90
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

          Methods:

          Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

          Results:

          We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

          Conclusions:

          This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references209

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

            Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews.

              To provide valid assessments of answers to prognostic questions, systematic reviews must appraise the quality of the available evidence. However, no standard quality assessment method is currently available. To appraise how authors assess the quality of individual studies in systematic reviews about prognosis and to propose recommendations for these quality assessments. English-language publications listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2005 and review of cited references. 163 systematic reviews about prognosis that included assessments of the quality of studies. A total of 882 distinct quality items were extracted from the assessments that were reported in the various reviews. Using an iterative process, 2 independent reviewers grouped the items into 25 domains. The authors then specifically identified domains necessary to assess potential biases of studies and evaluated how often those domains had been addressed in each review. Fourteen of the domains addressed 6 sources of bias related to study participation, study attrition, measurement of prognostic factors, measurement of and controlling for confounding variables, measurement of outcomes, and analysis approaches. Reviews assessed a median of 2 of the 6 potential biases; only 2 (1%) included criteria aimed at appraising all potential sources of bias. Few reviews adequately assessed the impact of confounding (12%), although more than half (59%) appraised the methods used to measure the prognostic factors of interest. Reviews may have been missed by the search or misclassified because of incomplete reporting. Validity and reliability testing of the authors' recommendations are required. Quality appraisal, a necessary step in systematic reviews, is incomplete in most reviews of prognosis studies. Adequate quality assessment should include judgments about 6 areas of potential study biases. Authors should incorporate these quality assessments into their synthesis of evidence about prognosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                Br. J. Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                31 March 2015
                03 March 2015
                31 March 2015
                : 112
                : Suppl 1
                : S92-S107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]North Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University , Bangor LL13 7YP, UK
                [2 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of York , York, YO10 5DD, UK
                [3 ]Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital , Wrexham LL13 7TD, UK
                [4 ]Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group, School of Primary, Aboriginal, and Rural Healthcare, University of Western Australia , M706, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
                [5 ]University of Exeter Medical School , Exeter EX1 2LU, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Health and Population studies, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull , Hull HU6 7RX, UK
                [7 ]Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds , Leeds LS2 9LJ, UK
                [8 ]North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor University , Bangor LL57 2PZ, UK
                [9 ]School of Medical Sciences, Bangor University , Bangor, LL57 2AS UK
                [10 ]Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University , Bartholins Alle 2, Aarhus DK-8000, Denmark
                [11 ]General Practice & Primary Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne , 200 Berkeley Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia
                Author notes
                Article
                bjc201548
                10.1038/bjc.2015.48
                4385982
                25734382
                b0224cf5-8e92-46d7-beba-96bb48c3a4ae
                Copyright © 2015 Cancer Research UK

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                Full Paper

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                systematic review,diagnosis,delays,survival,stage
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                systematic review, diagnosis, delays, survival, stage

                Comments

                Comment on this article