Incidence of bone metastases in breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom: Results of a multi-database linkage study using the general practice research database

BackgroundBone is a frequent site for metastases among women with breast cancer. We conducted a study using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), with linkage to the National Cancer Registry (NCR) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), to estimate the incidence of bone metastases in women with breast cancer in the United Kingdom.MethodsWe identified all women in the GPRD aged 20–99 with a first-time diagnosis of breast cancer between 2000 and 2006. To address potential underreporting, we developed and validated an algorithm to serve as a proxy for bone metastases. Bone metastases were defined as (1) a bone cancer diagnosis code on the same day or following breast cancer diagnosis date, or (2) another metastasis code plus codes consistent with bone metastases diagnosis or treatment using the algorithm. We sent questionnaires to a sample of general practitioners to validate these definitions.ResultsWe included 13,207 breast cancer patients (median age at diagnosis of 61 years) who contributed 70,885 person-years of follow-up. The majority of patients had stage 1 or 2 breast cancer (90.4%), and 2.6% had metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis. We identified 788 women (6.0%) with bone metastases after a median follow-up of 5.4 years. Questionnaire results validated the diagnosis of bone metastases in 88% of patients with a bone cancer code and for 70% identified with the algorithm.ConclusionThis is the first time the GPRD has been linked to HES and NCR to study the epidemiology of bone metastases, adding important information on the burden of bone metastasis.     

Risk of prostate cancer among cancer survivors in the Netherlands

BackgroundIn parallel with increasing numbers of cancer patients and improving cancer survival, the occurrence of second primary cancers becomes a relevant issue. The aim of our study was to evaluate risk of prostate cancer as second primary cancer in a population-based setting.MethodsData from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for prostate cancer as second primary cancer. The effect of time since first cancer diagnosis, specific first cancer sites, age, and pelvic radiotherapy was taken into account.ResultsOut of 551,553 male patients diagnosed with a first primary cancer between 1989 and 2008, 9243 patients were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Overall, cancer survivors showed an increased risk (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.3) of prostate cancer. The increased prostate cancer risk was limited to the first year of follow-up for the majority of the specific first cancer sites. More than 10 years after the first cancer diagnosis, only melanoma patients were at increased risk (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9), while patients with head or neck cancers were at decreased risk (SIR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.9) of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients who underwent primary pelvic radiotherapy for their first cancer had a decreased risk of prostate cancer in the long term (SIR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.6).ConclusionsOur data showed that cancer survivors have an increased prostate cancer risk in the first year following a first cancer diagnosis, which is most likely the result of active screening or incidental detection.     

Routes to diagnosis and the association with the prognosis in patients with cancer – A nationwide register-based cohort study in Denmark

BackgroundThe prognosis of cancer is related to how the cancer is identified, and where in the healthcare system the patient presents, i.e. routes to diagnosis (RtD). We aimed to describe the RtD for patients diagnosed with cancer in Denmark by using routinely collected register-based data and to investigate the association between RtD and prognosis measured as one-year all-cause mortality.MethodsWe conducted a population-based national cohort study by linking routinely collected Danish registry data. We categorised each patient into one of eight specified RtD based on an algorithm using a stepwise logic decision process. We described the proportions of patients with cancer diagnosed by different RtD. We examined associations between RtD and one-year all-cause mortality using logistic regression models adjusting for sex, age, cancer type, year of diagnosis, region of residence, and comorbidity.ResultsWe included 144,635 cancers diagnosed in 139,023 patients in 2014–2017. The most common RtD were cancer patient pathway from primary care (45.9 %), cancer patient pathway from secondary care (20.0 %), unplanned hospital admission (15.8 %), and population-based screening (7.5 %). The one-year mortality ranged from 1.4 % in screened patients to 53.0 % in patients diagnosed through unplanned hospital admission. Patients with an unplanned admission were more likely to die within the first year after diagnosis (OR = 3.38 (95 %CI: 3.24–3.52)) compared to patients diagnosed through the cancer patient pathway from primary care.ConclusionThe majority of cancer patients were diagnosed through a cancer patient pathway. The RtD were associated with the prognosis, and the prognosis was worst in patients diagnosed through unplanned admission. The study suggests that linking routinely collected registry data could enable a national framework for RtD, which could serve to identify variations across patient-, health-, and system-related and healthcare factors. This information could be used in future research investigating markers for monitoring purposes.     

