Time to diagnosis of symptomatic gastric and oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: Where is the room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: An efficient diagnostic pathway and early stage diagnosis for cancer patients is widely pursued. This study aims to chart the duration of the diagnostic pathway for patients with symptomatic oesophageal and gastric cancer, to identify factors associated with long duration and to assess the association of duration with tumour stage at diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, using electronic health records of six routine primary care databases covering about 640,000 patients, partly linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Symptomatic patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer (2010-2015) that presented in primary care were included. Duration of four diagnostic intervals was determined: patient interval; first symptoms to primary care consultation, primary care interval; consultation to referral, secondary care interval; referral to diagnosis, and the diagnostic interval; consultation to diagnosis. Characteristics associated with 'long duration' (≥P75 duration) were assessed using log-binomial regression. Median durations were stratified for tumour stages. RESULTS: Among 312 symptomatic patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer, median durations were: patient interval: 29 days (interquartile interval 15-73), primary care interval: 12 days (interquartile interval 1-43), secondary care interval: 13 days (interquartile interval 6-29) and diagnostic interval: 31 days (11-74). Patient interval duration was comparable for patients with and without alarm symptoms. Absence of cancer-specific alarm symptoms was associated with 'long duration' of primary care interval and secondary care interval: relative risk 5.0 (95% confidence interval 2.7-9.1) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.3-3.7), respectively. Median diagnostic interval duration for local stage disease was 51 days (interquartile interval 13-135) versus 27 days (interquartile interval 11-71) for advanced stage (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: In the diagnostic pathway of upper gastrointestinal cancers, the longest interval is the patient interval. Reducing time to diagnosis may be achieved by improving patients' awareness of alarm symptoms and by diagnostic strategies which better identify cancer patients despite low suspicion.

Does integrated training in evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the general practice (GP) specialty training improve EBM behaviour in daily clinical practice? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is an important element in the general practice (GP) specialty training. Studies show that integrating EBM training into clinical practice brings larger benefits than stand-alone modules. However, these studies have neither been performed in GP nor assessed EBM behaviour of former trainees in daily clinical practice. SETTING: GP specialty training in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: All 82 third year GP trainees who started their final third year in 2011 were approached for inclusion, of whom 79 (96%) participated: 39 in the intervention group and 40 in the control group. INTERVENTION: Integrated EBM training, in which EBM is embedded closely within the clinical context by joint assignments for the trainee and supervisor in daily practice, and teaching sessions based on dilemmas from actual patient consultations. COMPARISON: Stand-alone EBM training at the institute only. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was EBM behaviour, assessed by measuring guideline adherence (incorporating rational, motivated deviation) and information-seeking behaviour. Our secondary outcomes were EBM attitude and EBM knowledge. Data were acquired using logbooks and questionnaires, respectively. Analyses were performed using mixed models. RESULTS: Logbook data were available from 76 (96%) of the participating trainees at baseline (7614 consultations), 60 (76%) at the end of the third year (T1, 4973 consultations) and 53 (67%) 1 year after graduation (T2, 3307 consultations). We found no significant differences in outcomes between the 2 groups, with relative risks for guideline adherence varying between 0.96 and 0.99 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.11) at T1, and 0.99 and 1.10 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.25) at T2, and for information-seeking behaviour between 0.97 and 1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.91) and 0.90 and 1.10 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.32), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated EBM training compared with stand-alone EBM training does not improve EBM behaviour, attitude or knowledge of (future) GPs.