Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

OBJECTIVE: Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION: There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival

Bereavement outcomes: a quantitative survey identifying risk factors in family carers bereaved through cancer

Background: Enabling patients to die in their preferred place is important but achieving preferred place of death may increase the informal carer’s risk into bereavement. Aim: To determine risk factors of family carers bereaved through cancer in Northern Ireland. Design: These results form part of a larger QUALYCARE-NI study which used postal questionnaires to capture quantitative data on carer’s bereavement scores using the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief. Setting/participants: Participants were individuals who registered the death of a person between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2012; where cancer (defined by ICD10 codes C00-D48) was the primary cause; where the deceased was over 18 years of age and death occurred at home, hospice, nursing home or hospital in Northern Ireland. Participants were approached in confidence by the Demography and Methodology Branch of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Those wishing to decline participation were invited to return the reply slip. Non-responders received a second questionnaire 6 weeks after initial invitation. Results indicated that risk factors positively influencing bereavement outcomes included patients having no preference for place of death and carers remaining in employment pre- or post-bereavement. In contrast, patients dying in hospital, carers stopping work, being of lower socio-economic status and close kinship to the deceased negatively affected bereavement scores. Family carers should be adequately supported to continue in employment; priority should be given to assessing the financial needs of families from lower socio-economic areas; and bereavement support should focus on close relatives of the deceased. </jats:sec

Insights into the factors associated with achieving the preference of home death in terminal cancer: A national population-based study

ABSTRACTObjectives:Most terminally ill cancer patients prefer to die at home, yet only a minority are able to achieve this. Our aim was to investigate the factors associated with cancer patients achieving their preference to die at home.Methods:This study took the form of a mortality followback, population-based, observational survey of the relatives of deceased cancer patients in Northern Ireland. Individuals who registered the death of a friend or relative (aged ≥ 18 years) between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2012, where the primary cause of death was cancer (ICD10: C00–D48), who were invited to take part. Preferred and actual place of death, and patient, service, and clinical data were collected using the QUALYCARE postal questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to investigate the factors associated with achieving a home death when preferred.Results:Some 467 of 1,493 invited informants completed the survey. The 362 (77.5%) who expressed a preference for dying at home and spent time at home in their final 3 months were included in our analysis. Of these, 53.4% achieved their preference of a home death. Factors positively associated with achieving a home death were: living in an affluent area, receipt of good and satisfactory district nurse care, discussing place of death with health professionals, and the caregiver's preference for a home death. Being older than 80 years of age, being a Presbyterian, and being unconscious most of the time during their final week were negatively associated with achieving a home death.Significance of Results:Communication, care satisfaction, and caregiver preferences were all associated with home death. Our findings will help inform the design of future interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of patients achieving their preferred place of death at home, for example, by targeting interventions toward older patients and those from the most deprived communities.</jats:sec