Colorectal cancer ascertainment through cancer registries,hospital episode statistics,and self-reporting compared to confirmation by clinician: A cohort study nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

BackgroundElectronic health records are frequently used for cancer epidemiology. We report on their quality for ascertaining colorectal cancer (CRC) in UK women.MethodsPopulation-based, retrospective cohort study nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Postmenopausal women aged 50–74 who were diagnosed with CRC during 2001–11 following randomisation to the UKCTOCS were identified and their diagnosis confirmed with their treating clinician. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of cancer and death registries, hospital episode statistics, and self-reporting were calculated by pairwise comparisons to the treating clinician’s confirmation, while specificity and negative predictive value were estimated relative to expected cases.ResultsNotification of CRC events were received for 1,085 women as of 24 May 2011. Responses were received from 61% (660/1,085) of clinicians contacted. Nineteen women were excluded (18 no diagnosis date, one diagnosed after cut-off). Of the 641 eligible, 514 had CRC, 24 had a benign polyp, and 103 had neither diagnosis. The sensitivity of cancer registrations at one- and six-years post-diagnosis was 92 (95% CI 90–94) and 99% (97–100), respectively, with a PPV of 95% (95% CI 92/93–97). The sensitivity & PPV of cancer registrations (at one-year post-diagnosis) & hospital episode statistics combined were 98 (96–99) and 92% (89–94), respectively.ConclusionsCancer and death registrations in the UK are a reliable resource for CRC ascertainment in women. Hospital episode statistics can supplement delays in cancer registration. Self-reporting seems less reliable.     

Promoting Help-Seeking in Response to Symptoms amongst Primary Care Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer: A Mixed Method Study

BackgroundLung cancer symptoms are vague and difficult to detect. Interventions are needed to promote early diagnosis, however health services are already pressurised. This study explored symptomology and help-seeking behaviours of primary care patients at ‘high-risk’ of lung cancer (≥50 years old, recent smoking history), to inform targeted interventions.MethodsMixed method study with patients at eight general practitioner (GP) practices across south England. Study incorporated: postal symptom questionnaire; clinical records review of participant consultation behaviour 12 months pre- and post-questionnaire; qualitative participant interviews (n = 38) with a purposive sample.ResultsA small, clinically relevant group (n = 61/908, 6.7%) of primary care patients was identified who, despite reporting potential symptoms of lung cancer in questionnaires, had not consulted a GP ≥12 months. Of nine symptoms associated with lung cancer, 53.4% (629/1172) of total respondents reported ≥1, and 35% (411/1172) reported ≥2. Most participants (77.3%, n = 686/908) had comorbid conditions; 47.8%, (n = 414/908) associated with chest and respiratory symptoms. Participant consulting behaviour significantly increased in the 3-month period following questionnaire completion compared with the previous 3-month period (p = .002), indicating questionnaires impacted upon consulting behaviour. Symptomatic non-consulters were predominantly younger, employed, with higher multiple deprivation scores than their GP practice mean. Of symptomatic non-consulters, 30% (18/61) consulted ≤1 month post-questionnaire, with comorbidities subsequently diagnosed for five participants. Interviews (n = 39) indicated three overarching differences between the views of consulting and non-consulting participants: concern over wasting their own as well as GP time; high tolerance threshold for symptoms; a greater tendency to self-manage symptoms.ConclusionsThis first study to examine symptoms and consulting behaviour amongst a primary care population at ‘high- risk’ of lung cancer, found symptomatic patients who rarely consult GPs, might respond to a targeted symptom elicitation intervention. Such GP-based interventions may promote early diagnosis of lung cancer or other comorbidities, without burdening already pressurised services.     

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer

BackgroundDiagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England.MethodsWe developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014–15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis.ResultsThe approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals.ConclusionThis new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.     

