Agreement between patients’ and radiation oncologists’ cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan

IntroductionPatients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Pilot Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Centres (MDCs) provide a referral route for such patients in England.ObjectivesThis work aimed to use linked primary care and cancer registration data to describe diagnostic pathways for patients similar to those being referred into MDCs and compare them to patients presenting with more specific symptoms.MethodsThis cross-sectional study linked primary care data from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) to national cancer registration and Route to Diagnosis records. Patient symptoms recorded in the NCDA were used to allocate patients to one of two groups - those presenting with symptoms mirroring referral criteria of MDCs (non-specific but concerning symptoms (NSCS)) and those with at least one site-specific alarm symptom (non-NSCS). Descriptive analyses compared the two groups and regression analysis by group investigated associations with long primary care intervals (PCIs).ResultsPatients with NSCS were more likely to be diagnosed at later stage (32% stage 4, compared with 21% in non-NSCS) and via an emergency presentation (34% vs 16%). These patients also had more multiple pre-referral general practitioner consultations (59% vs 43%) and primary care-led diagnostics (blood tests: 57% vs 35%). Patients with NSCS had higher odds of having longer PCIs (adjusted OR: 1.24 (1.11 to 1.36)). Patients with lung and urological cancers also had higher odds of longer PCIs overall and in both groups.ConclusionsDifferences in the diagnostic pathway show that patients with symptoms mirroring the MDC referral criteria could benefit from a new referral pathway.

Download Full-text

Empowerment from patient’s and caregiver’s perspective in cancer care

Health Psychology Open ◽

10.1177/2055102918815318 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 205510291881531 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Chiara Marzorati ◽

Luca Bailo ◽

Ketti Mazzocco ◽

Gabriella Pravettoni

Keyword(s):

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Patient Participation ◽

Patient Empowerment ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Health Condition ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cancer Disease ◽

Caregiver Relationship ◽

Level Of Knowledge

The caregivers’ perceptions of the patients’ health condition may be biased and induce them to perceive higher needs than patients actually disclose. Our aim was to assess if the level of knowledge and awareness about cancer disease and treatment, and patient participation and assistance differs between caregivers and patients. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted across five countries (Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, France and Germany) on a total of 510 participants who directly (patient) or indirectly (caregiver) faced a cancer diagnosis. Investigating this divergence could help to identify possible difficulties in patient–caregiver relationship, eventually improving patient empowerment.

Download Full-text

Clinical Trials for Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study of Registered Trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2020.01629 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jingsi Dong ◽

Yingcai Geng ◽

Dan Lu ◽

Bingjie Li ◽

Long Tian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Depression and anxiety symptoms following cancer diagnosis: a cross-sectional study

Psychology Health & Medicine ◽

10.1080/13548506.2015.1125006 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 562-570 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Graça Cardoso ◽

Joao Graca ◽

Catarina Klut ◽

Bruno Trancas ◽

Ana Papoila

Keyword(s):

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Anxiety Symptoms ◽

Depression And Anxiety ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Elimination of second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure after a lung or head and neck (HN) cancer diagnosis and subsequent patient smoking cessation.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.3_suppl.183 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 183-183 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lawson Eng ◽

Devon Alton ◽

Yuyao Song ◽

Delaram Farzanfar ◽

Olivia Krys ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Quit Smoking ◽

Shs Exposure

183 Background: Exposure to SHS after a cancer diagnosis is associated with continued smoking in lung and HN cancer patients (PMID: 24419133, 23765604). However, smoking is a social activity. We evaluated whether elimination of SHS exposure around and after a diagnosis of lung or HN cancer is associated with smoking cessation in the cancer patient. Methods: Lung and HN cancer patients from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (2006-12) completed questionnaires at diagnosis and follow-up (median 2 years apart) that assessed smoking history and SHS exposures (cohort study). Multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated the association of elimination of SHS exposure after a diagnosis of cancer with subsequent smoking cessation, adjusted for significant covariates. A cross-sectional study (2014-15) of 183 lung and HN smoking patients assessed consistency in associations and interest in SHS cessation programs. Results: For the cohort study, 261/731 lung and 145/450 HN cancer patients smoked at diagnosis; subsequent quit rates were 69% and 50% respectively. 91% of lung and 94% of HN cancer patients were exposed to SHS at diagnosis while only 40% (lung) and 62% (HN) were exposed at follow-up. Elimination of SHS exposure was associated with smoking cessation in lung (aOR = 4.76, 95% CI [2.56-9.09], P< 0.001), HN (aOR = 5.00 [1.61-14.29], P< 0.001), and combined cancers (aOR = 5.00 [3.03-8.33], P< 0.001). The cross-sectional study has similar cessation and SHS exposure rates and a similar association for elimination of SHS with smoking cessation (aOR = 3.42 [1.16-10.10], P= 0.03). However when asked directly, only 26% of patients quit smoking with another individual and 13% of patients exposed to SHS had at least 1 interested party in joining a SHS cessation program. Conclusions: Elimination of SHS exposure around patients is significantly associated with smoking cessation in lung and HN cancer patients, but few patients quit smoking together with others around them, despite the ‘teachable moment’ with a cancer diagnosis. Clinicians should encourage patients and their household/friends to quit smoking together to improve cessation rates in cancer patients and those around them.

Download Full-text