Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

Abstract

Background:

It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

Results:

We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

Conclusions:

This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Main

Symptomatic diagnosis of cancer is important and has been the subject of considerable innovation and intervention in recent years to achieve timelier and earlier-stage diagnosis (Emery et al, 2014); the English National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative has made a major contribution to this effort (Richards and Hiom, 2009; Richards, 2009a). We know that patients value timely diagnostic workup, and that later stage at diagnosis is one of the contributory factors to poor cancer outcomes (Richards, 2009b). However, it is less clear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes. Systematic reviews in breast cancer reported that delays of 3–6 months were associated with lower survival (Richards et al, 1999), and in colorectal cancer it was concluded that there were no associations between diagnostic delays and survival and stage (Ramos et al, 2007, 2008; Thompson et al, 2010). Other reviews have been published for gynaecological cancers (Menczer, 2000), bladder (Fahmy et al, 2006), testicular (Bell et al, 2006), lung (Jensen et al, 2002; Olsson et al, 2009), paediatric cancers (Brasme et al, 2012a, 2012b) and head and neck cancers (Goy et al, 2009; Seoane et al, 2012), all with equivocal findings. No review to date has undertaken this work in a range of different cancer types.

Longer time to diagnosis may be detrimental in several ways: a more advanced stage at diagnosis, poorer survival, greater disease-related and treatment-related morbidity and adverse psychological adjustment. Conversely, harm may be caused by earlier detection of cancers without improving survival (lead-time), and detection of slow-growing tumours not needing treatment (over-diagnosis) (Esserman et al, 2013). A scoping review, undertaken before the review reported here, showed that observational studies in many cancers reported no association or an inverse relationship between longer diagnostic times and better outcomes (Neal, 2009). We therefore undertook a systematic review of the literature aiming to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations only.

Materials and methods

We undertook a systematic review in two phases. The original review was conducted in 2008–10, and the literature from inception of databases to February 2010 was searched; the update was conducted in 2013–14, and the literature from February 2010 to November 2013 was searched. The original review did not include breast or colorectal cancer (because of prior systematic reviews); however, these were included in the update (as we knew of more papers published in these cancers). The review adhered to principles of good practice (Egger et al, 2001; NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001). Reporting is in line with the PRISMA recommendations (Moher et al, 2009).

A search strategy was developed for Medline (Figure 1) and adapted for other search sources. A range of bibliographic databases were searched for relevant studies. These were as follows:

  • MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation database.

Figure 1
figure1

Search strategy (medline).

Reference lists of studies included in this and previous reviews were hand-searched for relevant studies.

One reviewer screened the titles and abstracts of all records for relevance, and assessed potentially relevant records for inclusion. A second reviewer checked the decisions; disagreements were resolved by discussion or, if necessary, by a third reviewer. A study or analysis was included in the review if it:

  • Reported patients with symptomatic diagnosis of primary cancer (screen- and biomarker-detected cancers were excluded).

  • Primarily aimed to determine the association of at least one time interval to diagnosis or treatment (patient, primary care, secondary care or a combination), allowing assessment against accepted definitions (Weller et al, 2012). The outcomes of interest were any measure of survival or mortality; any description of stage, including extent or severity of disease at diagnosis and response to treatment; or quality of life.

  • Was available as full text in English.

Data extraction for all included studies was done by one researcher and checked by another. We extracted data relating to the following:

  • Characteristics of included studies: study aim, population, location, setting, definitions of time intervals, data collection methods used and outcome measures.

  • Clinical outcomes: included the measure of association, associations of intervals with outcomes and reported interpretation.

  • Bias assessment: we envisaged at the outset that there would be considerable variation between included studies in terms of study design, and that many may be of poor quality (Neal, 2009). We therefore considered that the assessment of methodological quality was especially important. However, at that time, there were no widely accepted checklists for checking the quality of prognostic studies, and there was little empirical evidence to support the importance of individual criteria, or study features, in affecting the reliability of study findings (Altman, 2001). Hence, we decided against the use of quality scoring, and to use a checklist instead of a scale. Judgements on the risk of bias were made according to a number of domains, using a generic list of questions within each domain (Figure 2), based primarily on a framework for assessing prognostic studies (Altman, 2001). For the updated review, and being aware of more recent literature on assessing the quality of prognostic studies, we decided to keep the original questions, as they were in line with the new Quality in Prognosis Studies tool (Hayden et al, 2006, 2013). In addition, in the update, we identified studies that addressed the so-called ‘waiting time paradox’ (Crawford et al, 2002), which were likely to be of higher analytical quality. These were defined as follows: ‘articles that undertake an analysis or sub-analysis that specifically includes or excludes patients who are either diagnosed very quickly (e.g., within 4–8 weeks, although this will vary between cancers), or have very poor outcomes (e.g., deaths within a short time after diagnosis, e.g., within 4–8 weeks).’ Agreement on inclusion in this subset of articles was done by two members of the study team. This is the ‘paradox’ caused by the inclusion of patients with aggressive disease who invariably present early and have poor outcomes as a result of the aggressive disease, and is a form of confounding by indication.

