The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Petrova, Dafina; Špacírová, Zuzana; Fernández Martínez, Nicolás Francisco; Ching López, Ana; Garrido del Águila, Dunia; Rodríguez Barranco, Miguel; Redondo Sánchez, Daniel; Higueras Callejón, Camila; Sánchez Pérez, María JoséEditorial
Plos One
Date
2022-10-20Referencia bibliográfica
Petrova D... [et al.] (2022) The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 19(10): e1004110. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004110]
Patrocinador
Spanish Association against Cancer (Asociacion Espanola contra el Cancer, "High resolution study of social inequalities in cancer (HiReSIC)") PROYE20023SANC; Cancer Epidemiological Surveillance Subprogram of the CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI18/01593; Juan de la Cierva Fellowship from the Ministry of Science and the National Research Agency of Spain (MCIN/AEI) JC2019-039691-IRésumé
Background
Longer time intervals to diagnosis and treatment are associated with worse survival for various
types of cancer. The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals are considered core
indicators for early diagnosis and treatment. This review estimated the median duration of
these intervals for various types of cancer and compared it across high- and lower-income
countries.
Methods and findings
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis (prospectively registered protocol
CRD42020200752). Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) and
information sources including grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, EThOS, Pro-
Quest Dissertations & Theses) were searched. Eligible articles were published during
2009 to 2022 and reported the duration of the following intervals in adult patients diagnosed
with primary symptomatic cancer: patient interval (from the onset of symptoms to
first presentation to a healthcare professional), diagnostic interval (from first presentation
to diagnosis), and treatment interval (from diagnosis to treatment start). Interval duration
was recorded in days and study medians were combined in a pooled estimate with 95%
confidence intervals (CIs). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the
Aarhus checklist.
A total of 410 articles representing 68 countries and reporting on 5,537,594 patients were
included. The majority of articles reported data from high-income countries (n = 294, 72%), with 116 (28%) reporting data from lower-income countries. Pooled meta-analytic estimates
were possible for 38 types of cancer. The majority of studies were conducted on patients
with breast, lung, colorectal, and head and neck cancer. In studies from high-income countries,
pooled median patient intervals generally did not exceed a month for most cancers.
However, in studies from lower-income countries, patient intervals were consistently 1.5 to 4
times longer for almost all cancer sites. The majority of data on the diagnostic and treatment
intervals came from high-income countries. Across both high- and lower-income countries,
the longest diagnostic intervals were observed for hematological (71 days [95% CI 52 to 85],
e.g., myelomas (83 days [47 to 145])), genitourinary (58 days [50 to 77], e.g., prostate (85
days [57 to 112])), and digestive/gastrointestinal (57 days [45 to 67], e.g., colorectal (63
days [48 to 78])) cancers. Similarly, the longest treatment intervals were observed for genitourinary
(57 days [45 to 66], e.g., prostate (75 days [61 to 87])) and gynecological (46 days
[38 to 54], e.g., cervical (69 days [45 to 108]) cancers. In studies from high-income countries,
the implementation of cancer-directed policies was associated with shorter patient and
diagnostic intervals for several cancers.
This review included a large number of studies conducted worldwide but is limited by survivor
bias and the inherent complexity and many possible biases in the measurement of
time points and intervals in the cancer treatment pathway. In addition, the subintervals that
compose the diagnostic interval (e.g., primary care interval, referral to diagnosis interval)
were not considered.AU : Anabbreviationlisthasbeencompiledforthoseusedthroughoutthetext:Pleaseverifythatallentriesarecorrect:
Conclusions
These results identify the cancers where diagnosis and treatment initiation may take the longest
and reveal the extent of global disparities in early diagnosis and treatment. Efforts
should be made to reduce help-seeking times for cancer symptoms in lower-income countries.
Estimates for the diagnostic and treatment intervals came mostly from high-income
countries that have powerful health information systems in place to record such information.