The presenting symptom signatures of incident cancer: evidence from the English 2018 National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

BACKGROUND: Understanding relationships between presenting symptoms and subsequently diagnosed cancers can inform symptom awareness campaigns and investigation strategies. METHODS: We used English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2018 data for 55,122 newly diagnosed patients, and examined the relative frequency of presenting symptoms by cancer site, and of cancer sites by presenting symptom. RESULTS: Among 38 cancer sites (16 cancer groups), three classes were apparent: cancers with a dominant single presenting symptom (e.g. melanoma); cancers with diverse presenting symptoms (e.g. pancreatic); and cancers that are often asymptomatically detected (e.g. chronic lymphocytic leukaemia). Among 83 symptoms (13 symptom groups), two classes were apparent: symptoms chiefly relating to cancers of the same body system (e.g. certain respiratory symptoms mostly relating to respiratory cancers); and symptoms with a diverse cancer site case-mix (e.g. fatigue). The cancer site case-mix of certain symptoms varied by sex. CONCLUSION: We detailed associations between presenting symptoms and cancer sites in a large, representative population-based sample of cancer patients. The findings can guide choice of symptoms for inclusion in awareness campaigns, and diagnostic investigation strategies post-presentation when cancer is suspected. They can inform the updating of clinical practice recommendations for specialist referral encompassing a broader range of cancer sites per symptom.

Progress and priorities in reducing the time to cancer diagnosis.

Key developments in early diagnosis research and policy since the publication of the highly cited BJC review "Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment associated with poorer outcomes?" by Neal et al. in 2015 are summarised. Progress achieved since 2015 is described and priorities for further research identified.

Assessing how routes to diagnosis vary by the age of patients with cancer: a nationwide register-based cohort study in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer have poorer prognosis compared to younger patients. Moreover, prognosis is related to how cancer is identified, and where in the healthcare system patients present, i.e. routes to diagnosis (RtD). We investigated whether RtD varied by patients' age. METHODS: This population-based national cohort study used Danish registry data. Patients were categorized into age groups and eight mutually exclusive RtD. We employed multinomial logistic regressions adjusted for sex, region, diagnosis year, cohabitation, education, income, immigration status and comorbidities. Screened and non-screened patients were analysed separately. RESULTS: The study included 137,876 patients. Both younger and older patients with cancer were less likely to get diagnosed after a cancer patient pathways referral from primary care physician compared to middle-aged patients. Older patients were more likely to get diagnosed via unplanned admission, death certificate only, and outpatient admission compared to younger patients. The patterns were similar across comorbidity levels. CONCLUSIONS: RtD varied by age groups, and middle-aged patients were the most likely to get diagnosed after cancer patient pathways with referral from primary care. Emphasis should be put on raising clinicians' awareness of cancer being the underlying cause of symptoms in both younger patients and in older patients.

Socio-demographic variation in stage at diagnosis of breast, bladder, colon, endometrial, lung, melanoma, prostate, rectal, renal and ovarian cancer in England and its population impact.

BACKGROUND: Stage at diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival and understanding related inequalities could guide interventions. METHODS: We analysed incident cases diagnosed with 10 solid tumours included in the UK government target of 75% of patients diagnosed in TNM stage I/II by 2028. We examined socio-demographic differences in diagnosis at stage III/IV vs. I/II. Multiple imputation was used for missing stage at diagnosis (9% of tumours). RESULTS: Of the 202,001 cases, 57% were diagnosed in stage I/II (an absolute 18% 'gap' from the 75% target). The likelihood of diagnosis at stage III/IV increased in older age, though variably by cancer site, being strongest for prostate and endometrial cancer. Increasing level of deprivation was associated with advanced stage at diagnosis for all sites except lung and renal cancer. There were, inconsistent in direction, sex inequalities for four cancers. Eliminating socio-demographic inequalities would translate to 61% of patients with the 10 studied cancers being diagnosed at stage I/II, reducing the gap from target to 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Potential elimination of socio-demographic inequalities in stage at diagnosis would make a substantial, though partial, contribution to achieving stage shift targets. Earlier diagnosis strategies should additionally focus on the whole population and not only the high-risk socio-demographic groups.

Does geodemographic segmentation explain differences in route of cancer diagnosis above and beyond person-level sociodemographic variables?

