Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways – a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients

Authors: Henry Jensen, Marie Louise Tørring, Frede Olesen, Jens Overgaard, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Peter Vedsted

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

From 2008, Danish general practitioners could refer patients suspected of having cancer to standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs).
We aimed to compare the length of the diagnostic interval in 2010 with the length of the diagnostic interval before (2004/05) and during (2007/08) the implementation of CPPs in Denmark for all incident cancer patients who attended general practice prior to the cancer diagnosis.

Methods

General practitioner questionnaires and register data on 12,558 patients were used to compare adjusted diagnostic interval across time by quantile regression.

Results

The median diagnostic interval was 14 (95% CI: 11;16) days shorter during and 17 (95% CI: 15;19) days shorter after the implementation of CPPs than before. The diagnostic interval was 15 (95% CI: 12;17) days shorter for patients referred to a CPP in 2010 than during the implementation, whereas patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 had a 4 (95% CI: 1;7) days longer median diagnostic interval; the pattern was similar, but larger at the 75th and 90th percentiles.

Conclusion

The diagnostic interval was significantly lower after CPP implementation. Yet, patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 tended to have a longer diagnostic interval compared to during the implementation. CPPs may thus only seem to expedite the diagnostic process for some cancer patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Prades J, Espinas JA, Font R, Argimon JM, Borras JM. Implementing a Cancer Fast-track Programme between primary and specialised care in Catalonia (Spain): a mixed methods study. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:753–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Probst HB, Hussain ZB, Andersen O. Cancer patient pathways in Denmark as a joint effort between bureaucrats, health professionals and politicians-A national Danish project. Health Policy. 2012;105:65–70.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Toustrup K, Lambertsen K, Birke-Sorensen H, Ulhoi B, Sorensen L, Grau C. Reduction in waiting time for diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer - a fast track study. Acta Oncol. 2011;50:636–41.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lyhne NM, Christensen A, Alanin MC, Bruun MT, Jung TH, Bruhn MA, et al. Waiting times for diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer in Denmark in 2010 compared to 1992 and 2002. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1627–33.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Vallverdu-Cartie H, Comajuncosas-Camp J, Orbeal-Saenz RA, Lopez-Negre JL, Gris Garriga PJ, Jimeno-Fraile J, et al. Results of implementation of a fast track pathway for diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2011;103:402–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Valentin-Lopez B, Ferrandiz-Santos J, Blasco-Amaro JA, Morillas-Sainz JD, Ruiz-Lopez P. Assessment of a rapid referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer in Madrid. Fam Pract. 2012;29:182–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan. A plan for investment, A plan for reform. London: Department of Health; 2000.
9.
10.
Weller D, Vedsted P, Rubin G, Walter FM, Emery J, Scott S, et al. The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1262–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
Torring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:2187–98.
13.
Neal RD, Din NU, Hamilton W, Ukoumunne OC, Carter B, Stapley S, et al. Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:584–92.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Scheel BI, Ingebrigtsen SG, Thorsen T, Holtedahl K. Cancer suspicion in general practice: the role of symptoms and patient characteristics, and their association with subsequent cancer. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:627–35.CrossRef
15.
Ingebrigtsen SG, Scheel BI, Hart B, Thorsen T, Holtedahl K. Frequency of 'warning signs of cancer' in Norwegian general practice, with prospective recording of subsequent cancer. Fam Pract. 2013;30:153–60.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Neal RD, Allgar VL, Ali N, Leese B, Heywood P, Proctor G, et al. Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:212–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Potter S, Govindarajulu S, Shere M, Braddon F, Curran G, Greenwood R, et al. Referral patterns, cancer diagnoses, and waiting times after introduction of two week wait rule for breast cancer: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335:288.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Jensen H, Torring ML, Olesen F, Overgaard J, Vedsted P. Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey and registry study. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:636.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Jensen H, Torring ML, Larsen MB, Vedsted P. Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:237–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Rothmann K, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippencott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
21.
Ferlay J, Shin H.R., Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Version 3.0. 2012. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:676–82.CrossRefPubMed
26.
UNESCO. International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Quebec, Canada: Montreal; 2012.
27.
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1374–403.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Miranda A. QCOUNT: Stata program to fit quantile regression models for count data. 2006. Boston College Department of Economics.
29.
30.
Machado JA, Santos Silva JMC. Quantiles for Counts. J Am Stat Assoc. 2005;100:1225–37.CrossRef
31.
Torring ML, Frydenberg M, Hamilton W, Hansen RP, Lautrup MD, Vedsted P. Diagnostic interval and mortality in colorectal cancer: U-shaped association demonstrated for three different datasets. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:669–78.CrossRefPubMed
32.
van Harten MC, Hoebers FJ, Kross KW, van Werkhoven ED, van den Brekel MW, van Dijk BA. Determinants of treatment waiting times for head and neck cancer in the Netherlands and their relation to survival. Oral Oncol. 2014;51:272–78.
33.
Torring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Hamilton W, Vedsted P. Time to diagnosis and mortality in colorectal cancer: a cohort study in primary care. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:934–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Neal RD, Tharmanathan P, France B, Din NU, Cotton S, Fallon-Ferguson J, et al. Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2015;112 Suppl 1:S92–107.
35.
Jensen KH, Maina PJ. Cancer pathways are associated with improved long-term survival. Dan Med J. 2015;61:A5000.
36.
Storm HH, Kejs AM, Engholm G. Improved survival of Danish cancer patients 2007–2009 compared with earlier periods. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58:A4346.PubMed
37.
Deleuran T, Thomsen RW, Norgaard M, Jacobsen JB, Rasmussen TR, Sogaard M. Comorbidity and survival of Danish lung cancer patients from 2000–2011: a population-based cohort study. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:31–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Danish National Board of Health: National Cancer Plan II • Denmark National Board of Health recommendations for improving cancer healthcare services. Copenhagen: The National Board of Health; 2005.
39.
40.
O'Dowd A. GPs should be freed up to make more endoscopy referrals, cancer charity says. BMJ. 2014;348:g3602.
41.
Larsen MB, Jensen H, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Identification of patients with incident cancers using administrative registry data. Dan Med J. 2014;6:A4777.
42.
Hansen RP: Delay in the diagnosis of cancer [PhD thesis]. Aarhus: Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus; 2008.
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways – a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients
Authors
Henry Jensen
Marie Louise Tørring
Frede Olesen
Jens Overgaard
Morten Fenger-Grøn
Peter Vedsted
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Cancer 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Nrf2 is a potential prognostic marker and promotes proliferation and invasion in human hepatocellular carcinoma

Research article

Coffee consumption and the risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Research article

Combined comparative genomic hybridization and transcriptomic analyses of ovarian granulosa cell tumors point to novel candidate driver genes

Research article

Differences in clinical importance of Bcl-2 in breast cancer according to hormone receptors status or adjuvant endocrine therapy

Study protocol

Efficacy of a brief manualized intervention Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) adapted to German cancer care settings: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Shifts in subsets of CD8+ T-cells as evidence of immunosenescence in patients with cancers affecting the lungs: an observational case-control study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits