The mortality of colorectal cancer in relation to the initial symptom at presentation to primary care and to the duration of symptoms: a cohort study using medical records

The association between the staging of colorectal cancer and mortality is well known. Much less researched is the relationship between the duration of symptoms and outcome, and whether particular initial symptoms carry a different prognosis. We performed a cohort study of 349 patients with primary colorectal cancer in whom all their prediagnostic symptoms and investigation results were known. Survival data for 3–8 years after diagnosis were taken from the cancer registry. Six features were studied: rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, weight loss, and anaemia. Two of these were significantly associated with different staging and mortality. Rectal bleeding as an initial symptom was associated with less advanced staging (odds ratio from one Duke's stage to the next 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0.79; P=0.003) and with reduced mortality (Cox's proportional hazard ratio (HR) 0.56 (0.41, 0.79); P=0.001. Mild anaemia, with a haemoglobin of 10.0–12.9 g dl−1, was associated with more advanced staging (odds ratio 2.2 (1.2, 4.3); P=0.021) and worse mortality (HR 1.5 (0.98, 2.3): P=0.064). When corrected for emergency admission, sex, and the site of the tumour, the HR for mild anaemia was 1.7 (1.1, 2.6); P=0.015. No relationship was found between the duration of symptoms and staging or mortality

Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter?

background: The United Kingdom has poorer cancer outcomes than many other countries due partly to delays in diagnosing symptomatic cancer, leading to more advanced stage at diagnosis. Delays can occur at the level of patients, primary care, systems and secondary care. There is considerable potential for interventions to minimise delays and lead to earlier-stage diagnosis. methods: Scoping review of the published studies, with a focus on methodological issues. results: Trial data in this area are lacking and observational studies often show no association or negative ones. This review offers methodological explanations for these counter-intuitive findings. conclusion: While diagnostic delays do matter, their importance is uncertain and must be determined through more sophisticated methods

Referring patients to specialists: A structured vignette survey of Australian and British GPs

BACKGROUND: In Australia and in the United Kingdom (UK) access to specialists is sanctioned by General Practitioners (GPs). It is important to understand how practitioners determine which patients warrant referral. METHODS: A self-administered structured vignette postal survey of General Practitioners in Western Australia and the United Kingdom. Sixty-four vignettes describing patients with colorectal symptoms were constructed encompassing six clinical details. Nine vignettes, chosen at random, were presented to each individual. Respondents were asked if they would refer the patient to a specialist and how urgently. Logistic regression and parametric tests were used to analyse the dataRESULTS:We received 260 completed questionnaires. 58% of 'cancer vignettes' were selected for 'urgent' referral. 1632/2367 or 69% of all vignettes were selected for referral. After adjusting for clustering the model suggests that 38.4% of the variability is explained by all the clinical variables as well as the age and experience of the respondents. 1012 or 42.8 % of vignettes were referred 'urgently'. After adjusting for clustering the data suggests that 31.3 % of the variability is explained by the model. The age of the respondents, the location of the practice and all the clinical variables were significant in the decision to refer urgently. CONCLUSION: GPs' referral decisions for patients with lower bowel symptoms are similar in the two countries. We question the wisdom of streaming referrals from primary care without a strong evidence base and an effective intervention for implementing guidelines. We conclude that implementation must take into account the profile of patients but also the characteristics of GPs and referral policies