BACKGROUND: Emergency diagnosis of cancer is associated with poorer short-term survival and may reflect delayed help-seeking. Optimal targeting of interventions to raise awareness of cancer symptoms is therefore needed. METHODS: We examined the risk of emergency presentation of lung and colorectal cancer (diagnosed in 2016 in England). By cancer site, we used logistic regression (outcome emergency/non-emergency presentation) adjusting for patient-level variables (age, sex, deprivation and ethnicity) with/without adjustment for geodemographic segmentation (Mosaic) group. RESULTS: Analysis included 36 194 and 32 984 patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Greater levels of deprivation were strongly associated with greater odds of emergency presentation, even after adjustment for Mosaic group, which nonetheless attenuated associations (odds ratio [OR] most/least deprived group = 1.67 adjusted [model excluding Mosaic], 1.28 adjusted [model including Mosaic], P < 0.001 for both, for colorectal; respective OR values of 1.42 and 1.18 for lung, P < 0.001 for both). Similar findings were observed for increasing age. There was large variation in risk of emergency presentation between Mosaic groups (crude OR for highest/lowest risk group = 2.30, adjusted OR = 1.89, for colorectal; respective values of 1.59 and1.66 for lung). CONCLUSION: Variation in risk of emergency presentation in cancer patients can be explained by geodemography, additional to deprivation group and age. The findings support proof of concept for public health interventions targeting all the examined attributes, including geodemography.

Collateral damage: the impact on outcomes from cancer surgery of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnostics and surgery have been disrupted by the response of health care services to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Progression of cancers during delay will impact on patients' long-term survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We generated per-day hazard ratios of cancer progression from observational studies and applied these to age-specific, stage-specific cancer survival for England 2013-2017. We modelled per-patient delay of 3 and 6 months and periods of disruption of 1 and 2 years. Using health care resource costing, we contextualise attributable lives saved and life-years gained (LYGs) from cancer surgery to equivalent volumes of COVID-19 hospitalisations. RESULTS: Per year, 94 912 resections for major cancers result in 80 406 long-term survivors and 1 717 051 LYGs. Per-patient delay of 3/6 months would cause attributable death of 4755/10 760 of these individuals with loss of 92 214/208 275 life-years, respectively. For cancer surgery, average LYGs per patient are 18.1 under standard conditions and 17.1/15.9 with a delay of 3/6 months (an average loss of 0.97/2.19 LYGs per patient), respectively. Taking into account health care resource units (HCRUs), surgery results on average per patient in 2.25 resource-adjusted life-years gained (RALYGs) under standard conditions and 2.12/1.97 RALYGs following delay of 3/6 months. For 94 912 hospital COVID-19 admissions, there are 482 022 LYGs requiring 1 052 949 HCRUs. Hospitalisation of community-acquired COVID-19 patients yields on average per patient 5.08 LYG and 0.46 RALYGs. CONCLUSIONS: Modest delays in surgery for cancer incur significant impact on survival. Delay of 3/6 months in surgery for incident cancers would mitigate 19%/43% of LYGs, respectively, by hospitalisation of an equivalent volume of admissions for community-acquired COVID-19. This rises to 26%/59%, respectively, when considering RALYGs. To avoid a downstream public health crisis of avoidable cancer deaths, cancer diagnostic and surgical pathways must be maintained at normal throughput, with rapid attention to any backlog already accrued.

Variation in 'fast-track' referrals for suspected cancer by patient characteristic and cancer diagnosis: evidence from 670 000 patients with cancers of 35 different sites.

BACKGROUND: In England, 'fast-track' (also known as 'two-week wait') general practitioner referrals for suspected cancer in symptomatic patients are used to shorten diagnostic intervals and are supported by clinical guidelines. However, the use of the fast-track pathway may vary for different patient groups. METHODS: We examined data from 669 220 patients with 35 cancers diagnosed in 2006-2010 following either fast-track or 'routine' primary-to-secondary care referrals using 'Routes to Diagnosis' data. We estimated the proportion of fast-track referrals by sociodemographic characteristic and cancer site and used logistic regression to estimate respective crude and adjusted odds ratios. We additionally explored whether sociodemographic associations varied by cancer. RESULTS: There were large variations in the odds of fast-track referral by cancer (P<0.001). Patients with testicular and breast cancer were most likely to have been diagnosed after a fast-track referral (adjusted odds ratios 2.73 and 2.35, respectively, using rectal cancer as reference); whereas patients with brain cancer and leukaemias least likely (adjusted odds ratios 0.05 and 0.09, respectively, for brain cancer and acute myeloid leukaemia). There were sex, age and deprivation differences in the odds of fast-track referral (P<0.013) that varied in their size and direction for patients with different cancers (P<0.001). For example, fast-track referrals were least likely in younger women with endometrial cancer and in older men with testicular cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Fast-track referrals are less likely for cancers characterised by nonspecific presenting symptoms and patients belonging to low cancer incidence demographic groups. Interventions beyond clinical guidelines for 'alarm' symptoms are needed to improve diagnostic timeliness.

Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England.

BACKGROUND: More than 20% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed following an emergency presentation. We aimed to examine pre-diagnostic primary-care consultations and related symptoms comparing patients diagnosed as emergencies with those diagnosed through non-emergency routes. METHODS: Cohort study of colorectal cancers diagnosed in England 2005 and 2006 using cancer registration data individually linked to primary-care data (CPRD/GPRD), allowing a detailed analysis of clinical information referring to the 5-year pre-diagnostic period. RESULTS: Emergency diagnosis occurred in 35% and 15% of the 1029 colon and 577 rectal cancers. 'Background' primary-care consultations (2-5 years before diagnosis) were similar for either group. In the year before diagnosis, >95% of emergency and non-emergency presenters had consulted their doctor, but emergency presenters had less frequently relevant symptoms (colon cancer: 48% vs 71% (P<0.001); rectal cancer: 49% vs 61% (P=0.043)). 'Alarm' symptoms were recorded less frequently in emergency presenters (e.g., rectal bleeding: 9 vs 24% (P=0.002)). However, about 1/5 of emergency presenters (18 and 23% for colon and rectal cancers) had 'alarm' symptoms the year before diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency presenters have similar 'background' consultation history as non-emergency presenters. Their tumours seem associated with less typical symptoms, however opportunities for earlier diagnosis might be present in a fifth of them.

Pre-referral general practitioner consultations and subsequent experience of cancer care: evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Prolonged diagnostic intervals may negatively affect the patient experience of subsequent cancer care, but evidence about this assertion is sparse. We analysed data from 73 462 respondents to two English Cancer Patient Experience Surveys to examine whether patients with three or more (3+) pre-referral consultations were more likely to report negative experiences of subsequent care compared with patients with one or two consultations in respect of 12 a priori selected survey questions. For each of 12 experience items, logistic regression models were used, adjusting for prior consultation category, cancer site, socio-demographic case-mix and response tendency (to capture potential variation in critical response tendencies between individuals). There was strong evidence (P < 0.01 for all) that patients with 3+ pre-referral consultations reported worse care experience for 10/12 questions, with adjusted odds ratios compared with patients with 1-2 consultations ranging from 1.10 (95% confidence intervals 1.03-1.17) to 1.68 (1.60-1.77), or between +1.8% and +10.6% greater percentage reporting a negative experience. Associations were stronger for processes involving primary as opposed to hospital care; and for evaluation than report items. Considering 1, 2, 3-4 and '5+' pre-referral consultations separately a 'dose-response' relationship was apparent. We conclude that there is a negative association between multiple pre-diagnostic consultations with a general practitioner and the experience of subsequent cancer care.

Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation.

The diagnosis of cancer is a complex, multi-step process. In this paper, we highlight factors involved in missed opportunities to diagnose cancer more promptly in symptomatic patients and discuss responsible mechanisms and potential strategies to shorten intervals from presentation to diagnosis. Missed opportunities are instances in which post-hoc judgement indicates that alternative decisions or actions could have led to more timely diagnosis. They can occur in any of the three phases of the diagnostic process (initial diagnostic assessment; diagnostic test performance and interpretation; and diagnostic follow-up and coordination) and can involve patient, doctor/care team, and health-care system factors, often in combination. In this perspective article, we consider epidemiological 'signals' suggestive of missed opportunities and draw on evidence from retrospective case reviews of cancer patient cohorts to summarise factors that contribute to missed opportunities. Multi-disciplinary research targeting such factors is important to shorten diagnostic intervals post presentation. Insights from the fields of organisational and cognitive psychology, human factors science and informatics can be extremely valuable in this emerging research agenda. We provide a conceptual foundation for the development of future interventions to minimise the occurrence of missed opportunities in cancer diagnosis, enriching current approaches that chiefly focus on clinical decision support or on widening access to investigations.

Cancer-specific variation in emergency presentation by sex, age and deprivation across 27 common and rarer cancers.

