Diagnostic delay in cancer: why we can not solve the equation?
Diagnostic delay in cancer is a difficult subject to study with many confounder factors. Several papers have been published with controversial results about the relationship between delay and survival, although there is a clear tendence for a worse prognosis with longer delays. We will expose some of the confounder factors and biases that can interact with the association between delay and survival.
The rationale for an association between TtD and a worse outcome is not only biologically plausible but evident in clinical practice with a worst prognosis for more advanced stages or a bigger tumour size [68]. But it is not only a question of survival measurement, other important factors are involved such as reducing cancer-related morbidity/disability, decreasing medico-legal complaints, increasing efficiency/cost-effectiveness and improvement patient experience [69]. Cancer survival is influenced for many variables and this has been shown clearly by the EUROCARE study [70], reflecting differences in stage at diagnosis, accessibility to good care, and different diagnostic intensity among European countries. We have explored in the literature those factors that, in our opinion, could help to understand this controversial subject.
Study Design factors: Lead time bias and study period.
Lead-time bias: due to the retrospective nature of the studies of TtD we can originate an artificial relationship between the diagnostic interval and survival, but without a change in overall survival [71], based on the non-random attribution of the date of the first symptom, changing the true sign of the association.
New tumour definitions and stage migration: the research about TtD have been implemented across several years, and during this long period, we have observed changes in disease definition (for instance breast cancer in situ is now included more frequently in the initial stages of this disease) and stage migration of some tumours, that is the detection of an advanced disease in a initial phase due to the utilization of better diagnostic tools [72-73].
Provider factors: in the cancer care process model, the practitioner is considered more like a “gatekeeper” than an active player. In spite of that the quality of his or her clinical reasoning skills and the ability to identify cognitive biases
has a decisive role in the whole process of diagnostic [74].
Prevalence, symptoms and location of the tumour: among the hundreds of patients with potential cancer symptoms that every GP sees during the period of one year, only a minority will have a tumour. This low prevalence for a cancer diagnosis is an important factor for a misdiagnosis and a diagnostic delay [75]. Moreover, 15-20% of patients will present with symptoms indistinguishable from patients with benign disease, increasing the diagnostic difficulty [76]. Symptoms or signs associated with a particular tumour have usually a low positive predictive value (PPV), for instance, rectal bleeding has a PPV of 8% in persons over 50 years of age, a lump in the breast has a PPV of 5% and haemoptysis has a PPV of 2,4% for lung cancer [77-78]. Rectal bleeding is associated in some series with a delayed presentation probably because this symptom could be associated with haemorrhoids [79]. Some tumour location are associated with a more difficult diagnosis, with prostate cancer with the longest delays compared with other cancers, and lung and ovarian cancer also experience considerable delays (80).
Several studies have demonstrated that rectal cancer is more likely to have a delayed diagnosis than colon cancer [81-82].
Medical professionalism and diagnostic delay: When enough information was available at the first encounter with the patient a delayed diagnosis is considered a diagnostic error. Singh et al. [83] bring up the concept of “missed opportunities” in cancer diagnosis literally defined as “ instances in which post-hoc judgment indicates that alternative decisions or actions could have led to more timely diagnosis” . A difficulty in pattern recognition, an inadequate test interpretation, or a fault in gathering data, are in the origin of the problem [84], together with an incomplete physical examination, communications issues or errors in pathology sampling [85].
Table 5 shows some situations of missed opportunities for an earlier diagnosis.
Tumour biology: Other variables in addition to stage are important prognostic factors in breast cancer, colon and head and neck cancer [94-101] and they are not included in the analysis in the majority of the studies, with the possibility to arrive to a “false-negative conclusion.
Patient factors: Psychological and emotional issues, age, gender and, in some populations ethnicity, are introduced as confounders for the association between TtD and the outcome.
Age: A young age (less than 40 years-old) have been associated in some publication with a trend to a delay in diagnosis or a more advanced stage in breast cancer [102], but without a statistically significance or an independent contribution. Older patients with
breast, melanoma, prostate and endometrial cancer were more likely to be diagnosed in advanced stage compared with patients aged 65–69 in a British population [103-104]
Gender: Sex disparities have been detected in bladder cancer presenting with haematuria, and in laryngeal cancer with longer delay for diagnosis in women [105-106].
Psychological aspects: Fear in relation to a cancer diagnosis or to the use of diagnostic tests and treatment are associated with delays [107]. Symptoms misinterpretation occurs when the patient believes that the symptoms are the result of minor diseases and they are going to resolve without medical intervention [108].
Treatment factors: the studies on TtD and its relationship with survival have been collecting the experience of cancer treatment in the past fifty years. The development of new drugs have had a definitive impact on cancer survival. Testicular tumours are the best examples of this situation. Moul and colleagues [109] observed that in the non-seminomatous testicular tumour, delay in the diagnosis strongly affected survival in the pre-cisplatin era (1970-1978) but not after 1979 when cisplatin was introduced. The prognosis of localized breast cancer began to change in the nineties with the introduction of the anthracyclines [110-111] and at the beginning of the twenty-first century with the addition of the taxanes [112]. The survival of patients with colon cancer has doubled in the last thirty years [113].
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[68] Kashiwabara K, Koshi S, Itonaga K, Nakahara O, Tanaka M, Toyonaga M.
