Henry Jensen

Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey and registry study

BackgroundMany countries have implemented standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs) to ensure fast diagnosis of patients suspected of having cancer. Yet, studies are sparse on the impact of such CPPs, and few have distinguished between referral routes. For incident cancer patients, we aimed to determine how often GPs suspected cancer at the time of first presentation of symptoms in general practice and to describe the routes of referral for further investigation. In addition, we aimed to analyse if the GP’s suspicion of cancer could predict the choice of referral to a CPP. Finally, we aimed to analyse associations between not only cancer suspicion and time to cancer diagnosis, but also between choice of referral route and time to cancer diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study of incident cancer patients in Denmark who had attended general practice prior to their diagnosis of cancer. Data were collected from GP questionnaires and national registers. We estimated the patients’ chance of being referred to a CPP (prevalence ratio (PR)) using Poisson regression. Associations between the GP’s symptom interpretation, use of CPP and time to diagnosis were estimated using quantile regression.Results5,581 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 73.8%). A GP was involved in diagnosing the cancer in 4,101 (73.5%) cases (3,823 cases analysed). In 48.2% of these cases, the GP interpreted the patient’s symptoms as ‘alarm’ symptoms suggestive of cancer. The GP used CPPs in 1,426 (37.3%) cases. Patients, who had symptoms interpreted as ‘vague’ had a lower chance of being referred to a CPP than when interpreted as ‘alarm’ symptoms (PR = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.48;0.60)). Patients with ‘vague’ symptoms had a 34 (95% CI: 28;41) days longer median time to diagnosis than patients with ‘alarm’ symptoms.ConclusionsGPs suspect cancer more often than they initiate a CPP, and patients were less likely to be referred to a CPP when their symptoms were not interpreted as alarm symptoms of cancer. The GP’s choice of referral route was a strong predictor of the duration of the diagnostic interval, but the GP’s symptom interpretation was approximately twice as strong an indicator of a longer diagnostic interval.

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

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

Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: Danish Cancer in Primary Care cohort

Background In this paper, we describe the settings, content, and possibilities of the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort as well as some of the key findings so far. Further, we describe the future potential of the cohort as an international resource for epidemiological and health services research studies. Methods The CaP cohort comprises information from three Danish subcohorts set up in 2004–2005, 2007–2008, and 2010 on newly diagnosed cancer patients aged 18 years or older. General practitioner (GP)-reported and patient-reported data from six questionnaires generated information on causes and consequences of delayed diagnosis of cancer, and these data were supplemented with complete information on, eg, death, migration, health care utilization, medication use, and socioeconomic data from Denmark’s comprehensive health and administrative registers. The cohort is followed up in terms of emigration, death, hospitalization, medication, and socioeconomics, and data are updated regularly. Results In total, we identified 22,169 verified incident cancer cases. Completed GP questionnaires were returned for 17,566 (79%) of the verified cases, and patient questionnaires were completed by 8,937 (40%) respondents. Patients with participating GPs did not differ from patients with nonparticipating GPs in regard to one-year survival, comorbidity, or educational level. However, compared with nonparticipating GPs, patients listed with participating GPs were more likely to be women, younger, to have a higher disposable income, to have more regional or distant spread of tumors, were also more likely to have breast cancer, and were less likely to have prostate cancer. Responding patients were more likely to be women, aged 45–74 years, and diagnosed with breast cancer or malignant melanoma, and have higher one-year survival rates, more localized tumors, higher educational background, and higher disposable income. Conclusion The cohort is an international resource for epidemiological and health service research, and data are accessible for well defined and approved collaborative studies.

A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: The proportion of non-attenders in cervical cancer screening is high, and should be minimised. A targeted invitation to women not participating for the last 5 years in cervical screening was evaluated to determine whether it would decrease the number of these women. Increasing general practitioners’ attention to the screening programme for cervical cancer was also evaluated to determine whether it would increase participation. Methods: A cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in the county of Aarhus, Denmark. All women registered with a GP were randomised. Regardless of group allocation, all women received a normal invitation. In the intervention arm, GPs were visited to facilitate quality enhancements of the screening programme, combined with a special targeted invitation to women aged 23–59 registered with the GP but not attending screening for the last 5 years. The main outcome was the proportion of non-attenders and the secondary outcome was coverage rate. Results: 117 129 women registered with 190 GPs were included in the study. 1737 non-attenders had a Papanicolaou smear during follow-up. The decline in non-attenders was 0.87% (95% CI 0.57% to 1.16%) after 9 months in favour of the intervention. A difference of 0.94% (95% CI 0.21% to 1.67%) in the change of coverage rate was observed at 6 months, which increased to 1.97% (95% CI 0.03% to 3.91%) at 9 months in favour of the intervention. Conclusion: It is possible to decrease the proportion of non-attenders and increase the coverage rate in a screening programme for cervical cancer using a special targeted invitation to non-attenders combined with a visit to GPs. To further improve participation, other barriers must be identified and addressed.

