Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database
- PMID: 24366304
- PMCID: PMC3915139
- DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.791
Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database
Abstract
Background: The primary aim was to use routine data to compare cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of the 2005 NICE Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer. The secondary aim was to compare change in diagnostic intervals across different categories of presenting symptoms.
Methods: Using data from the General Practice Research Database, we analysed patients with one of 15 cancers diagnosed in either 2001-2002 or 2007-2008. Putative symptom lists for each cancer were classified into whether or not they qualified for urgent referral under NICE guidelines. Diagnostic interval (duration from first presented symptom to date of diagnosis in primary care records) was compared between the two cohorts.
Results: In total, 37,588 patients had a new diagnosis of cancer and of these 20,535 (54.6%) had a recorded symptom in the year prior to diagnosis and were included in the analysis. The overall mean diagnostic interval fell by 5.4 days (95% CI: 2.4-8.5; P<0.001) between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There was evidence of significant reductions for the following cancers: (mean, 95% confidence interval) kidney (20.4 days, -0.5 to 41.5; P=0.05), head and neck (21.2 days, 0.2-41.6; P=0.04), bladder (16.4 days, 6.6-26.5; P≤0.001), colorectal (9.0 days, 3.2-14.8; P=0.002), oesophageal (13.1 days, 3.0-24.1; P=0.006) and pancreatic (12.6 days, 0.2-24.6; P=0.04). Patients who presented with NICE-qualifying symptoms had shorter diagnostic intervals than those who did not (all cancers in both cohorts). For the 2007-2008 cohort, the cancers with the shortest median diagnostic intervals were breast (26 days) and testicular (44 days); the highest were myeloma (156 days) and lung (112 days). The values for the 90th centiles of the distributions remain very high for some cancers. Tests of interaction provided little evidence of differences in change in mean diagnostic intervals between those who did and did not present with symptoms specifically cited in the NICE Guideline as requiring urgent referral.
Conclusion: We suggest that the implementation of the 2005 NICE Guidelines may have contributed to this reduction in diagnostic intervals between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There remains considerable scope to achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer outcomes.
Similar articles
-
Age and Gender Variations in Cancer Diagnostic Intervals in 15 Cancers: Analysis of Data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.PLoS One. 2015 May 15;10(5):e0127717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127717. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 25978414 Free PMC article.
-
Trends in time to cancer diagnosis around the period of changing national guidance on referral of symptomatic patients: A serial cross-sectional study using UK electronic healthcare records from 2006-17.Cancer Epidemiol. 2020 Dec;69:101805. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101805. Epub 2020 Sep 9. Cancer Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 32919226 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding ethnic inequalities in cancer diagnostic intervals: a cohort study of patients presenting suspected cancer symptoms to GPs in England.Br J Gen Pract. 2025 May 2;75(754):e333-e340. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0518. Print 2025 May. Br J Gen Pract. 2025. PMID: 39689922 Free PMC article.
-
The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS Med. 2022 Oct 20;19(10):e1004110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004110. eCollection 2022 Oct. PLoS Med. 2022. PMID: 36264841 Free PMC article.
-
Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health Technol Assess. 2020 Nov;24(66):1-332. doi: 10.3310/hta24660. Health Technol Assess. 2020. PMID: 33252328 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.Health Expect. 2020 Dec;23(6):1512-1522. doi: 10.1111/hex.13136. Epub 2020 Sep 28. Health Expect. 2020. PMID: 32989907 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).BMJ Open. 2018 Nov 27;8(11):e023870. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023870. BMJ Open. 2018. PMID: 30482749 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnosing pancreatic cancer in general practice: a cross-sectional study on associations between suspicion of cancer, urgent referral and time to diagnosis.Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022 Mar;40(1):78-86. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2022.2036491. Epub 2022 Feb 11. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022. PMID: 35148665 Free PMC article.
-
Quantifying intervals to diagnosis in myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 22;8(6):e019758. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019758. BMJ Open. 2018. PMID: 29934381 Free PMC article.
-
Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer.Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec;13(12):740-749. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.109. Epub 2016 Jul 26. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27458007 Review.
References
-
- Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA; 1997.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources