Loading…

Time to diagnosis of Type I or II invasive epithelial ovarian cancers: a multicentre observational study using patient questionnaire and primary care records

Objective To compare time to diagnosis of the typically slow‐growing Type I (low‐grade serous, low‐grade endometrioid, mucinous, clear cell) and the more aggressive Type II (high‐grade serous, high‐grade endometrioid, undifferentiated, carcinosarcoma) invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). Desig...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2016-05, Vol.123 (6), p.1012-1020
Main Authors: Lim, AWW, Mesher, D, Gentry‐Maharaj, A, Balogun, N, Widschwendter, M, Jacobs, I, Sasieni, P, Menon, U
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!
Description
Summary:Objective To compare time to diagnosis of the typically slow‐growing Type I (low‐grade serous, low‐grade endometrioid, mucinous, clear cell) and the more aggressive Type II (high‐grade serous, high‐grade endometrioid, undifferentiated, carcinosarcoma) invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). Design Multicentre observational study. Setting Ten UK gynaecological oncology centres. Population Women diagnosed with primary EOC between 2006 and 2008. Methods Symptom data were collected before diagnosis using patient questionnaire and primary‐care records. We estimated patient interval (first symptom to presentation) using questionnaire data and diagnostic interval (presentation to diagnosis) using primary‐care records. We considered the impact of first symptom, referral and stage on intervals for Type I and Type II iEOC. Main outcome measures Patient and diagnostic intervals. Results In all, 78% of 60 Type I and 21% of 134 Type II iEOC were early‐stage. Intervals were comparable and independent of stage [e.g. median patient interval for Type I: early‐stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3–3.0) versus late‐stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3–4.5), P = 0.8]. Twenty‐seven percent of women with Type I and Type II had diagnostic intervals of at least 9 months. First symptom (questionnaire) was also similar, except for the infrequent abnormal bleeding (Type I 15% versus Type II 4%, P = 0.01). More women with Type I disease (57% versus 41%, P = 0.04) had been referred for suspected gynaecological cancer. Median time from referral to diagnosis was 1.4 months for women with iEOC referred via a 2‐week cancer referral to any specialty compared with 2.6 months (interquartile range 2.0–3.7) for women who were referred routinely to gynaecology. Conclusion Overall, shorter diagnostic delays were seen when a cancer was suspected, even if the primary tumour site was not recognised to be ovarian. Despite differences in carcinogenesis and stage for Type I and Type II iEOC, time to diagnosis and symptoms were similar. Referral patterns were different, implying subtle symptom differences. If symptom‐based interventions are to impact on ovarian cancer survival, it is likely to be through reduced volume rather than stage‐shift. Further research on histological subtypes is needed. Tweetable No difference in time to diagnosis for Type I versus Type II invasive epithelial ovarian cancers. Tweetable No difference in time to diagnosis for Type I versus Type II invasive epithelial
ISSN:1470-0328
1471-0528
DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13447