Tumour stage and implementation of standardised cancer patient pathways: a comparative cohort study.

Autor:	Jensen H; Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice and Section for General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health;, Tørring ML; Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health; Department of Anthropology, School of Culture and Society;, Fenger-Grøn M; Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark., Olesen F; Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark., Overgaard J; Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark., Vedsted P; Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners [Br J Gen Pract] 2016 Jun; Vol. 66 (647), pp. e434-43. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Mar 29.
DOI:	10.3399/bjgp16X684805
Abstrakt:	Background: Some European countries have introduced standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs), including urgent referrals, with the aim of diagnosing cancer at an earlier stage. This is despite a lack of evidence, particularly in patients with symptomatic cancer diagnosed via general practice. Aim: To compare tumour stages in patients with incident cancer diagnosed via general practice before, during, and after CPP implementation in Denmark in 2008-2009. Design and Setting: A comparative cohort study of data from GPs and registries on patients with incident cancer listed with a GP before (n = 1420), during (n = 5272), and after (n = 2988) CPP implementation. Method: χ(2) test was used to compare stage distributions and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) of having local cancer after versus before CPP implementation. Results: Distribution of tumour stages did not differ statistically significantly across time (P = 0.494) or between CPP use (P = 0.202). For all cancers combined, the OR of having local cancer after CPP implementation was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 1.06) compared with before. For CPP-referred patients, the OR of having local cancer was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.94) compared with all patients before CPP implementation; the corresponding OR for non-CPP-referred patients was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.14). Conclusion: No clear tendencies were observed confirming earlier detection of cancer after rather than before CPP implementation. CPP-referred patients had lower odds of having local cancer after CPP implementation than all patients before CPP implementation; this could be because the GPs refer patients who are 'more ill' as urgent referrals. (© British Journal of General Practice 2016.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu