital. We observed a high resection rate independently of age but less adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer, and of radiotherapy in stage II and III rectal cancer as age increases. CONCLUSION: There are no relevant age disparities in the CRC diagnosis process with similar stage, duration to diagnosis, investigations and surgery. However, further improvements have to be made with respect to adjuvant therapy.

Factors related with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival depends mostly on stage at the time of diagnosis. However, symptom duration at diagnosis or treatment have also been considered as predictors of stage and survival. This study was designed to: 1) establish the distinct time-symptom duration intervals; 2) identify factors associated with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of all incident cases of symptomatic CRC during 2006-2009 (795 incident cases) in 5 Spanish regions. Data were obtained from patients' interviews and reviews of primary care and hospital clinical records. MEASUREMENTS: CRC symptoms, symptom perception, trust in the general practitioner (GP), primary care and hospital examinations/visits before diagnosis, type of referral and tumor characteristics at diagnosis. Symptom Diagnosis Interval (SDI) was calculated as time from first CRC symptoms to date of diagnosis. Symptom Treatment Interval (STI) was defined as time from first CRC symptoms until start of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to compare SDI and STI according to different variables. RESULTS: Symptom to diagnosis interval for CRC was 128 days and symptom treatment interval was 155. No statistically significant differences were observed between colon and rectum cancers. Women experienced longer intervals than men. Symptom presentation such as vomiting or abdominal pain and the presence of obstruction led to shorter diagnostic or treatment intervals. Time elapsed was also shorter in those patients that perceived their first symptom/s as serious, disclosed it to their acquaintances, contacted emergencies services or had trust in their GPs. Primary care and hospital doctor examinations and investigations appeared to be related to time elapsed to diagnosis or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that gender, symptom perception and help-seeking behaviour are the main patient factors related to interval duration. Health service performance also has a very important role in symptom to diagnosis and treatment interval. If time to diagnosis is to be reduced, interventions and guidelines must be developed to ensure appropriate examination and diagnosis during both primary and hospital care.

Diagnosis delay and follow-up strategies in colorectal cancer. Prognosis implications: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists with regard to the impact that the different components of diagnosis delay may have on the degree of invasion and prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. The follow-up strategies after treatment also vary considerably. The aims of this study are: a) to determine if the symptoms-to-diagnosis interval and the treatment delay modify the survival of patients with colorectal cancer, and b) to determine if different follow-up strategies are associated with a higher survival rate. METHODS/DESIGN: Multi-centre study with prospective follow-up in five regions in Spain (Galicia, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Aragón and Valencia) during the period 2010-2012. Incident cases are included with anatomopathological confirmation of colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes 153-154) that formed a part of a previous study (n = 953).At the time of diagnosis, each patient was given a structured interview. Their clinical records will be reviewed during the follow-up period in order to obtain information on the explorations and tests carried out after treatment, and the progress of these patients.Symptoms-to-diagnosis interval is defined as the time calculated from the diagnosis of cancer and the first symptoms attributed to cancer. Treatment delay is defined as the time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. In non-metastatic patients treated with curative intention, information will be obtained during the follow-up period on consultations performed in the digestive, surgery and oncology departments, as well as the endoscopies, tumour markers and imaging procedures carried out.Local recurrence, development of metastases in the follow-up, appearance of a new tumour and mortality will be included as outcome variables.Actuarial survival analysis with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression and competitive risk survival analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will make it possible to verify if the different components of delay have an impact on survival rate in colon cancer and rectal cancer. In consequence, this multi-centre study will be able to detect the variability present in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, and if this variability modifies the prognosis. Ideally, this study could determine which follow-up strategies are associated with a better prognosis in colorectal cancer.

Factors influencing delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent tumor in developed countries. Since survival from CRC depends mostly on disease stage at the time of diagnosis, individuals with symptoms or signs suspicious of CRC should be examined without delay. Many factors, however, intervene between symptom onset and diagnosis. This study was designed to: 1) Describe the diagnostic process of CRC from the onset of first symptoms to diagnosis and treatment. 2) Establish the time interval from initial symptoms to diagnosis and treatment, globally and considering patient's and doctors' delay, with the latter due to family physician and/or hospital services. 3) Identify the factors related to defined types of delay. 4) Assess the concordance between information included in primary health care and hospital clinical records regarding onset of first symptoms. METHODS: Descriptive study, coordinated, with 5 participant groups of 5 different Spanish regions (Balearic Islands, Galicia, Catalunya, Aragon and Valencia Health Districts), with a total of 8 acute public hospitals and 140 primary care centers. Incident cases of CRC during the study period, as identified from pathology services at the involved hospitals. A sample size of 896 subjects has been estimated, 150 subjects for each participant group. Information will be collected through patient interviews and primary health care and hospital clinical records. Patient variables will include sociodemographic variables, family history of cancer, symptom perception, and confidence in the family physician; tumor variables will include tumor site, histological type, grade and stage; symptom variables will include date of onset, type and number of symptoms; health system variables will include number of patient contacts with family physician, type and content of the referral, hospital services attending the patient, diagnostic modalities and results; and delay intervals, including global delays and delays attributed to the patient, family physician and hospital. DISCUSSION: To obtain a nonrestricted sample of patients with CRC we have minimized selection risk by identifying the patients from pathology services. A greater constraint may be associated with information sources based on clinical records. Due to inherent features of coordinated studies, it is important to standardize the collection of information.

Non-specific low back pain in primary care in the Spanish National Health Service: a prospective study on clinical outcomes and determinants of management.

BACKGROUND: The Spanish National Health Service is a universal and free health care system. Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disorder, generating large health and social costs. The objectives of this study were to describe its management in primary care, to assess patient characteristics that influence physicians' decisions, and to describe clinical outcome at 2 months. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 648 patients with non-specific low back pain was recruited by 75 physicians (out of 361-20.8%) working in 40 primary care centers in 10 of the 17 administrative regions in Spain, covering 693,026 out of the 40,499,792 inhabitants. Patients were assessed on the day they were recruited, and prospectively followed-up 14 and 60 days later. The principal patient characteristics that were analyzed were: sex, duration of the episode, history of LBP, working status, severity of LBP, leg pain and disability, and results of straight leg raising test. Descriptors of management were: performance of the straight leg raising test, ordering of diagnostic procedures, prescription of drug treatment, referral to physical therapy, rehabilitation or surgery, and granting of sick leave. Regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between patients' baseline characteristics and physicians' management decisions. Only workers were included in the models on sick leave. RESULTS: Mean age (SD) of included patients was 46.5 (15.5) years, 367 (56.6%) were workers, and 338 (52.5%) were females. Median (25th-75th interquartile range) duration of pain when entering the study was 4 (2-10) days and only 28 patients (4.3%) had chronic low back pain. Diagnostic studies included plain radiographs in 43.1% of patients and CT or MRI scans in 18.8%. Drug medication was prescribed to 91.7% of patients, 19.1% were sent to physical therapy or rehabilitation, and 9.6% were referred to surgery. The main determinants of the clinical management were duration of the episode and, to a lesser extent, the intensity of the pain (especially leg pain), a positive straight leg raising test, and degree of disability. The main determinant of sick leave was the degree of disability, followed by the characteristics of the labor contract and the intensity of leg pain (but not low back pain). After at least 2 months of treatment, 37% of patients were still in pain and approximately 10% of patients had not improved or had worsened. CONCLUSION: Although the use of X-Rays is high, determinants of physicians' management of LBP in primary care made clinical sense and were consistent with patterns suggested by evidence-based recommendations. However, after 2 months of treatment more than one third of patients continued to have back pain and about 10% had worsened.

Posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care with special reference to personality disorder comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common and disabling disturbance in primary care. Few studies have been carried out in primary care samples and none have taken into consideration the association between PTSD and personality disorder. AIM: To describe prevalence and risk factors of PTSD and its comorbidity with personality disorder. SETTING: General practice centre in Valencia (Spain). METHOD: Patients who had experienced at least one traumatic event in their lives were selected from a random sample attending a primary healthcare centre in Valencia and blindly assessed by trained professionals. Patients suffering from PTSD were compared with those who were not. PTSD and personality disorder diagnoses were established using CIDI and SCID-II interviews respectively. Sex, age at the time of experiencing trauma, frequency, multiplicity and type of trauma, dissociative symptoms, personality disorder and severity of PTSD were subjected to multivariate analysis to estimate the probability of developing PTSD and its duration. RESULTS: Life prevalence rate was 14% and current prevalence 9%. Dissociative symptoms and personality disorder were significantly associated with PTSD. Cluster analysis based on age, frequency and type of trauma revealed the existence of one subgroup composed mainly of women who had experienced frequent body-contact trauma at an early age, developed severe PTSD and suffer from a variety of personality disorders, particularly paranoid personality disorder. Time to the complete disappearance of symptoms was only explained by the initial severity of PTSD. CONCLUSION: PTSD is a frequent disorder in general practice and it is often associated with personality disorder. Women who experienced high frequency body-contact traumatic events at an early age often suffer from personality disorder and present a particularly severe form of PTSD deserving referral to specialised care.