Clinical intervals and diagnostic characteristics in a cohort of prostate cancer patients in Spain: a multicentre observational study
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteEditorial
Springer
Materia
Prostatic neoplasms Male urogenital diseases Multicentre study
Date
2015-07-02Referencia bibliográfica
Bonfill, X. & Sánchez Pérez, M.J. & EMPARO-CU study group. BMC Urol 15, 60 (2015). [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-015-0058-x]
Patrocinador
Instituto Carlos III: Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria PS09/01204. SpainRésumé
Background: Little is known about the healthcare process for patients with prostate cancer, mainly because
hospital-based data are not routinely published. The main objective of this study was to determine the clinical
characteristics of prostate cancer patients, the, diagnostic process and the factors that might influence intervals from
consultation to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment.
Methods: We conducted a multicentre, cohort study in seven hospitals in Spain. Patients’ characteristics and
diagnostic and therapeutic variables were obtained from hospital records and patients’ structured interviews from
October 2010 to September 2011. We used a multilevel logistic regression model to examine the association between
patient care intervals and various variables influencing these intervals (age, BMI, educational level, ECOG, first specialist
consultation, tumour stage, PSA, Gleason score, and presence of symptoms) and calculated the odds ratio (OR) and the
interquartile range (IQR). To estimate the random inter-hospital variability, we used the median odds ratio (MOR).
Results: 470 patients with prostate cancer were included. Mean age was 67.8 (SD: 7.6) years and 75.4 % were physically
active. Tumour size was classified as T1 in 41.0 % and as T2 in 40 % of patients, their median Gleason score was 6.0
(IQR:1.0), and 36.1 % had low risk cancer according to the D’Amico classification. The median interval between first
consultation and diagnosis was 89 days (IQR:123.5) with no statistically significant variability between centres. Presence
of symptoms was associated with a significantly longer interval between first consultation and diagnosis than no
symptoms (OR:1.93, 95%CI 1.29–2.89). The median time between diagnosis and first treatment (therapeutic interval)
was 75.0 days (IQR:78.0) and significant variability between centres was found (MOR:2.16, 95%CI 1.45–4.87). This interval
was shorter in patients with a high PSA value (p = 0.012) and a high Gleason score (p = 0.026).
Conclusions: Most incident prostate cancer patients in Spain are diagnosed at an early stage of an adenocarcinoma.
The period to complete the diagnostic process is approximately three months whereas the therapeutic intervals vary
among centres and are shorter for patients with a worse prognosis. The presence of prostatic symptoms, PSA level,
and Gleason score influence all the clinical intervals differently.





