Abstract
Abstract
Background
Comorbid conditions may delay lung cancer diagnosis by placing demand on general practioners’ time reducing the possibility of prompt cancer investigation (“competing demand conditions”), or by offering a plausible non-cancer explanation for signs/symptoms (“alternative explanation conditions”).
Method
Patients in England born before 1955 and diagnosed with incident lung cancer between 1990 and 2019 were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked hospital admission and cancer registry data. Diagnostic interval was defined as time from first presentation in primary care with a relevant sign/symptom to the diagnosis date. 14 comorbidities were classified as ten “competing demand“ and four “alternative explanation” conditions. Associations with diagnostic interval were investigated using multivariable linear regression models.
Results
Complete data were available for 11870 lung cancer patients. In adjusted analyses diagnostic interval was longer for patients with “alternative explanation” conditions, by 31 and 74 days in patients with one and ≥2 conditions respectively versus those with none. Number of “competing demand” conditions did not remain in the final adjusted regression model for diagnostic interval.
Conclusions
Conditions offering alternative explanations for lung cancer symptoms are associated with increased diagnostic intervals. Clinical guidelines should incorporate the impact of alternative and competing causes upon delayed diagnosis.
Funder
DH | National Institute for Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference68 articles.
1. Cancer Research UK. Lung Cancer Statistics, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer#heading-One Accessed 13th February.
2. Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot A, Ferlay J, Andersson TM, Myklebust T, et al. Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1493–505.
3. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. SURVIVAL, https://efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/survival/ Accessed 16th August.
4. Walters S, Maringe C, Coleman MP, Peake MD, Butler J, Young N, et al. Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a population-based study, 2004-2007. Thorax. 2013;68:551–64.
5. Andreano A, Peake MD, Janes SM, Valsecchi MG, Pritchard-Jones K, Hoag JR, et al. The care and outcomes of older persons with lung cancer in England and the United States, 2008-2012. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:904–14.