Loading…
The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival
Aim The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two‐week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non‐TWW). Method A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer betw...
Saved in:
Published in: | Colorectal disease 2012-07, Vol.14 (7), p.848-853 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3 |
container_end_page | 853 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 848 |
container_title | Colorectal disease |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Currie, A. C. Evans, J. Smith, N. J. Brown, G. Abulafi, A. M. Swift, R. I. |
description | Aim The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two‐week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non‐TWW).
Method A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).
Results Fifty‐two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5‐year all‐cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease‐free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).
Conclusion Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02829.x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1020047562</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1020047562</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0E4lH4BeQlmwQ7ceJ4g4TKo4VCFxSQ2FiuOxYpaVPslLR_j9OUrvHG87hzR3MQwpSE1L_LaUhZGgc0plkYEUpDEmWRCFd76HjX2N_EUZAJSo7QiXNTQmjKaXaIjiIqIp-RY_Qw-gSczxZKV7g0uPJZVZdBDfCFa5VX2IIBa1WBF6r6rNUal3Nf05WvaDXXYLFb2p_8RxWn6MCowsHZ9u-g17vbUbcXDIb3_e71INCMZCIwbKwYVbGKJlwQakTMFOcCNFPECAEs892EjEWi01Qb4JxpATFJjYEJNRB30EXru7Dl9xJcJWe501AUag7l0klK_G2MJ2nkpVkr1bZ0zp8iFzafKbv2ItmQlFPZAJMNMNmQlBuScuVHz7dbluMZTHaDf-i84KoV1HkB638by-7wpt-E3iBoDXJXwWpnoOyXTHnME_n-fC-fetnHzcvbo-TxL-nhkRA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1020047562</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Currie, A. C. ; Evans, J. ; Smith, N. J. ; Brown, G. ; Abulafi, A. M. ; Swift, R. I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Currie, A. C. ; Evans, J. ; Smith, N. J. ; Brown, G. ; Abulafi, A. M. ; Swift, R. I.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two‐week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non‐TWW).
Method A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).
Results Fifty‐two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5‐year all‐cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease‐free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).
Conclusion Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1462-8910</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1463-1318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02829.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21920010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; government targets ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; National Health Service ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Staging ; Prospective Studies ; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant ; rectal cancer ; Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Rectal Neoplasms - therapy ; Referral and Consultation ; referral pathways ; Time Factors ; United Kingdom ; Waiting Lists</subject><ispartof>Colorectal disease, 2012-07, Vol.14 (7), p.848-853</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><rights>2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21920010$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Currie, A. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, N. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abulafi, A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swift, R. I.</creatorcontrib><title>The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival</title><title>Colorectal disease</title><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><description>Aim The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two‐week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non‐TWW).
Method A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).
Results Fifty‐two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5‐year all‐cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease‐free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).
Conclusion Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant</subject><subject>Disease-Free Survival</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>government targets</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>National Health Service</subject><subject>Neoadjuvant Therapy</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Adjuvant</subject><subject>rectal cancer</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>referral pathways</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Waiting Lists</subject><issn>1462-8910</issn><issn>1463-1318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0E4lH4BeQlmwQ7ceJ4g4TKo4VCFxSQ2FiuOxYpaVPslLR_j9OUrvHG87hzR3MQwpSE1L_LaUhZGgc0plkYEUpDEmWRCFd76HjX2N_EUZAJSo7QiXNTQmjKaXaIjiIqIp-RY_Qw-gSczxZKV7g0uPJZVZdBDfCFa5VX2IIBa1WBF6r6rNUal3Nf05WvaDXXYLFb2p_8RxWn6MCowsHZ9u-g17vbUbcXDIb3_e71INCMZCIwbKwYVbGKJlwQakTMFOcCNFPECAEs892EjEWi01Qb4JxpATFJjYEJNRB30EXru7Dl9xJcJWe501AUag7l0klK_G2MJ2nkpVkr1bZ0zp8iFzafKbv2ItmQlFPZAJMNMNmQlBuScuVHz7dbluMZTHaDf-i84KoV1HkB638by-7wpt-E3iBoDXJXwWpnoOyXTHnME_n-fC-fetnHzcvbo-TxL-nhkRA</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>Currie, A. C.</creator><creator>Evans, J.</creator><creator>Smith, N. J.</creator><creator>Brown, G.</creator><creator>Abulafi, A. M.</creator><creator>Swift, R. I.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival</title><author>Currie, A. C. ; Evans, J. ; Smith, N. J. ; Brown, G. ; Abulafi, A. M. ; Swift, R. I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant</topic><topic>Disease-Free Survival</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>government targets</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>National Health Service</topic><topic>Neoadjuvant Therapy</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Adjuvant</topic><topic>rectal cancer</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>referral pathways</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Waiting Lists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Currie, A. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, N. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abulafi, A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swift, R. I.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Currie, A. C.</au><au>Evans, J.</au><au>Smith, N. J.</au><au>Brown, G.</au><au>Abulafi, A. M.</au><au>Swift, R. I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival</atitle><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>848</spage><epage>853</epage><pages>848-853</pages><issn>1462-8910</issn><eissn>1463-1318</eissn><abstract>Aim The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two‐week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non‐TWW).
Method A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).
Results Fifty‐two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5‐year all‐cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease‐free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).
Conclusion Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21920010</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02829.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1462-8910 |
ispartof | Colorectal disease, 2012-07, Vol.14 (7), p.848-853 |
issn | 1462-8910 1463-1318 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1020047562 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant Disease-Free Survival Female government targets Humans Kaplan-Meier Estimate Male Middle Aged Mortality National Health Service Neoadjuvant Therapy Neoplasm Staging Prospective Studies Radiotherapy, Adjuvant rectal cancer Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis Rectal Neoplasms - therapy Referral and Consultation referral pathways Time Factors United Kingdom Waiting Lists |
title | The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T12%3A27%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20impact%20of%20the%20two-week%20wait%20referral%20pathway%20on%20rectal%20cancer%20survival&rft.jtitle=Colorectal%20disease&rft.au=Currie,%20A.%20C.&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=848&rft.epage=853&rft.pages=848-853&rft.issn=1462-8910&rft.eissn=1463-1318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02829.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1020047562%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4089-f4ba41a3a2d7901f934a779ec4a0f99e4841a50b95c66cfe774c9e306ffed1fe3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1020047562&rft_id=info:pmid/21920010&rfr_iscdi=true |