Delay in the delivery of treatment for gynaecological cancers has been previously investigated.1,2 In some cases, the delay reflects the illness behaviour of women; in others, it was inherent in the system for delivering health care. Few studies have linked delay in treatment with survival, although a study from Israel found that survival from endometrial cancer was not affected by a delay in treatment of four months.3
We investigated links between delays in treatment and survival, using a recently completed audit of endometrial cancer treatment in Scotland.
Methods and results
We collected data from the case notes of all women resident in Scotland who were diagnosed between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1997 as having endometrial carcinoma. Of 781 cases, we found case notes for 714, and, out of these, we analysed the 703 cases that involved operative treatment.
We calculated time intervals from the dates of general practitioner referral letters, clinic appointments, investigations, and operations. We allocated an International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage to each case retrospectively4; we then categorised cases by FIGO stage.5 We linked these data to survival information from ISD-Scotland and did a univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis using Cox's proportional hazards analysis.
Delay and survival were inversely related: women with the shortest delay had more advanced disease and survival was least likely for these patients (table). This trend is seen most starkly in the delay from general practitioner referral to first hospital visit.
The median interval from referral to definitive operation was 62 days (90th centile 150 days). Large variations between health board areas existed: the median interval from referral to definitive operation varied from 46 to 81 days (74 to 287 days).
Comment
The interaction between survival and delay in treatment is complex: we found that patients who experience the longest delay in treatment are more likely to survive. This is paradoxical: it is popularly assumed that delay has a significant and harmful impact on survival.
This interaction is partially accounted for by the relation between stage and delay but is only partly explained by the FIGO stage category in a Cox proportional hazards model corrected for age, stage, and use of radiotherapy.
The traditional view is that delay caused by organisational defects has an adverse effect on the disease: this influences survival. Our study suggests that disease influences delay, and so delay is a confounding factor.
The fact that the strongest effect between delay and survival is seen in the interval between referral and the first hospital visit suggests that general practitioners communicate information related to presentation in some way to consultants. This communication ensures that consultants respond faster to patients who are at higher risk. Consultants seem to be able, from first clinic visit, to differentiate patients at greater risk and to ensure that cancer is diagnosed and treated faster. Women with the longest delays have the best survival, and vice versa, suggesting that the “healing art” remains an important but elusive factor.
Table.
Interval from general practitioner referral to surgery and survival
| No
|
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
| GP to surgery interval: | ||||
| <40 days | 154 | 1 | 1 | |
| 40-61 days | 155 | 0.50 (0.30 to 0.82) | 0.71 (0.43 to 1.19) | |
| 62-91 days | 155 | 0.34 (0.19 to 0.59) | 0.47 (0.27 to 0.83) | |
| >92 days | 153 | 0.39 (0.23 to 0.67) | 0.53 (0.30 to 0.93) | |
| Age: | ||||
| <60 years | 135 | 1 | 1 | |
| ⩾60 years | 545 | 1.83 (1.06 to 3.16) | 1.28 (0.72 to 2.30) | |
| FIGO stage category: | ||||
| 1AG1 and 1BG1 (low risk) | 182 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1AG2/3, 1BG2/3, and 1CG1/2 (intermediate risk) | 289 | 3.11 (1.38 to 7.01) | 2.8 (1.15 to 6.85) | |
| 1CG3, stages 2/3/4 (high risk) | 182 | 12.8 (5.9 to 27.9) | 11.1 (4.74 to 25.8) | |
| Cannot be assigned to case | 50 | 5.8 (2.2 to 15.2) | 5.2 (1.85 to 14.7) | |
| Adjuvant radiotherapy: | ||||
| Yes | 275 | 1 | 1 | |
| No | 428 | 0.83 (0.57 to 1.19) | 2.00 (1.29 to 3.11) | |
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Information and Statistics Division, Edinburgh, for cancer registration and survival data. Medical case note abstraction was by Edith Hamilton and Sheena Mitchell.
Footnotes
Funding: Greater Glasgow Health Board endowment fund.
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.NHS Executive. Guidance on commissioning cancer services: improving outcomes in gynaecological cancers: the research evidence. Wetherby: Department of Health; 1999. pp. 25–26. . (Catalogue no 16149.) [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fruchter RG, Boyce J. Delays in diagnosis and stage of disease in gynaecologic cancer. Cancer Detect Prev. 1981;4:481–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Menczer J, Krissi H, Chetrit A, Gaylor J, Lerner L, Ben-Baruch G, et al. The effect of diagnosis and treatment delay on prognostic factors and survival in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:774–778. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)90340-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shepherd JH. Revised FIGO stages for gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:889–892. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03341.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, Lybeert ML, Jobsen JJ, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet. 2000;355:1404–1411. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02139-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]