Search

Background: Time-to-treatment is defined as a quality indicator for cancer care but is not well documented. We investigated whether meeting Norwegian timeframes of 35/42 days from referral until start of chemotherapy or surgery/radiotherapy for lung cancer was associated with survival. Patients and Methods: The medical records of 439 lung cancer patients at a regional cancer center were reviewed and categorized according to treatment: (i) surgery; ii) radical radiotherapy; iii) stereotactic radiotherapy; iv) palliative treatment, no cancer symptoms; v) palliative treatment with severe cancer symptoms). Results: Proportions receiving timely treatment varied significantly at 39%, 48%, 10%, 44% and 89%, respectively (p<0.001). Overall, those starting treatment on time had the shortest median overall survival (10.6 vs. 22.6 months; p<0.001). This was also the case for palliative (5.3 vs. 11.4 months) (p<0.001) but not for curative treatment (not reached vs. 38.3 months) (p=0.038). Conclusion: Timely treatment is not necessarily associated with improved survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Due to an increasing number of cancer patients, new follow-up models are being debated, among them follow-up by general practitioners. Before changing surveillance, it is important to explore patients' views. The purpose of this study was to compare attitudes toward follow-up care among patients treated for gynecological cancer who had not yet started a follow-up regimen, with those who had been attending a hospital-based follow-up regimen for more than one year.Material and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among gynecological cancer patients recruited from three Norwegian hospitals in 2013-2015: Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Sørlandet Hospital Arendal and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim.Results: In all, 239 patients agreed to participate, 100 who had not yet started follow-up and 139 who had been attending more than one year of follow-up. Patients reported that they preferred to be followed up by a gynecologist rather than by their GP, whom they viewed as less competent for this purpose. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. Overall, patients rated detection of recurrence as the most important aspect of follow-up visits.Conclusions: The gynecological cancer patients in our study preferred a hospital-based follow-up model. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. If follow-up is to be provided by GPs for selected patients, it is important that these patients are informed early of the value and limitations of follow-up visits, to ensure that they feel safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Gynecological cancer patients are routinely followed up for five years after primary treatment. However, the value of such follow up has been debated, as retrospective studies indicate that first recurrence is often symptomatic and occurs within two to three years of primary treatment. We prospectively investigated time to first recurrence, symptoms at recurrence, diagnostic procedures, and recurrence treatment in gynecological cancer patients after primary curative treatment.Material and Methods: Clinicians from 21 hospitals in Norway interviewed 680 patients with first recurrence of gynecological cancer (409 ovarian, 213 uterine, and 58 cervical cancer patients) between 2012 and 2016. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect information on self-reported and clinical variables.Results: Within two years of primary treatment, 72% of ovarian, 64% of uterine, and 66% of cervical cancer patients were diagnosed with first recurrence, and 54, 67, and 72%, respectively, had symptomatic recurrence. Of symptomatic patients, 25-50% failed to make an appointment before their next scheduled follow-up visit. Computer tomography was the most common diagnostic procedure (89% of ovarian, 76% of uterine, and 62% of cervical cancer patients), and recurrence treatment in terms of chemotherapy was most frequently planned (86% of ovarian, 46% of uterine, and 62% of cervical cancer patients).Conclusions: A majority of patients experienced symptomatic recurrence, but many patients failed to make an appointment earlier than scheduled. Most first recurrences occurred within two years of primary treatment; the mean annual incidence rate for years 3-5 after primary treatment was <7%. New models for follow up of gynecological cancer patients could be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The time from a referral for suspected lung cancer is received at a hospital until treatment start has been defined as a quality indicator. Current Norwegian recommendation is that ≥70% should start surgery or radiotherapy within 42 calendar days and systemic therapy within 35 days. However, delays can occur due to medical complexity. The aim of this study was to quantify the proportion of patients who started treatment within the recommended timeframes; and to assess the proportion of non-complex patients for which there were no good reasons for delays.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients diagnosed with lung cancer at a university hospital during 2011-2013. We defined "non-complex" patients as those who underwent ≤1 tissue diagnostic procedure and had no delays due to comorbidity, intercurrent disease or complications to diagnostic procedures ("Medical delays") of more than three days.Results: Four hundred forty-nine cases were analyzed; 142 (32%) had >1 tissue diagnostic procedures; 67 (15%) had medical delays >3 days; 262 (58%) were non-complex and 363 (81%) received treatment for lung cancer. Median number of days until surgery or radiotherapy was 48 (overall) and 41 (non-complex patients). The proportions who started surgery or radiotherapy within 42 days were 41% (overall) and 56% (non-complex). Corresponding numbers for systemic therapy were 29 days (overall) and 25 days (non-complex), and 64% (overall) and 80% (non-complex).Conclusion: Fewer lung cancer patients than desired started treatment within the recommended timeframes. Even among the least complex patients, too few patients received timely treatment. The reasons need to be identified and understood, and changes in the organization appear to be necessary in order to offer timely treatment to more patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimizing the time until start of cancer treatment is a political goal. In Norway, the target time for lung cancer is 42 days. The aim of this study was to identify reasons for delays and estimate the effect on the timelines when applying an optimal diagnostic pathway.Methods: Retrospective review of medical records of lung cancer patients, with stage I-II at baseline CT, receiving curative treatment (n = 100) at a regional cancer center in Norway.Results: Only 40% started treatment within 42 days. The most important delays were late referral to PET CT (n = 27) and exercise test (n = 16); repeated diagnostic procedures because bronchoscopy failed (n = 15); and need for further investigations after PET CT (n = 11). The time from referral to PET CT until the final report was 20.5 days in median. Applying current waiting time for PET CT (≤7 days), 48% would have started treatment within 42 days (p = 0.254). "Optimal pathway" was defined as 1) referral to PET CT and exercise test immediately after the CT scan and hospital visit, 2) tumor board discussion to decide diagnostic strategy and treatment, 3) referral to surgery or curative radiotherapy, 4) tissue sampling while waiting to start treatment. Applying the optimal pathway, current waiting time for PET CT and observed waiting times for the other procedures, 80% of patients could have started treatment within 42 days (p < 0.001), and the number of tissue sampling procedures could have been reduced from 112 to 92 (- 16%).Conclusion: Changing the sequence of investigations would significantly reduce the time until start of treatment in curative lung cancer patients at our hospital and reduce the resources needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]