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation

Objectives This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses. Design and setting Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions. Participants Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases. Main outcomes Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types. Conclusion An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.

Prognosis of cancer in persons with infrequent consultation in general practice: a population-based cohort study

Cancer survival rates are lower in Denmark than in comparable European countries. This may partly be attributable to subgroups of cancer patients who seek medical attention at late disease stages. It is unknown if differences in usual (i.e. customary) consultation frequency in general practice are associated with cancer prognosis. We aimed to estimate the cancer prognosis of cancer patients stratified by their usual consultation frequency in general practice. We performed a population‐based cohort study including 123,943 incident cancer patients aged 50 to 89 years diagnosed in Denmark in 2009 to 2013. We estimated associations between the patients usual general practitioner (GP) consultation frequency 19 to 36 months before the cancer diagnosis and all‐cause mortality by using hazard ratios (HR), estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression. We also estimated the associations between the patients usual GP consultation frequency and tumour stage, by using logistic regression estimates of odds ratios (ORs). Patients who usually did not see their GP (non‐consulters) had higher all‐cause mortality [HR = 1.39 (95% CI: 1.33–1.44)] compared to patients who usually saw their GP three to five times during an 18 months period (average consulters). Non‐consulters had higher odds of having distant tumour stage [OR = 1.46 (95% CI: 1.38–1.57)] than average consulters. Similar, yet less strong, patterns were seen among patients with low usual GP consultation frequency, yet not statistically significant for all cancer types. In conclusion, the association between usual GP non‐consultation and cancer prognosis is a combination of at least two things: a mechanism through more advanced tumour stage and other independent factors.

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

BACKGROUND Implementation 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. AIM We 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 METHODS We 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. RESULTS Advancing 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. CONCLUSION The 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.

Risk of cancer and repeated urgent referral after negative investigation for cancer

Introduction Many countries have implemented cancer patient pathways (CPPs) for organ-specific cancers. However, due to high symptom diversity, it can be difficult for the General Practitioner (GP) to decide on the appropriate CPP. Objective The aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of patients who were referred to a second CPP, were diagnosed with cancer or died within 6 months after receiving a negative result from clinical investigation through an initial CPP. Methods We conducted a historical cohort study using routinely collected data with 6 months of follow-up. Data were collected from Danish registries. Results We included 109998 study subjects: 0.6% received a cancer diagnosis, 2.3% died and 6.1% were referred to a second CPP within 6 months. A total of 48.9% of the re-referrals after a first CPP in the gastrointestinal (GI) area were also referred to a second CPP in the GI area. Re-referral to a second CPP corresponded to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 4.4% to be diagnosed with cancer. Conclusion A total of 6% of patients who received a negative result after investigation in an organ-specific CPP were re-referred within 6 months to a new organ-specific CPP; many of these were in the same anatomical area as the first CPP. The PPV of 4.4% to be diagnosed with cancer indicates that some cancers may be missed in the diagnostic investigation through the first CPP. This calls for reconsideration of how CPPs may best support the primary cancer diagnosis.

Rural-urban disparities in time to diagnosis and treatment for colorectal and breast cancer

Background: Longer cancer pathways may contribute to rural–urban survival disparities, but research in this area is lacking. We investigated time to diagnosis and treatment for rural and urban patients with colorectal or breast cancer in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Population-based surveys (2013–2014) of patients (aged ≥40, approached within 6 months of diagnosis), primary care physicians (PCPs), and specialists were collected as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Module 4. Six intervals were examined: patient (symptom to presentation), primary care (presentation to referral), diagnostic (presentation/screening to diagnosis), treatment (diagnosis to treatment), health system (presentation to treatment), and total interval (symptom/screening to treatment). Rural and urban intervals were compared using quantile regression including age, sex, insurance, and socioeconomic status. Results: 433 colorectal (48% rural) and 489 breast (42% rural) patients, 621 PCPs, and 370 specialists participated. Compared with urban patients, patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer from rural areas had significantly longer total intervals at the 50th [18 days longer, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9–27], 75th (53, 95% CI: 47–59), and 90th percentiles (44, 95% CI: 40–48). These patients also had longer diagnostic and health system intervals (6–85 days longer). Breast cancer intervals were similar by area of residence, except the patient interval, which was shorter for rural patients with either cancer in the higher percentiles. Conclusions: Rural residence was associated with longer total intervals for colorectal but not breast cancer; with most disparities postpresentation. Impact: Interventions targeting time from presentation to diagnosis may help reduce colorectal cancer rural–urban disparities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 1036–46. ©2018 AACR.