BACKGROUND: Although overall sociodemographic and cancer site variation in the risk of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation has been previously described, relatively little is known about how this risk may vary differentially by sex, age and deprivation group between patients with a given cancer. METHODS: Data from the Routes to Diagnosis project on 749,645 patients (2006-2010) with any of 27 cancers that can occur in either sex were analysed. Crude proportions and crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for emergency presentation, and interactions between sex, age and deprivation with cancer were examined. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients diagnosed through emergency presentation varied greatly by cancer. Compared with men, women were at greater risk for emergency presentation for bladder, brain, rectal, liver, stomach, colon and lung cancer (e.g., bladder cancer-specific odds ratio for women vs men, 1.50; 95% CI 1.39-1.60), whereas the opposite was true for oral/oropharyngeal cancer, lymphomas and melanoma (e.g., oropharyngeal cancer-specific odds ratio for women vs men, 0.49; 95% CI 0.32-0.73). Similarly, younger patients were at higher risk for emergency presentation for acute leukaemia, colon, stomach and oesophageal cancer (e.g., colon cancer-specific odds ratio in 35-44- vs 65-74-year-olds, 2.01; 95% CI 1.76-2.30) and older patients for laryngeal, melanoma, thyroid, oral and Hodgkin's lymphoma (e.g., melanoma specific odds ratio in 35-44- vs 65-74-year-olds, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12-0.33). Inequalities in the risk of emergency presentation by deprivation group were greatest for oral/oropharyngeal, anal, laryngeal and small intestine cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with the same cancer, the risk for emergency presentation varies notably by sex, age and deprivation group. The findings suggest that, beyond tumour biology, diagnosis through an emergency route may be associated both with psychosocial processes, which can delay seeking of medical help, and with difficulties in suspecting the diagnosis of cancer after presentation.

The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers.

BACKGROUND: Appreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus. METHODS: We analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on 10 953 patients with any of 28 cancers. We calculated summary statistics for the length of the patient and the primary care interval and their ratio, by cancer site. RESULTS: Interval lengths varied greatly by cancer. Laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancers had the longest median patient intervals, whereas renal and bladder cancer had the shortest (34.5 and 30 compared with 3 and 2 days, respectively). Multiple myeloma and gallbladder cancer had the longest median primary care intervals, and melanoma and breast cancer had the shortest (20.5 and 20 compared with 0 and 0 days, respectively). Mean patient intervals were longer than primary care intervals for most (18 of 28) cancers, and notably so (two- to five-fold greater) for 10 cancers (breast, melanoma, testicular, vulval, cervical, endometrial, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, ovarian and thyroid). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the continuing development and evaluation of public health interventions aimed at shortening patient intervals, particularly for cancers with long patient interval and/or high patient interval over primary care interval ratio.

The impact of eliminating age inequalities in stage at diagnosis on breast cancer survival for older women.

BACKGROUND: Older women with breast cancer have poorer relative survival outcomes, but whether achieving earlier stage at diagnosis would translate to substantial reductions in mortality is uncertain. METHODS: We analysed data on East of England women with breast cancer (2006-2010) aged 70+ years. We estimated survival for different stage-deprivation-age group strata using both the observed and a hypothetical stage distribution (assuming that all women aged 75+ years acquired the stage distribution of those aged 70-74 years). We subsequently estimated deaths that could be postponed beyond 5 years from diagnosis if women aged 75+ years had the hypothetical stage distribution. We projected findings to the English population using appropriate age and socioeconomic group weights. RESULTS: For a typically sized annual cohort in the East of England, 27 deaths in women with breast cancer aged 75+ years can be postponed within 5 years from diagnosis if their stage distribution matched that of the women aged 70-74 years (4.8% of all 566 deaths within 5 years post diagnosis in this population). Under assumptions, we estimate that the respective number for England would be 280 deaths (5.0% of all deaths within 5 years post diagnosis in this population). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support ongoing development of targeted campaigns aimed at encouraging prompt presentation in older women.

Impact of investigations in general practice on timeliness of referral for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer: analysis of national primary care audit data.