Incidence of gynaecological cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study in the Netherlands

ObjectiveTo study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown on the number of diagnoses of gynaecological malignancies in the Netherlands.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on women of 18 years and older diagnosed with invasive endometrial, ovarian, cervical or vulvar cancer in the period 2017–2021. Analyses were stratified for age, socioeconomical status (SES) and region.ResultsThe incidence rate of gynaecological cancer was 67/100.000 (n = 4832) before (2017–2019) and 68/100.000 (n = 4833) during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing the number of diagnoses of the two periods for the four types of cancer separately showed no significant difference. During the first wave of COVID-19 (March-June 2020), a clear decrease in number of gynaecological cancer diagnoses was visible (20–34 %). Subsequently, large increases in number of diagnoses were visible (11–29 %). No significant differences in incidence were found between different age groups, SES and regions. In 2021 an increase of 5.9 % in number of diagnoses was seen.ConclusionIn the Netherlands, a clear drop in number of diagnoses was visible for all four types of gynaecological cancers during the first wave, with a subsequent increase in number of diagnoses in the second part of 2020 and in 2021. No differences between SES groups were found. This illustrates good organisation of and access to health care in the Netherlands.     

Exploration of the possible effect on survival of lead-time associated with implementation of cancer patient pathways among symptomatic first-time cancer patients in Denmark

BackgroundImplementation of standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs) has provided faster diagnosis of cancer. Cancer survival has improved during the same time period. Concern has been raised that the faster diagnosis may have introduced lead-time bias by elongating the period from diagnosis to death.AimWe aimed to analyse the possible effect of lead time on survival due to expedited cancer diagnosis after the implementation of national CPPs among incident cancer patients diagnosed through Danish primary care.Material and methodsWe used actual observed differences in diagnostic intervals to estimate the lead-time effect. We used data from sub-cohorts from the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort of first-time cancer patients: before and after CPP implementation. To calculate differences in absolute survival, we estimated the survival function after advancing the date of diagnosis in the before cohort to an earlier point in time and hereby adjusting for lead time for nine cancer types and all combined by using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsAdvancing the date of diagnosis implied that the absolute one-year survival increased from 68.5% to 69.4%. This accounted for 13% of the observed differences in absolute one-year survival from before to after CPPs.ConclusionThe lead time caused by shorter diagnostic intervals after implementation of Cancer Patient Pathways seems to explain less than 15% of the observed changes in the one-year survival estimates for cancer patients in Denmark.     

Examining methodology to identify patterns of consulting in primary care for different groups of patients before a diagnosis of cancer: An exemplar applied to oesophagogastric cancer

BackgroundCurrent methods for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis are not robust because dates of key defining milestones, for example first presentation, are uncertain. This is exacerbated when patients have other conditions (multimorbidity), particularly those that share symptoms with cancer. Methods independent of this uncertainty are needed for accurate estimates of the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, and to understand how multimorbidity impacts the diagnostic process.MethodsParticipants were diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer between 2010 and 2019. Controls were matched on year of birth, sex, general practice and multimorbidity burden calculated using the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score. Primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) was used to explore population-level consultation rates for up to two years before diagnosis across different multimorbidity burdens. Five approaches were compared on the timing of the consultation frequency increase, the inflection point for different multimorbidity burdens, different aggregated time-periods and sample sizes.ResultsWe included 15,410 participants, of which 13,328 (86.5 %) had a measurable multimorbidity burden. Our new maximum likelihood estimation method found evidence that the inflection point in consultation frequency varied with multimorbidity burden, from 154 days (95 %CI 131.8–176.2) before diagnosis for patients with no multimorbidity, to 126 days (108.5–143.5) for patients with the greatest multimorbidity burden. Inflection points identified using alternative methods were closer to diagnosis for up to three burden groups. Sample size reduction and changing the aggregation period resulted in inflection points closer to diagnosis, with the smallest change for the maximum likelihood method.DiscussionExisting methods to identify changes in consultation rates can introduce substantial bias which depends on sample size and aggregation period. The direct maximum likelihood method was less prone to this bias than other methods and offers a robust, population-level alternative for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.     

Epidemiology of castration resistant prostate cancer: A longitudinal analysis using a UK primary care database

Background: Castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is defined clinically as a failure of castration to prevent an increase in circulating hormones which are associated with worsening prostate cancer. Published information on the frequency and characteristics of CRPC patients are lacking. This may be partly because there is no specific code which doctors can use to record CRPC, making research in existing data sources such as the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) difficult. Methods: The aim of this study was to firstly develop a method to accurately and thoroughly identify CRPC patients in the GPRD, using a combination of codes for treatments and diagnostic tests which these patients are likely to have received. Secondly, the anonymised electronic medical records were used to study the identified CRPC patient characteristics, such as age, treatments, comorbidity and expected survival. Results: After comprehensive exploratory research, the final algorithm was selected to identify patients’ assumed recording on the GPRD of either a rising prostate specific antigen (PSA) value (clinical definition of CRPC) or evidence of a switch in treatment after castration. Using the algorithm, over the 1999–2009 study period, 11 600 castrated prostate cancer patients were identified. Of these, 3277 (28%) developed CRPC during the study period, with an incidence rate of 8.3 per 100 person years in castrated prostate cancer patients, and 3.8 per 100 person years in all prostate cancer patients. Mean patient age at CRPC was 76.8 years, and mean survival duration from CRPC status was 13.5 months, and from first prostate cancer diagnosis was 48.2 months. The most common comorbidities among CRPC patients were hypertension, dyspnoea, and anaemia. Conclusions: Sensitivity analyses to test algorithms with differing inclusion criteria suggested that the primary algorithm was robust, reducing bias through missing data, while avoiding ‘false positives’ and retaining clinical credibility. Overall, our study has documented a reliable method for identifying CRPC patients in GPRD, and thus we have been able to characterise these patients more accurately.     

Health-related predictors of cancer registry-notified cancer of unknown primary site (CUP)

BackgroundThe relationship between comorbid disease and health service use and risk of cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is uncertain.MethodsA prospective cohort of 266,724 people aged 45 years and over in New South Wales, Australia. Baseline questionnaire data were linked to cancer registration, health service records 4–27 months prior to diagnosis, and mortality data. We compared individuals with incident registry-notified CUP (n = 327; 90% C80) to two sets of randomly selected controls (3:1): (i) incident metastatic cancer of known primary site (n = 977) and (ii) general cohort population (n = 981). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsIn fully adjusted models incorporating sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, people with cancer registry-notified CUP were more likely to have fair compared with excellent self-rated overall health (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.01–3.14) and less likely to self-report anxiety (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24−0.97) than those registered with metastatic cancer of known primary. Compared to general cohort population controls, people registered with CUP were more likely to have poor rather than excellent self-rated overall health (OR 6.22, 95% CI 1.35–28.6), less likely to self-report anxiety (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12−0.63), and more likely to have a history of diabetes (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.15–3.10) or cancer (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03–2.57). Neither tertiary nor community-based health service use independently predicted CUP risk.ConclusionLow self-rated health may be a flag for undiagnosed cancer, and an investigation of its clinical utility in primary care appears warranted.     

Prevalence and characteristics of cancer patients receiving care from single vs. multiple institutions

IntroductionPatients may receive cancer care from multiple institutions. However, at the population level, such patterns of cancer care are poorly described, complicating clinical research. To determine the population-based prevalence and characteristics of patients seen by multiple institutions, we used operations data from a state-mandated cancer registry.Methods and materials59,672 invasive cancers diagnosed in 1/1/2010-12/31/2011 in the Greater Bay Area of northern California were categorized as having been reported to the cancer registry within 365 days of diagnosis by: 1) ≥1 institution within an integrated health system (IHS); 2) IHS institution(s) and ≥1 non-IHS institution (e.g., private hospital); 3) 1 non-IHS institution; or 4) ≥2 non-IHS institutions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to characterize patients reported by multiple vs. single institutions.ResultsOverall in this region, 17% of cancers were reported by multiple institutions. Of the 33% reported by an IHS, 8% were also reported by a non-IHS. Of non-IHS patients, 21% were reported by multiple institutions, with 28% for breast and 27% for pancreatic cancer, but 19%% for lung and 18% for prostate cancer. Generally, patients more likely to be seen by multiple institutions were younger or had more severe disease at diagnosis.ConclusionsPopulation-based data show that one in six newly diagnosed cancer patients received care from multiple institutions, and differed from patients seen only at a single institution. Cancer care data from single institutions may be incomplete and possibly biased.     