    Figure 2
    figure2

    Bias assessment tool.

  • Clinical outcomes: the measure of association, associations of intervals with outcomes and interpretation.

We planned to undertake meta-analysis if there were sufficient homogenous studies reporting a similar outcome measure and the same interval for an individual cancer. Narrative synthesis was undertaken otherwise.

Results

Study selection

The number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, included and reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 3. Of the 1036 records identified for full-text review, 177 articles, reporting 209 studies, met the inclusion criteria and entered the narrative synthesis. A number of the articles reported data on more than one cancer, or more than one interval.

Figure 3
figure3

Flow diagram. *Of those breast and colorectal cancer records published up to March 2010 (n=706) assessed for retrieval, 330 were retrieved and assessed for inclusion but were not included in the evaluation, as systematic reviews on these cancers had been recently published. The follow-up review, covering the period March 2010 to October 2013, included both breast and colorectal cancers in the qualitative synthesis.

Data collection in the included studies

Definition of time intervals

There were 15 different intervals reported in the included studies (Figure 4).

Figure 4
figure4

Definitions of time interval.

Clinical and psychological outcomes

Data collection for the outcome measures was predominantly retrospective review of medical records (using a variety of the following: clinical, pathological, histological and imaging) and cancer registries.

Patient questionnaires were used for studies with psychological outcomes. Most studies used various measures of survival (or mortality) and/or stage as outcome measures.

Bias assessment

The bias assessment demonstrates the mixed quality of the studies (Supplementary Online Material). On a positive note, the characteristics and representativeness of the samples were reported in most articles, the definitions and appropriateness of time intervals were well reported and many studies undertook multivariable analysis. However, the representativeness of the samples was not reported in many articles, and few studies undertook confounder adjustment, prognostic adjustment or attempted bias minimisation. Only seven of the articles made an attempt to address the waiting time paradox (Tørring et al, 2011, 2012, 2013; Brasme et al, 2012a, 2012b; Elit et al, 2013; Gobbi et al, 2013; Pruitt et al, 2013). Hence, most studies failed to address the premise of confounding by indication–that is, the relationship between the diagnostic pathway (and hence the time interval) and prognosis.

Study characteristics

Of the 177 articles included, there were a total of 401 760 participants, with a range of 13 to 147 682 in individual study size (Supplementary Online Material). There were 88 European studies with 23 from the UK, 9 from Italy, 8 from Spain, 8 from the Netherlands, 7 from Denmark, 7 from Finland, 5 from France, 5 from Norway, 3 from Switzerland, 3 from Sweden, 3 from Germany, 2 from Poland and 1 each from Austria, Belgium, Romania, Greece and joint UK/Denmark. There were 18 studies from Asia, with 5 from India, 4 from Japan, 4 from China, 2 from Hong Kong, 2 from Malaysia and 1 from South Korea. There were 59 studies from the Americas, with 47 studies from the USA, 8 from Canada and 4 from Brazil. In addition, there were three from Turkey, two from Israel, two from Australia, one each from New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Libya, South Africa and one unspecified.

148 were based in specialist care 148 (106 single site, 38 multisite and 4 unspecified), 21 were population based, 3 were set in primary care, 3 database studies, 1 used hospital cancer registry data and 1 was unspecified. Study design varied hugely, and it included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reviews of medical records, database analyses, patient surveys and interviews. The majority of the studies had retrospective designs.

Synthesis of main findings

The results of individual studies are presented in Supplementary Online Material. No meta-analyses were possible. The results are reported cancer by cancer. Studies are grouped under ‘children teenagers and young adults’ where they reported at least a significant proportion of participants aged <25 years.

Summaries for each cancer are reported in Table 1. Studies that reported ‘positive’ associations (i.e., where there was evidence of shorter intervals being associated with more favourable outcomes) are presented first, followed by studies that reported no associations, followed by those that reported ‘negative’ associations (i.e., where there was evidence of shorter intervals being associated with less favourable outcomes). In each section, studies reporting survival outcomes (or mortality, but for simplicity just referred to as survival in the table) are presented before those reporting stage and other outcomes. A brief narrative for each cancer is provided below.

Table 1 Summary results from narrative synthesis, by cancer

For breast cancer, four studies reported positive associations, including one of the studies that addressed the waiting time paradox, and was able to demonstrate the effect of different diagnostic intervals on mortality (Tørring et al, 2013). The remainder reported no associations.