BACKGROUND: For patients with symptoms of possible cancer who do not fulfil the criteria for urgent referral, initial investigation in primary care has been advocated in the United Kingdom and supported by additional resources. The consequence of this strategy for the timeliness of diagnosis is unknown. METHODS: We analysed data from the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on patients with lung (1494), colorectal (2111), stomach (246), oesophagus (513), pancreas (327), and ovarian (345) cancer relating to the ordering of investigations by the General Practitioner and their nature. Presenting symptoms were categorised according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on referral for suspected cancer. We used linear regression to estimate the mean difference in primary-care interval by cancer, after adjustment for age, gender, and the symptomatic presentation category. RESULTS: Primary-care investigations were undertaken in 3198/5036 (64%) of cases. The median primary-care interval was 16 days (IQR 5-45) for patients undergoing investigation and 0 days (IQR 0-10) for those not investigated. Among patients whose symptoms mandated urgent referral to secondary care according to NICE guidelines, between 37% (oesophagus) and 75% (pancreas) were first investigated in primary care. In multivariable linear regression analyses stratified by cancer site, adjustment for age, sex, and NICE referral category explained little of the observed prolongation associated with investigation. INTERPRETATION: For six specified cancers, investigation in primary care was associated with later referral for specialist assessment. This effect was independent of the nature of symptoms. Some patients for whom urgent referral is mandated by NICE guidance are nevertheless investigated before referral. Reducing the intervals between test order, test performance, and reporting can help reduce the prolongation of primary-care intervals associated with investigation use. Alternative models of assessment should be considered.

Estimating the potential survival gains by eliminating socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis of melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although inequalities in cancer survival are thought to reflect inequalities in stage at diagnosis, little evidence exists about the size of potential survival gains from eliminating inequalities in stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We used data on patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma in the East of England (2006-2010) to estimate the number of deaths that could be postponed by completely eliminating socioeconomic and sex differences in stage at diagnosis after fitting a flexible parametric excess mortality model. RESULTS: Stage was a strong predictor of survival. There were pronounced socioeconomic and sex inequalities in the proportion of patients diagnosed at stages III-IV (12 and 8% for least deprived men and women and 25 and 18% for most deprived men and women, respectively). For an annual cohort of 1025 incident cases in the East of England, eliminating sex and deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would postpone approximately 24 deaths to beyond 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting, the equivalent estimate for England would be around 215 deaths, representing 11% of all deaths observed within 5 years from diagnosis in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis would result in substantial reductions in deaths within 5 years of a melanoma diagnosis.

Common patterns of morbidity and multi-morbidity and their impact on health-related quality of life: evidence from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the impact of specific patterns of multi-morbidity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from large samples of adult subjects. METHODS: We used data from the English General Practice Patient Survey 2011-2012. We defined multi-morbidity as the presence of two or more of 12 self-reported conditions or another (unspecified) long-term health problem. We investigated differences in HRQoL (EQ-5D scores) associated with combinations of these conditions after adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and the presence of a recent illness or injury. Analyses were based on 831,537 responses from patients aged 18 years or older in 8,254 primary care practices in England. RESULTS: Of respondents, 23 % reported two or more chronic conditions (ranging from 7 % of those under 45 years of age to 51 % of those 65 years or older). Multi-morbidity was more common among women, White individuals and respondents from socio-economically deprived areas. Neurological problems, mental health problems, arthritis and long-term back problem were associated with the greatest HRQoL deficits. The presence of three or more conditions was commonly associated with greater reduction in quality of life than that implied by the sum of the differences associated with the individual conditions. The decline in quality of life associated with an additional condition in people with two and three physical conditions was less for older people than for younger people. Multi-morbidity was associated with a substantially worse HRQoL in diabetes than in other long-term conditions. With the exception of neurological conditions, the presence of a comorbid mental health problem had a more adverse effect on HRQoL than any single comorbid physical condition. CONCLUSION: Patients with multi-morbid diabetes, arthritis, neurological, or long-term mental health problems have significantly lower quality of life than other people. People with long-term health conditions require integrated mental and physical healthcare services.

Inequalities in reported cancer patient experience by socio-demographic characteristic and cancer site: evidence from respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Patient experience is a critical dimension of cancer care quality. Understanding variation in experience among patients with different cancers and characteristics is an important first step for designing targeted improvement interventions. We analysed data from the 2011/2012 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 69,086) using logistic regression to explore inequalities in care experience across 64 survey questions. We additionally calculated a summary measure of variation in patient experience by cancer, and explored inequalities between patients with cancers treated by the same specialist teams. We found that younger and very old, ethnic minority patients and women consistently reported worse experiences across questions. Patients with small intestine/rarer lower gastrointestinal, multiple myeloma and hepatobiliary cancers were most likely to report negative experiences whereas patients with breast, melanoma and testicular cancer were least likely (top-to-bottom odds ratio = 1.91, P < 0.0001). There were also inequalities in experience among patients with cancers treated by the same specialty for five of nine services (P < 0.0001). Specifically, patients with ovarian, multiple myeloma, anal, hepatobiliary and renal cancer reported notably worse experiences than patients with other gynaecological, haematological, gastrointestinal and urological malignancies respectively. Initiatives to improve cancer patient experience across oncology services may be suitably targeted on patients at higher risk of poorer experience.