The validity of self-reported cancer in a population-based cohort compared to that in formally registered sources

BackgroundSelf-reported cancer has been validated with heterogeneous results across populations. The aim was to assess the validity of self-reported cancer in the Lifelines population-based cohort and to search for explanations for not reporting cancer.MethodsData from adult participants (n = 152,780) from Lifelines was linked to the Dutch-Nationwide pathology databank (PALGA), which has nearly 100% coverage of cancer diagnoses in the Netherlands and is considered as the gold standard for ascertainment of cancer diagnosis in this study. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for self-reported cancers -reported as hand-written free text- were described. Logistic regressions analyses were performed to evaluate whether socio-demographic factors were associated with the presence of self-reported cancer when there was a diagnosis in PALGA.Results6611 (4.50%) participants had at least one self-reported diagnosis of cancer, where 9960 (6.97%) participants had at least one cancer diagnosis in PALGA. The sensitivity of self-reported cancer was 64.68% [95%CI:63.71–65.66], and 70.18% [95%CI:68.83–71.56] after excluding skin and cervical cancers. Skin and cervical cancers represented 61.24% of non-self-reported cancers. The overall PPV was 97.45% [95%CI:97.45–97.81], and 97.33% [95%CI:96.72–97.82] after the exclusion of skin and cervical cancers. Participants who did not self-report their cancer were more likely to be male, had longer time since diagnosis and lower educational level.ConclusionOverall, the reports of cancer in Lifelines have a high positive predictive value and moderate sensitivity. One third of the cancers were not reported, mainly skin and cervical cancers. Male participants, those with a lower educational level and those with longer time since diagnosis were less likely to self-report a diagnosed cancer.     

Validity of initial cancer diagnoses in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination data in Japan

BackgroundIn Japan, the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data have been used as a nationwide administrative hospital discharge database for clinical studies. However, few studies have evaluated the validity of recorded diagnoses of cancer in the database.MethodsWe compared the DPC data with hospital-based cancer registries in Osaka Prefecture, Japan to assess the validity of the recorded cancer diagnoses in the DPC data. Fifteen types of cancer were included in the analysis. Cancer stage with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification was assessed for eight cancer types with >400 patients. We evaluated concordance and positive predictive value of cancer diagnosis, and concordance of cancer stage between the DPC data and the hospital-based cancer registry.ResultsIn total, we identified 29,180 eligible patients. The five types of cancer with the highest number of patients were as follows: 6,765 (23.2 %) colorectal, 6,476 (22.2 %) stomach, 4,862 (16.7 %) breast, 4,445 (15.2 %) lung, and 2,257 (7.7 %) liver. Concordance of diagnosis ranged from 63.9 %–99.5 %, and twelve of the fifteen types of cancers had concordance of over 90 %. Positive predictive values of diagnosis ranged from 86.8 %–100 %. Regarding cancer stage, the overall degree of concordance was 67.2 % in all patients and the concordance was over 70 % in four types of cancers.ConclusionsThe DPC data had high validity of cancer diagnosis. However, the potential impact of the misclassifications and low concordance in cancer stage among specific type of cancers in the DPC data should be considered.     

Time intervals from first symptom to diagnosis for head and neck cancers: An analysis of linked patient reports and medical records from the UK

BackgroundEngland has significantly higher mortality risks due to Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) compared with other European countries. Early diagnosis is important as it is likely to increase early-stage diagnosis and improve survival and better quality of life. This study sought to improve understanding of the intervals from first symptom recognition to diagnosis for HNC and investigate associations between patient-reported symptoms and socio-demographic factors.MethodsPeople within 3 months of diagnosis, completed a researcher-administered questionnaire and data were extracted from primary and secondary care clinical records.ResultsEighty (mean age 62.9 [SD 11.7] years; 66% men) were interviewed. The appraisal interval was longer than a month for 39% of participants and the help-seeking interval was longer than a week for 44%. The median diagnostic interval was 92 (IQR; 34-172) days. Appraisal intervals of > 1 month were associated with male gender, ulceration and persistent throat pain. The only symptom that associated with a help-seeking interval of > 1 week was ulceration. Participants who reported red/white patches in the mouth and ulceration were associated with a reduced likelihood of a diagnostic interval of > 3 months. A higher proportion of participants with a diagnostic interval of > 3 months were diagnosed with advanced disease (78%) than those with an interval < 3 months (68%).ConclusionThese data improve understanding of the intervals from first symptom recognition to HNC diagnosis and provide preliminary evidence to identify targets to reduce overall time to diagnosis.     

