Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2008 Jan 15;98(1):60-70.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604096. Epub 2007 Dec 4.

Influences on pre-hospital delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Influences on pre-hospital delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

E Mitchell et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is a major global health problem, with survival varying according to stage at diagnosis. Delayed diagnosis can result from patient, practitioner or hospital delay. This paper reports the results of a review of the factors influencing pre-hospital delay - the time between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care or between first presentation and referral to secondary care. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Fifty-four studies were included. Patients' non-recognition of symptom seriousness increased delay, as did symptom denial. Patient delay was greater for rectal than colon cancers and the presence of more serious symptoms, such as pain, reduced delay. There appears to be no relationship between delay and patients' age, sex or socioeconomic status. Initial misdiagnosis, inadequate examination and inaccurate investigations increased practitioner delay. Use of referral guidelines may reduce delay, although evidence is currently limited. No intervention studies were identified. If delayed diagnosis is to be reduced, there must be increased recognition of the significance of symptoms among patients, and development and evaluation of interventions that are designed to ensure appropriate diagnosis and examination by practitioners.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of studies into the review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Main factors associated with patient delay and direction of influence.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Main factors associated with practitioner delay and direction of influence.

References

    1. Anon (1982) Cancer of the colon and rectum: public misconceptions and a gap in doctor–patient communications. Urban Health 11: 46–48 - PubMed
    1. Anon (1986) Early detection of colorectal cancer. Cancer Nurs 9(6): 342 - PubMed
    1. Arbman G, Nilsson E, Storgren-Fordell V, Sjodahl R (1996) A short diagnostic delay is more important for rectal cancer than for colonic cancer. Eur J Surg 162: 899–904 - PubMed
    1. Australian Cancer Network (2006) Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer: a guide for general practitioners. www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/content/bw-... (accessed on 11 July 2007)
    1. Bain NSC, Campbell NC, Ritchie LD, Cassidy J (2002) Striking the right balance in colorectal cancer – a qualitative study of rural and urban patients. Fam Pract 19(4): 369–374 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms