Lucy Elliss-Brookes

Routes to diagnosis for cancer – determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets

Background:Cancer survival in England is lower than the European average, which has been at least partly attributed to later stage at diagnosis in English patients. There are substantial regional and demographic variations in cancer survival across England. The majority of patients are diagnosed following symptomatic or incidental presentation. This study defines a methodology by which the route the patient follows to the point of diagnosis can be categorised to examine demographic, organisational, service and personal reasons for delayed diagnosis.Methods:Administrative Hospital Episode Statistics data are linked with Cancer Waiting Times data, data from the cancer screening programmes and cancer registration data. Using these data sets, every case of cancer registered in England, which was diagnosed in 2006–2008, is categorised into one of eight ‘Routes to Diagnosis’.Results:Different cancer types show substantial differences between the proportion of cases that present by each route, in reasonable agreement with previous clinical studies. Patients presenting via Emergency routes have substantially lower 1-year relative survival.Conclusion:Linked cancer registration and administrative data can be used to robustly categorise the route to a cancer diagnosis for all patients. These categories can be used to enhance understanding of and explore possible reasons for delayed diagnosis.

Emergency presentation of cancer and short-term mortality

Background:The short-term survival following a cancer diagnosis in England is lower than that in comparable countries, with the difference in excess mortality primarily occurring in the months immediately after diagnosis. We assess the impact of emergency presentation (EP) on the excess mortality in England over the course of the year following diagnosis.Methods:All colorectal and cervical cancers presenting in England and all breast, lung, and prostate cancers in the East of England in 2006–2008 are included. The variation in the likelihood of EP with age, stage, sex, co-morbidity, and income deprivation is modelled. The excess mortality over 0–1, 1–3, 3–6, and 6–12 months after diagnosis and its dependence on these case-mix factors and presentation route is then examined.Results:More advanced stage and older age are predictive of EP, as to a lesser extent are co-morbidity, higher income deprivation, and female sex. In the first month after diagnosis, we observe case-mix-adjusted excess mortality rate ratios of 7.5 (cervical), 5.9 (colorectal), 11.7 (breast ), 4.0 (lung), and 20.8 (prostate) for EP compared with non-EP.Conclusion:Individuals who present as an emergency experience high short-term mortality in all cancer types examined compared with non-EPs. This is partly a case-mix effect but EP remains predictive of short-term mortality even when age, stage, and co-morbidity are accounted for.

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 fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015

BackgroundChanging population-level exposure to modifiable risk factors is a key driver of changing cancer incidence. Understanding these changes is therefore vital when prioritising risk-reduction policies, in order to have the biggest impact on reducing cancer incidence. UK figures on the number of risk factor-attributable cancers are updated here to reflect changing behaviour as assessed in representative national surveys, and new epidemiological evidence. Figures are also presented by UK constituent country because prevalence of risk factor exposure varies between them.MethodsPopulation attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated for combinations of risk factor and cancer type with sufficient/convincing evidence of a causal association. Relative risks (RRs) were drawn from meta-analyses of cohort studies where possible. Prevalence of exposure to risk factors was obtained from nationally representative population surveys. Cancer incidence data for 2015 were sourced from national data releases and, where needed, personal communications. PAF calculations were stratified by age, sex and risk factor exposure level and then combined to create summary PAFs by cancer type, sex and country.ResultsNearly four in ten (37.7%) cancer cases in 2015 in the UK were attributable to known risk factors. The proportion was around two percentage points higher in UK males (38.6%) than in UK females (36.8%). Comparing UK countries, the attributable proportion was highest in Scotland (41.5% for persons) and lowest in England (37.3% for persons). Tobacco smoking contributed by far the largest proportion of attributable cancer cases, followed by overweight/obesity, accounting for 15.1% and 6.3%, respectively, of all cases in the UK in 2015. For 10 cancer types, including two of the five most common cancer types in the UK (lung cancer and melanoma skin cancer), more than 70% of UK cancer cases were attributable to known risk factors.ConclusionTobacco and overweight/obesity remain the top contributors of attributable cancer cases. Tobacco smoking has the highest PAF because it greatly increases cancer risk and has a large number of cancer types associated with it. Overweight/obesity has the second-highest PAF because it affects a high proportion of the UK population and is also linked with many cancer types. Public health policy may seek to mitigate the level of harm associated with exposure or reduce exposure levels—both approaches may effectively impact cancer incidence. Differences in PAFs between countries and sexes are primarily due to varying prevalence of exposure to risk factors and varying proportions of specific cancer types. This variation in turn is affected by socio-demographic differences which drive differences in exposure to theoretically avoidable ‘lifestyle’ factors. PAFs at UK country level have not been available previously and they should be used by policymakers in devolved nations. PAFs are estimates based on the best available data, limitations in those data would generally bias toward underestimation of PAFs. Regular collection of risk factor exposure prevalence data which corresponds with epidemiological evidence is vital for analyses like this and should remain a priority for the UK Government and devolved Administrations.

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.

Cohort profile: prescriptions dispensed in the community linked to the national cancer registry in England

Purpose The linked prescriptions cancer registry data resource was set up to extend our understanding of the pathway for patients with cancer past secondary care into the community, to ultimately improve patient outcomes. Participants The linked prescriptions cancer registry data resource is currently available for April to July 2015, for all patients diagnosed with cancer in England with a dispensed prescription in that time frame. The dispensed prescriptions data are collected by National Health Service (NHS) Prescription Services, and the cancer registry data are processed by Public Health England. All data are routine healthcare data, used for secondary purposes, linked using a pseudonymised version of the patient’s NHS number and date of birth. Detailed demographic and clinical information on the type of cancer diagnosed and treatment is collected by the cancer registry. The dispensed prescriptions data contain basic demographic information, geography measures of the dispensed prescription, drug information (quantity, strength and presentation), cost of the drug and the date that the dispensed prescription was submitted to NHS Business Services Authority. Findings to date Findings include a study of end of life prescribing in the community among patients with cancer, an investigation of repeat prescriptions to derive measures of prior morbidity status in patients with cancer and studies of prescription activity surrounding the date of cancer diagnosis. Future plans This English linked resource could be used for cancer epidemiological studies of diagnostic pathways, health outcomes and inequalities; to establish primary care comorbidity indices and for guideline concordance studies of treatment, particularly hormonal therapy, as a major treatment modality for breast and prostate cancer which has been largely delivered in the community setting for a number of years.