Differences in Breast Cancer Survival between Public and Private Care in New Zealand: Which Factors Contribute?

BackgroundPatients who received private health care appear to have better survival from breast cancer compared to those who received public care. This study investigated if this applied to New Zealand women and identified factors that could explain such disparities.MethodsThis study involved all women who were diagnosed with primary breast cancer in two health regions in New Zealand, covering about 40% of the national population, between June 2000 and May 2013. Patients who received public care for primary treatment, mostly surgical treatment, were compared with those who received private care in terms of demographics, mode of presentation, disease factors, comorbidity index and treatment factors. Cox regression modelling was performed with stepwise adjustments, and hazards of breast cancer specific mortality associated with the type of health care received was assessed.ResultsOf the 14,468 patients, 8,916 (61.6%) received public care. Compared to patients treated in private care facilities, they were older, more likely to be Māori, Pacifika or Asian and to reside in deprived neighbourhoods and rural areas, and less likely to be diagnosed with early staged cancer and to receive timely cancer treatments. They had a higher risk of mortality from breast cancer (hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.75, 2.17), of which 80% (95% CI: 63%, 100%) was explained by baseline differences, particularly related to ethnicity, stage at diagnosis and type of loco-regional therapy. After controlling for these demographic, disease and treatment factors, the risk of mortality was still 14% higher in the public sector patients.ConclusionsEthnicity, stage at diagnosis and type of loco-regional therapy were the three key contributors to survival disparities between patients treated in public and private health care facilities in New Zealand. The findings underscore the need for more efforts to improve the quality, timeliness and equitability of public cancer care services.     

Demographic,social and lifestyle risk factors for cancer registry-notified cancer of unknown primary site (CUP)

BackgroundLittle is known about the risk factors for cancer of unknown primary site (CUP). We examined the demographic, social and lifestyle risk factors for CUP in a prospective cohort of 266,724 people aged 45 years and over in New South Wales, Australia.MethodsBaseline questionnaire data were linked to cancer registration, hospitalisation, emergency department admission, and mortality data. We compared individuals with incident cancer registry-notified CUP (n = 327) to two sets of controls randomly selected (3:1) using incidence density sampling with replacement: (i) incident cancer registry-notified metastatic cancer of known primary site (n = 977) and (ii) general cohort population (n = 981). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsIn a fully adjusted model incorporating self-rated overall health and comorbidity, people diagnosed with CUP were more likely to be older (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04–1.07 per year) and more likely to have low educational attainment (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.24–2.53) than those diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known primary. Similarly, compared to general cohort population controls, people diagnosed with CUP were older (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08–1.12 per year), of low educational attainment (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.08–2.64), and current (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.81–6.47) or former (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33–2.86) smokers.ConclusionThe consistent association with educational attainment suggests low health literacy may play a role in CUP diagnosis. These findings highlight the need to develop strategies to achieve earlier identification of diagnostically challenging malignancies in people with low health literacy.     

Age differences in presentation,diagnosis pathway and management of colorectal cancer

BackgroundThe gap in survival between older and younger European cancer patients is getting wider. It is possible that cancer in the elderly is being managed or treated differently than in their younger counterparts. This study aims to explore age disparities with respect to the clinical characteristics of the tumour, diagnostic pathway and treatment of colorectal cancer patients.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter cross sectional study in 5 Spanish regions. Consecutive incident cases of CRC were identified from pathology services. Measurements: From patient interviews, hospital and primary care clinical records, we collected data on symptoms, stage, doctors investigations, time duration to diagnosis/treatment, quality of care and treatment.Results777 symptomatic cases, 154 were older than 80 years. Stage was similar by age group. General symptoms were more frequent in the eldest and abdominal symptoms in the youngest. No differences were found regarding perception of symptom seriousness and symptom disclosure between age groups as no longer duration to diagnosis or treatment was observed in the oldest groups. In primary care, only ultrasound is more frequently ordered in those <65 years. Those >80 years had a significantly higher proportion of iron testing and abdominal XR requested in hospital. We observed a high resection rate independently of age but less adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer, and of radiotherapy in stage II and III rectal cancer as age increases.ConclusionThere are no relevant age disparities in the CRC diagnosis process with similar stage, duration to diagnosis, investigations and surgery. However, further improvements have to be made with respect to adjuvant therapy.