RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are poor prognostic cancers accounting for 3% of all cancer cases in the UK. They often present late in the course of the disease process with non-specific symptoms, including gastro-intestinal(GI) symptoms. Delays in diagnosis occur when investigations are carried out in a primary care setting for GI symptoms. The aim of this study was to assess delays in pancreatic cancer diagnosis when patients were referred for GI investigations and evaluate its effect on survival. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a Scottish district general hospital over a seven year period from January 2010 to December 2016. Patients were divided into two groups, those who had a GI investigation 18 months prior to the pancreatic cancer diagnosis and those who did not have GI investigations. Data on demographics, symptoms on referral, stage of disease at diagnosis, treatment undergone and length of survival collected and analysed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the study period. Forty (26%) of the 153 underwent gastrointestinal investigations in the 18 months prior to diagnosis. The remaining 113 (74%) had no gastro-intestinal investigations in the same time period. Demographic data were comparable. Significant delays occurred from referral to diagnosis in the GI investigated group compared to those who did not have GI investigations. (64.5days vs 9 days, pâ¯=â¯0.001). No difference was noted in disease stage or treatments undergone between the groups. There was no difference in the average survival after diagnosis between the two groups with median of 108 days for those who underwent GI investigations to 97 days for those who did not.(Uâ¯=â¯2079.5, pâ¯=â¯0.454). CONCLUSION: Delays caused by pre-diagnostic GI investigations do not appear to contribute to the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer. Recently updated NICE Guidelines recommends early ultrasound or CT in patients with GI symptoms and weight loss which may reduce delays in diagnosis. Screening tests in future may become cost effective and diagnose this condition at a curable stage which in turn may improve survival rates.
RESUMEN
BACKROUND: The diagnosis of epidermoid cyst is seldom in doubt, and associated malignancy extremely rare, yet it is commonplace for the lesion to be sent to the pathology laboratory for analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate our current practice with regards to diagnostic accuracy among clinicians, and assess risk of not routinely sending suspected epidermoid cysts for histological examination. Potential cost savings were also estimated and calculated. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical and pathology data on all suspected epidermoid cysts excised from a Scottish district general hospital over a 5-year period between January 2011 and October 2015. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-six suspected epidermoid cysts were excised during the study period. Three hundred and ninety-six were sent for histological examination which confirmed a diagnosis of epidermoid cyst in 303 (76.5%) cases. There was good agreement between preoperative suspicion and final histological diagnosis: 80.8% (257/318) among referring clinicians, 81.9% (289/353) among reviewing surgeons, and 88.4% (243/275) where there was preoperative agreement between both. There were no malignant lesions. An average of 80 clinically apparent epidermoid cysts were excised and sent for histology each year at a cost of £4800 per annum. CONCLUSION: There was close agreement between clinical and final histological diagnosis of epidermoid cyst. Where a characteristic, odorous, toothpaste-like material is present on transection intra-operatively, the diagnosis is confirmed and the lesion can be discarded. We argue that significant cost savings can be achieved by adopting this approach.