How much of the deprivation gap in cancer survival can be explained by variation in stage at diagnosis: an example from breast cancer in the East of England.

Socioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival exist in many countries and across cancer sites. In our article, we estimated the number of deaths in women with breast cancer that could be avoided within 5 years from diagnosis if it were possible to eliminate socioeconomic differences in stage at diagnosis. We analysed data on East of England women with breast cancer (2006-2010). We estimated survival for different stage-age-deprivation strata using both the observed and a hypothetical stage distribution (assuming all women acquired the stage distribution of the most affluent women). Data were analysed on 20,738 women with complete stage information (92%). Affluent women were less likely to be diagnosed in advanced stage. Relative survival decreased with increasing level of deprivation. Eliminating differences in stage at diagnosis could be expected to nearly eliminate differences in relative survival for women in deprivation groups 3 and 4, but would only approximately halve the difference in relative survival for women in the most deprived group (5). This means, for a typical cohort of women diagnosed in a calendar year with breast cancer, eliminating deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would prevent ∼40 deaths in the East of England from occurring within 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting we estimated the respective number of avoidable deaths for the whole of England to be ∼450. The findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing inequalities in stage at diagnosis between women with breast cancer are important to reduce inequalities in breast cancer survival.

Variation in reported experience of involvement in cancer treatment decision making: evidence from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

BACKGROUND: Exploring variation in patients' experiences of involvement in treatment decision making can identify groups needing extra support, such as additional consultation time, when considering treatment options. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2010 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, a national survey of all patients attending hospitals in England for cancer treatment over a 3-month period, to examine how experience of involvement in decisions about treatment varied between patients with 38 different primary cancers using logistic regression. We analysed responses from 41 411 patients to a single question examining patient experience of involvement in treatment decision making. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios of reporting the most positive experience between patients of different sociodemographic and tumour characteristics and explored the effects of adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, cancer type and hospital of treatment. RESULTS: Of the 41 441 respondents, 29 776 (72%) reported positive experiences of decision-making involvement. Younger patients reported substantially less positive experiences of involvement in decision making (adjusted OR=0.49 16-24 vs 65-74; P<0.001), as did ethnic minorities (adjusted ORs=0.52, 0.62 and 0.73 for Black, Chinese and Asian vs White patients, respectively; P<0.001). Experience varied considerably between patients with different cancers ( e.g., OR=0.52 for anal and 1.37 for melanoma vs colon cancer; P<0.001), with ovarian, myeloma, bladder and rectal cancer patients reporting substantially worse experiences compared with other patients with gynaecological, haematological, urological and colorectal cancers, respectively. Clustering of different patient groups within hospitals with outlying performance report scores could not account for observed differences. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve involvement in treatment decision making can focus on those who report the worst experience, in particular younger patients, ethnic minorities and patients with rectal, ovarian, multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.

Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed about the promptness of cancer diagnosis and associations between its measures. METHODS: We analysed data from the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care 2009-10 exploring the association between the interval from first symptomatic presentation to specialist referral (the primary care interval, or 'interval' hereafter) and the number of pre-referral consultations. RESULTS: Among 13,035 patients with any of 18 different cancers, most (82%) were referred after 1 (58%) or 2 (25%) consultations (median intervals 0 and 15 days, respectively) while 9%, 4% and 5% patients required 3, 4 or 5+ consultations (median intervals 34, 47 and 97 days, respectively) (Spearman's r=0.70). The association was at least moderate for any cancer (Spearman's r range: 0.55 (prostate)-0.77 (brain)). Patients with cancers with a higher proportion of three or more pre-referral consultations typically also had longer median intervals (e.g., multiple myeloma) and vice versa (e.g., breast cancer). CONCLUSION: The number of pre-referral consultations has construct validity as a measure of the primary care interval. Developing interventions to reduce the number of pre-referral consultations can help improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, and constitutes a priority for early diagnosis initiatives and research.