Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis

Reduced risk of emergency admission for colorectal cancer associated with the introduction of bowel cancer screening across England: a retrospective national cohort study

Aim We wanted to find out if roll‐out of the bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP ) across England was associated with a reduced risk of emergency hospital admission for people presenting with colorectal cancer (CRC ) during this period. Method This is a retrospective cohort study of 27 763 incident cases of CRC over a 1‐year period during the roll‐out of screening across parts of England. The primary outcome was the number of emergency (unplanned) hospital admissions during the diagnostic pathway. The primary exposure was to those living in an area where the BCSP was active at the time of diagnosis. Patients were categorized into three exposure groups: BCSP not active (reference group), BCSP active < 6 months or BCSP active ≥ 6 months. Results The risk of emergency admission for CRC in England was associated with increasing age, female gender, comorbidity and social deprivation. After adjusting for these factors in logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR ) for emergency admission in patients diagnosed ≥ 6 months after the start‐up of local screening was 0.83 (CI 0.76–0.90). The magnitude of risk reduction was greatest for cases of screening age (OR 0.75; CI 0.63–0.90) but this effect was apparent also for cases outside the 60–69‐year age group (OR 0.85; CI 0.77–0.94). Living in an area with active BCSP conferred no reduction in risk of emergency admission for people diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer during the same period. Conclusion The start‐up of bowel cancer screening in England was associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of emergency admission for CRC in people of all ages. This suggests that the roll‐out of the programme had indirect benefits beyond those related directly to participation in screening

Cancer diagnosed by emergency admission in England: an observational study using the general practice research database.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with cancer by the emergency route often have more advanced diseases and poorer outcomes. Rates of cancer diagnosed through unplanned admissions vary within and between countries, suggesting potential inconsistencies in the quality of care. To reduce diagnoses by this route and improve patient outcomes, high risk patient groups must be identified. This cross-sectional observational study determined the incidence of first-ever diagnoses of cancer by emergency (unplanned) admission and identified patient-level risk factors for these diagnoses in England. METHODS: Data for 74,763 randomly selected patients at 457 general practices between 1999 and 2008 were obtained from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), including integrated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data. The proportion of first-ever diagnoses by emergency admission out of all recorded first cancer diagnoses by any route was analysed by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Diagnosis by emergency admission was recorded in 13.9% of patients diagnosed with cancer for the first time (n = 817/5870). The incidence of first cases by the emergency route was 2.51 patients per 10,000 person years. In adjusted regression analyses, patients of older age (p < 0.0001), living in the most deprived areas (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.47; p < 0.0001) or who had a total Charlson score of 1 compared to 0 (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.69; p = 0.014) were most at risk of diagnosis by emergency admission. Patients with more prior (all-cause) emergency admissions were less at risk of subsequent diagnosis by the emergency route (RR 0.31 per prior emergency admission, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A much lower incidence of first-ever cancer diagnoses by emergency admission was found compared with previous studies. Identified high risk groups may benefit from interventions to reduce delayed diagnosis. Further studies should include screening and cancer staging data to improve understanding of delayed or untimely diagnosis and patient care pathways

Reimagining the diagnostic pathway for gastrointestinal cancer.

A crisis is looming for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers, one grounded only partly in the steady increase in their overall incidence. Public demand for diagnostic tests to be undertaken early and at lower levels of risk is reflected in early diagnosis being a widely held policy objective for reasons of both clinical outcome and patient experience. In the UK, urgent referrals for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer have increased by 78% in the past 6 years, with parallel increases in endoscopy and imaging activity. Such growth in demand is unsustainable with current models of care. If gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis is to be affordable, the roles of professionals and their interactions with each other will need to be reframed while retaining public confidence in the process. In this Perspective, we consider how the relationship between medical specialists and generalists could be redefined to make better use of the skills of each while delivering optimal clinical outcomes and a good patient experience

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic