Estimating surgery, radiotherapy and systemic anti-cancer therapy treatment costs for cancer patients by stage at diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The increasing burden of cancer has economic implications for the healthcare system in England. However, there is limited evidence on the cost of cancer treatment. We calculated the costs of initial cancer treatment (resection, radiotherapy, systemic anti-cancer therapy [SACT]) based on stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Data from England's National Cancer Registration Dataset were matched to English Hospital, Radiotherapy and SACT data for breast, lung, prostate, colon and rectal cancers diagnosed between 2016 and 2018. Treatment data were matched to National Schedule of Reference Costs data to calculate the cost of each treatment event. RESULTS: Breast, colon and rectal cancers treated with resection, radiotherapy or SACT had increasing costs with later stage at diagnosis; costs for lung and prostate cancers were lower at stages 1 and 4 compared to stages 2 and 3. In general, surgery and SACT were the most expensive treatments. Radiotherapy and SACT costs showed little change across stages 1-3; radiotherapy costs decreased in stage 4, while SACT costs increased. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis estimates initial treatment costs by stage based on observed data. Future research can build on this to provide more comprehensive costings associated with cancer; this is important for future planning of cancer services.

Are inequalities in cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation narrowing, widening or remaining unchanged? Longitudinal analysis of English population-based data 2006-2013.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of cancer through emergency presentation is associated with poorer prognosis. While reductions in emergency presentations have been described, whether known sociodemographic inequalities are changing is uncertain. METHODS: We analysed 'Routes to Diagnosis' data on patients aged ≥25 years diagnosed in England during 2006-2013 with any of 33 common or rarer cancers. Using binary logistic regression we determined time-trends in diagnosis through emergency presentation by age, deprivation and cancer site. RESULTS: Overall adjusted proportions of emergency presentations decreased during the study period (2006: 23%, 2013: 20%). Substantial baseline (2006) inequalities in emergency presentation risk by age and deprivation remained largely unchanged. There was evidence (p<0.05) of reductions in the risk of emergency presentations for most (28/33) cancer sites, without apparent associations between the size of reduction and baseline risk (p=0.26). If there had been modest reductions in age inequalities (ie, patients in each age group acquiring the same percentage of emergency presentations as the adjacent group with lower risk), in the last study year we could have expected around 11 000 fewer diagnoses through emergency presentation (ie, a nationwide percentage of 16% rather than the observed 20%). For similarly modest reductions in deprivation inequalities, we could have expected around 3000 fewer (ie, 19%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of cancer diagnoses through emergency presentation is decreasing but age and deprivation inequalities prevail, indicating untapped opportunities for further improvements by reducing these inequalities. The observed reductions in proportions across nearly all cancer sites are likely to reflect both earlier help-seeking and improvements in diagnostic healthcare pathways, across both easier-to-suspect and harder-to-suspect cancers.

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence.

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

Gender inequalities in the promptness of diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer after symptomatic presentation: evidence from secondary analysis of an English primary care audit survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether women experience greater delays in the diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer when first presenting to a general practitioner with symptoms caused by those cancers and potential reasons for such gender inequalities. DESIGN: Prospective national audit survey of cancer diagnosis. SETTING: English primary care (2009-2010). PARTICIPANTS: 920 patients with bladder and 398 patients with renal cancer (252 (27%) and 165 (42%), respectively, were women). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with three or more pre-referral consultations; number of days from first presentation to referral; proportion of patients who presented with haematuria and proportion of patients investigated in primary care. RESULTS: Women required three or more prereferral consultations more often than men (27% (95% CI 21% to 33%) vs 11% (9% to 14%) for bladder (p<0.001); and 30% (22% to 39%) vs 18% (13% to 25%) for renal cancer (p=0.025)) and had a greater number of days from presentation to referral. In multivariable analysis (adjusting for age, haematuria status and use of primary care-led investigations), being a woman was independently associated with higher odds of three or more pre-referral consultations (OR=3.29 (2.06 to 5.25, p<0.001) for bladder cancer; and OR=1.90 (1.06 to 3.42, p=0.031) for renal cancer). Although presentation with haematuria was associated with more timely diagnosis of bladder cancer, gender inequalities did not vary by haematuria status for either cancer (p=0.18 for bladder and p=0.27 for renal). Each year in the UK, approximately 700 women with either bladder or renal cancer experience a delayed diagnosis because of their gender, of whom more than a quarter (197, or 28%) present with haematuria. CONCLUSIONS: There are notable gender inequalities in the timeliness of diagnosis of urological cancers. There is a need to both reinforce existing guidelines on haematuria investigation and develop new diagnostic decision aids and tests for patients who present without haematuria.

Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Cancer Registry.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the patterns of care for low-risk localized prostate cancer. Management of this condition is highly controversial, with a range of treatment options, but there are no published UK data. METHODS: data from the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Cancer Registry were linked to the UK Association of Cancer registries postcode directory. The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the initial management of men diagnosed with low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK between 2000 and 2006 were analysed. RESULTS: In all, 43,322 cases of localized prostate cancer were recorded in the BAUS Registry between 2000 and 2006, of which 8861 (20%) met the criteria for low-risk disease. The proportion classified as low risk ranged from 16% in 2000 to 21% in 2006. The proportion of men with low-risk disease opting for 'watchful waiting' increased from 0% to 39% over the same period. Treatment choice was associated with socio-economic status. For example, radical prostatectomy was chosen by 34% of patients in the most affluent quintile, compared with 19% in the most deprived quintile (P= 0.01). CONCLUSION: the management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK has changed markedly in recent years, and contrasts with that in the USA. The association observed between socio-economic status and choice of treatment deserves further study.