Outcome in patients with lung cancer found on lung cancer mass screening roentgenograms, but who did not subsequently consult a doctor.
Lung Cancer 2003; 40:67-72
[69] Lyratzopoulos G. Insights from research and policies initiatives in different healthcare systems and settings. NAEDI meeting 2015
[70] De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age : results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 23-34
[71] Porter MP. Examining the Association Between Delay in Diagnosis and Decreased Survival in Bladder Cancer. Cancer 2010; 5122-5125
[72] Dickman PW, Adami HO. Interpreting trends in cancer patient survival.Journal of Internal Medicine 2006; 260:103-117
[73] Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenom. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. NEJM 1985; 312:1604-1608
[74] Croskerry P. The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them. Acad Med 2003; 78: 775-780
[75] Macleod U, Mitchell ED, Burgess C, Macdonald S, Ramirez AJ. Risk factors for delayed presentation and referral of symptomatic cancer: evidence for common cancers. British Journal of Cancer 2009; 101: S92-S101
[76] Thompson MR, Heath I, Swarbrick ET, Wood LF, Ellis BG. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic bowel cancer: can it be achieved and how much will it improve survival? Colorectal Disease 2010; 13:6-16
[77] Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, Mazza D, Fallon-Ferguson J, Varlow M,et al. The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11: 38-48
[78] Shapley M, Mansell G, Jordan JL, Jordan KP. Positive predictive values of ≥5% in primary care for cancer: systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2010; 60: e366-e377
[79] Forbes LJL, Warburton F, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ. Risk factors for delay in symptomatic presentation: a survey of cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer 2014; 111:581-588
[80] Allgar VL, Neal RD. Delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the National Survey of NHS Patients: Cancer. British Journal of Cancer 2005; 92: 1959-197
[81] Mulcahy HE, O, Donoghue DP. Duration of colorectal cancer symptoms and survival: the effect of confounding clinical and pathological variables. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33:1461-1467
[82] Harris GJC, Simson JNL. Causes of late diagnosis in cases of colorectal cancer seen in a district general hospital over a 2-year period. Ann R Col Surg Engl 1998; 80:246-248
[83] Singh H, Sethi S, Raber M, Petersen LA. Were my diagnosis and treatment correct? No news is not necessarily good news. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29: 1087-1089
[84] Singh H, Sethi S, Raber M, Petersen LA. Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions. JCO 2007; 25: 5009-5018
[85] Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer 2005; 104: 2205-2213
[86] Singh H, Hirani K, Kadiyala H, Rudomiotov O, Davis T, Khan Mn, et al. Characteristics and Predictors of Missed Opportunities in Lung Cancer Diagnosis: An Electronic Health Record-Based Study. JCO 2010; 28: 3307-3315
[87] Bjerager M, Palshof T, Dahl R, Vedsted P, Olesen F. Delay in diagnosis of lung cancer in general practice. Journal of General Practice 2006; 56: 863-868
[88] O’Dowd EL,McKeever TM, Baldwin DR, Anwar S, Powell HA, Gibson JE, et al.What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK? Thorax 2015; 70: 161–168
[89] Teppo H, Koivunen P, Hyrynkangas K, Alho OP. Diagnostic delays in laryngeal carcinoma: professional delay is a strong independent predictor of survival. Head Neck 2003; 25: 389-394
[90] Bramble MG, Suvakovic Z, Hungin AP. Detection of upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients taking antisecretory therapy prior to gastroscopy. Gut 2000; 46:464-467
[91] Manes G, Balzano A, Marone P, Lioniello M, Mosca S. Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system: a prospective observational study based on the Maastricht guidelines.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2002; 16: 105-110
[92] Lim AV, Ramirez AJ, Hamilton W, Sasieni P, Patnick J, Forbes LJL. Delays in diagnosis of young females with symptomatic cervical cancer in England: an interview-based study. Br J Gen Pract 2014; DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X681757
[93] Rupassara KS, Ponnusamy S, Withnage N, Milewski PJ. A paradox explained? Patients with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic colorectal cancer have good prognosis. Colorectal Disease 2006; 8: 423-429
[94] Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12:320-327
[95] Skasko E, Paszko Z, Mazur S. A new look at the prognostic value of the estrogen, progesterone and epidermal growth factor receptors in breast cancer tissue. Neoplasma. 2005;52:10-17
[96] Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expresión profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 10393-8
[97] Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME, et al. Clinicopathological features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 2012; 118: 5463-5472
[98] Halling KC, French AJ, McDonnell SK, et al. Microsatellite imbalance in stage B2 and C colorectal cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1295-1303
[99] De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 508-515
[100] Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 374-379
[101] Jensen AR, Nellemann HM, Overgaard J. Tumor progression in waiting time for radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007; 84:5-10
[102] Zabicki K, Colbert JA, Dominguez FJ, Gadd MA, Hughes KS, Jones JL, et al. Breast cancer diagnosis in women< 40 versus 50 to 60 years: Increasing size and stage disparity compared with older women over time. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13: 1072-1077
[103] G. Lyratzopoulos, G. A. Abel1, C. H. Brown, B. A. Rous, S. A. Vernon, M. Roland1 & D. C. Greenberg. Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2013a; 24:843-850
