ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between tumour stage at diagnosis and selected components of primary and secondary care in the diagnostic interval for breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers. METHODS: Observational study based on data from 6,162 newly diagnosed symptomatic cancer patients from Module 4 of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. We analysed the odds of advanced stage of cancer as a flexible function of the length of primary care interval (days from first presentation to referral) and secondary care interval (days from referral to diagnosis), respectively, using logistic regression with restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: The association between time intervals and stage was similar for each type of cancer. A statistically significant U-shaped association was seen between the secondary care interval and the diagnosis of advanced rather than localised cancer, odds decreasing from the first day onwards and increasing around three and a half months. A different pattern was seen for the primary care interval, flat trends for colorectal and lung cancers and a slightly curved association for ovarian cancer, although not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results confirm previous findings that some cancers may progress even within the relatively short time frame of regulated diagnostic intervals. The study supports the current emphasis on expediting symptomatic diagnosis of cancer.
Subject(s)
Delayed Diagnosis/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/pathology , Aged , Benchmarking , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnosis , Ovarian Neoplasms/pathology , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation , Secondary Care , Time FactorsABSTRACT
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: * Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is a strong risk and prognostic factor for peptic ulcer perforation, and alternative analgesics are needed for high-risk patients. * Pain management guidelines propose tramadol as a treatment option for mild-to-moderate pain in patients at high risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, including peptic ulcer disease. * Tramadol may mask symptoms of peptic ulcer complications, yet tramadol's effect on peptic ulcer prognosis is unknown. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: * In this population-based study of 1271 patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer perforation, tramadol appeared to increase mortality at least as much as NSAIDs. * Among users of tramadol, alone or in combination with NSAIDs, adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratios were 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 3.48] and 1.32 (95% CI 0.89, 1.95), compared with patients who used neither tramadol nor NSAIDs. AIM: Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases risk and worsens prognosis for patients with complicated peptic ulcer disease. Therefore, patients who are at high risk of peptic ulcer often use tramadol instead of NSAIDs. Tramadol's effect on peptic ulcer prognosis is unknown. The aim was to examine mortality in the 30 days following hospitalization for perforated peptic ulcer among tramadol and NSAID users compared with non-users. METHODS: The study was based on data on reimbursed prescriptions and hospital discharge diagnoses for the 1993-2004 period, extracted from population-based healthcare databases. All patients with a first-time diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were identified, excluding those with previous ulcer diagnoses or antiulcer drug use. Cox regression was used to estimate 30-day mortality rate ratios for tramadol and NSAID users compared with non-users, adjusting for use of other drugs and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 1271 patients with perforated peptic ulcers included in the study, 2.4% used tramadol only, 38.9% used NSAIDs and 7.9% used both. Thirty-day mortality was 28.7% overall and 48.4% among users of tramadol alone. Compared with the 645 patients who used neither tramadol nor NSAIDs, the adjusted mortality rate in the 30 days following hospitalization was 2.02-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 3.48] higher for the 31 'tramadol only' users, 1.41-fold (95% CI 1.12, 1.78) higher for the 495 NSAID users and 1.32-fold (95% CI 0.89, 1.95) higher for the 100 patients who used both drugs. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized for perforated peptic ulcer, tramadol appears to increase mortality at a level comparable to NSAIDs.
