{"title":"英格兰癌症紧急诊断不同途径的预测因素和后果:从关联的国家审计和癌症登记数据中获得的证据","authors":"Ruth Swann , Georgios Lyratzopoulos , Greg Rubin , Lucy Elliss-Brookes , Sean McPhail","doi":"10.1016/j.canep.2024.102607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Diagnosis of cancer soon after emergency care use is associated with adverse prognosis. We aimed to more precisely explore different definitions of emergency diagnosis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>For 43,383 patients in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit and Routes to Diagnosis datasets, we defined two emergency care pathways: emergency referral (Type-A) and emergency hospital admission (Type-B). We examined patient and tumour factors associated with each pathway excluding the other, and in combination (Type-A+B), in particular their concordance and prognostic implications for short-term mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>One in five patients (19 %) were diagnosed following emergency care use: 4 % through Type-A only, 7 % through Type-B only, and 8 % through Type-A+B. Higher co-morbidity, deprivation, advanced stage and certain cancer sites were associated with greater risk of emergency diagnosis. Concordance of emergency diagnosis pathway between Type-A and Type-B increased with age, co-morbidity and certain cancer sites. Patients with non-alarm symptoms were more likely to self-refer (Type-A) to an Emergency Department than patients with alarm symptoms. Associations with higher short-term mortality were strongest for Type-A+B.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We profile different pathways to emergency diagnosis and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic processes for these patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56322,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 102607"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000869/pdfft?md5=318f147b1b85cec4dfc0d6e8ade3d32d&pid=1-s2.0-S1877782124000869-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictors and consequences of different pathways to emergency diagnosis of cancer in England: Evidence from linked national audit and cancer registration data\",\"authors\":\"Ruth Swann , Georgios Lyratzopoulos , Greg Rubin , Lucy Elliss-Brookes , Sean McPhail\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.canep.2024.102607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Diagnosis of cancer soon after emergency care use is associated with adverse prognosis. We aimed to more precisely explore different definitions of emergency diagnosis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>For 43,383 patients in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit and Routes to Diagnosis datasets, we defined two emergency care pathways: emergency referral (Type-A) and emergency hospital admission (Type-B). We examined patient and tumour factors associated with each pathway excluding the other, and in combination (Type-A+B), in particular their concordance and prognostic implications for short-term mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>One in five patients (19 %) were diagnosed following emergency care use: 4 % through Type-A only, 7 % through Type-B only, and 8 % through Type-A+B. Higher co-morbidity, deprivation, advanced stage and certain cancer sites were associated with greater risk of emergency diagnosis. Concordance of emergency diagnosis pathway between Type-A and Type-B increased with age, co-morbidity and certain cancer sites. Patients with non-alarm symptoms were more likely to self-refer (Type-A) to an Emergency Department than patients with alarm symptoms. Associations with higher short-term mortality were strongest for Type-A+B.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We profile different pathways to emergency diagnosis and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic processes for these patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"92 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102607\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000869/pdfft?md5=318f147b1b85cec4dfc0d6e8ade3d32d&pid=1-s2.0-S1877782124000869-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000869\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000869","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景使用急诊后不久诊断出癌症与不良预后有关。我们的目的是更精确地探讨急诊诊断的不同定义。方法对于全国癌症诊断审计和诊断路径数据集中的 43383 名患者,我们定义了两种急诊路径:急诊转诊(A 型)和急诊入院(B 型)。我们研究了与每种途径相关的患者和肿瘤因素(不包括另一种途径),以及它们的组合(A+B 型),特别是它们的一致性和对短期死亡率的预后影响:其中 4% 仅为 A 型,7% 仅为 B 型,8% 为 A+B 型。共病率较高、贫困、晚期和某些癌症部位与急诊风险较大有关。随着年龄、并发症和某些癌症部位的增加,A 型和 B 型急诊诊断路径的一致性也随之增加。与有报警症状的患者相比,无报警症状的患者更有可能自我转诊(A 型)至急诊科。结论我们描述了急诊诊断的不同路径,并确定了改善这些患者诊断流程的机会。
Predictors and consequences of different pathways to emergency diagnosis of cancer in England: Evidence from linked national audit and cancer registration data
Background
Diagnosis of cancer soon after emergency care use is associated with adverse prognosis. We aimed to more precisely explore different definitions of emergency diagnosis.
Methods
For 43,383 patients in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit and Routes to Diagnosis datasets, we defined two emergency care pathways: emergency referral (Type-A) and emergency hospital admission (Type-B). We examined patient and tumour factors associated with each pathway excluding the other, and in combination (Type-A+B), in particular their concordance and prognostic implications for short-term mortality.
Results
One in five patients (19 %) were diagnosed following emergency care use: 4 % through Type-A only, 7 % through Type-B only, and 8 % through Type-A+B. Higher co-morbidity, deprivation, advanced stage and certain cancer sites were associated with greater risk of emergency diagnosis. Concordance of emergency diagnosis pathway between Type-A and Type-B increased with age, co-morbidity and certain cancer sites. Patients with non-alarm symptoms were more likely to self-refer (Type-A) to an Emergency Department than patients with alarm symptoms. Associations with higher short-term mortality were strongest for Type-A+B.
Conclusions
We profile different pathways to emergency diagnosis and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic processes for these patients.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Epidemiology is dedicated to increasing understanding about cancer causes, prevention and control. The scope of the journal embraces all aspects of cancer epidemiology including:
• Descriptive epidemiology
• Studies of risk factors for disease initiation, development and prognosis
• Screening and early detection
• Prevention and control
• Methodological issues
The journal publishes original research articles (full length and short reports), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor commenting on previously published research.