The lung studies had mixed findings, with similar numbers of studies reporting positive, negative and no associations, across a range of different time intervals. However, one of the studies reporting a positive association with mortality for diagnostic intervals addressed the waiting time paradox (Tørring et al, 2013).

For colorectal cancer, although many studies reported no associations, more studies reported a positive, rather than a negative, association. Indeed, four studies addressing the waiting time paradox were included, three of which reported a positive association (Tørring et al, 2011, 2012, 2013) and one a negative association (Pruitt et al, 2013). Of the upper gastrointestinal cancers, most studies reported no association, and more reported a negative, rather than a positive, association. For pancreatic cancer, two of the five studies reported a positive association, one of which addressed the waiting time paradox (Gobbi et al, 2013). The other three studies reported no association.

Two of the prostate studies reported a positive association for survival/mortality, one of which addressed the waiting time paradox (Tørring et al, 2013); the others reported no association. Two of the bladder studies reported a positive association; the others reported no association. For testicular cancer, 15 studies reported positive associations, and the remainder had no associations.

For gynaecological cancers, of the four studies examining cervix, one reported a positive association; the others reported no association. For endometrial and ovarian cancers, there were similar numbers of studies with positive, negative and no associations. One of the endometrial studies that reported a negative association addressed the waiting time paradox (Elit et al, 2013).

For head and neck cancers (pharyngeal, laryngeal, oral and others), there were a large number of studies and these were equally divided between those reporting a positive association and those reporting no association. No studies reported a negative association.

For melanoma, eight studies reported positive associations, one of which addressed the waiting time paradox (Tørring et al, 2013); the remainder reported no associations. For non-melanoma skin, two studies reported positive associations and one reported no association.

There were a large number of studies covering the various cancers in children, teenagers and young adults. The findings of these were very mixed, with the biggest group showing no associations, and smaller but similar number of studies reporting both positive and negative associations. One of the ‘no association’ studies addressed the waiting time paradox (Brasme et al, 2012a, 2012b).

For lymphoma, three studies reported no association or a negative association. For leukaemia, the three studies reported no associations. There were only two studies in myeloma, although both of these reported positive outcomes. For the various connective tissue cancers, three studies each reported a positive association and no association. The other cancer groups (brain/central nervous system, carcinoid, hepatocellular, renal, thyroid, upper tract urothelial carcinoma and multisite) only had one or two included studies.

Discussion

Summary of main findings

This review is unique in that it has assessed the literature for a range of different cancer types, and hence we are able to make recommendations for policy practice and research that are not limited to one cancer (or group of cancers). The number of included studies in this review has shown the importance of this question to patients, clinicians and researchers. However, even within specific cancer types, there is only moderate consensus as to the nature of any associations between various time intervals in the diagnostic process and clinical outcomes, with some studies showing no associations, some studies showing better outcomes with shorter time intervals and some the opposite. There are more reports of an association between times to diagnosis and outcomes for breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma, with reports from a smaller number of studies for pancreatic, prostate and bladder cancers. The time intervals in the studies varied, making it impossible to draw consensus as to which intervals may be more, or less, important. Moreover, the methodological quality of many of these papers is mixed, despite a recent consensus paper on design and reporting of such studies (Weller et al, 2012). There is some evidence from papers published more recently that address the waiting time paradox in their analyses (Tørring et al, 2011, 2012, 2013; Brasme et al, 2012a, 2012b; Elit et al, 2013, Gobbi et al, 2013, Pruitt et al, 2013), with most, but not all, of these reporting longer intervals being associated with poorer outcomes, particularly mortality. This is important and begins to provide more robust evidence about the relationship between time to diagnosis and outcomes.

Findings within the context of the literature

The previous cancer-specific reviews (Menczer, 2000; Jensen et al, 2002; Bell et al, 2006; Fahmy et al, 2006; Ramos et al, 2007, 2008; Goy et al, 2009; Olsson et al, 2009; Thompson et al, 2010; Brasme et al, 2012a, 2012b), with the exception of the breast cancer (Richards et al, 1999), and to a lesser extent head and neck (Seoane et al, 2012), have been largely equivocal, probably because of the poor quality of the included studies. Our findings are largely in keeping with these reviews, although we have provided much more evidence than previous reviews for testicular cancer (Bell et al, 2006) and head and neck cancers (Goy et al, 2009). We have also identified more recent and probably higher-quality papers providing better evidence for colorectal cancer than covered in previous reviews (Ramos et al, 2007, 2008; Thompson et al, 2010). We provide review findings for the first time for many cancers. We are also aware of further articles being published since the end date of our review. For example, one of these replicated the methods of one of the papers in our review (Tørring et al, 2011) on a sample of 958 colorectal cancers in Scotland, and reported that longer diagnostic intervals did not adversely affect cancer outcomes (Murchie et al, 2014). Another has reported that time to diagnosis in 436 Ewing tumours in France was not associated with metastasis, surgical outcome or survival (Brasme et al, 2014). One of our main findings, of the poor quality of reporting of time to diagnosis studies, replicates the findings of a recent paediatric systematic review (Launay et al, 2013).

Strengths and weaknesses

This is the largest and most comprehensive review in this field, and the first ‘all-cancer’ systematic review. The huge heterogeneity in both the outcomes and the time intervals used, within each cancer site, precluded meta-analyses. Another systematic review has recently reported similar difficulty in comparisons between studies (Lethaby et al, 2013). As previously stated, the review only contains studies in colorectal and breast cancer for 2010–13, and only these studies identified during the second round of searches were assessed to determine whether their analyses addressed the waiting time paradox. Survival, or mortality, is the most objective outcomes for these studies. However, many of the included studies in the review reported stage, or some other proxy. This may explain why stage and survival outcomes differ. Stage categorisation also varied, and some of the studies may be affected by post-hoc upstaging. A further problem with the literature is that of confounding by indication. Symptoms of more advanced cancer are likely to present differently and be investigated more promptly, as are patients presenting with so-called ‘red-flag’ symptoms. We were unable to assess for publication bias; indeed, if there was any publication bias, we cannot predict in which direction this would act.

Implications for policy, practice and research

Our main conclusion from this review is that we believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of earlier-stage diagnosis, improved survival and improved quality of life. The amount of benefit varies between cancers; at present, there is more evidence for breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma, with evidence from a smaller number of studies for pancreatic, prostate and bladder cancers. There is either insufficient evidence or equivocal findings in the other cancers. The findings need replicating in using similar analytical methods, ideally also to address how much of a difference expedited diagnosis of different cancers would make on outcomes, and at which points in the diagnostic journey matters most. Until we have well-designed and well-analysed prospective studies to answer this question, it is difficult to determine the likely effect of interventions to reduce patient and diagnostic intervals on outcomes. This knowledge would inform the development of targeted intervention studies, to improve outcomes.

Hence, we recommend that policy, and clinicians, should continue the current emphasis on expediting symptomatic diagnosis, at least for most cancers. This can be achieved by clinicians having a high index of suspicion of cancer, the use of diagnostic technologies and rapid access to diagnostic investigations and fast-track pathways for assessment (Rubin et al, 2014). Finally, we recommend the need for more high-quality research in the area for a number of reasons. First, we suspect that many clinicians continue to believe that there are no associations between time and clinical outcomes.

A considerable number of studies fail to address basic issues of bias and thus equate the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Second, it is likely that more timely diagnosis may have a greater or lesser impact between different cancers. This is important to ascertain, because it will inform policy and practice. We recommend, where possible, re-analysis of pooled (and similar) data from some of the studies included in this review, and new studies using linked data sets, across all cancers, such that similar analyses can be conducted between cancers. We also recommend that such studies should ideally focus on survival or mortality as the outcome, as this is the ‘gold-standard’ outcome, although stage is also a valuable end point. There is also a dearth of studies reporting patient experience; we therefore recommend further work that examined the relationship between patient perceptions of ‘delay’ and quality of life and psychological outcomes. Suggested key quality criteria for future studies are summarised in Box 1. Other work should focus on the organisation and function of health services, and subsequent time intervals and outcomes. Furthermore, we recommend that, wherever possible, this work should be conducted and reported in keeping within the recommendations of the Aarhus Statement (Weller et al, 2012).

References

  1. Akdas A, Kirkali Z, Remzi D (1986) The role of delay in stage Iii testicular tumors. Int Urol Nephrol 18: 181–184.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alam M, Goldberg LH, Silapunt S, Gardner ES, Strom SS, Rademaker AW, Margolis DJ (2011) Delayed treatment and continued growth of nonmelanoma skin cancer. J Am Acad Dermatol 64: 839–848.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alho O, Teppo H, Mantyselka P, Kantola S (2006) Head and neck cancer in primary care: presenting symptoms and the effect of delayed diagnosis of cancer cases. Can Med Assoc J 174: 779–784.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allison P, Franco E, Black M, Feine J (1998) The role of professional diagnostic delays in the prognosis of upper aerodigestive tract carcinoma. Oral Oncol 34: 147–153.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Rajhi N, El-Sebaie M, Khafaga Y, Al-Zahrani A, Mohamed G, Al-Amro A (2009) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Saudi Arabia: clinical presentation and diagnostic delay. East Mediterr Health J 15: 1301–1307.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in Context, Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) 2nd ed BMJ Books: London.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Annakkaya A, Arbak P, Balbay O, Bilgin C, Erbas M, Bulut I (2007) Effect of symptom-to-treatment interval on prognosis in lung cancer. Tumori 93: 61–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arvanitakis C, Nikopoulos A, Giannoulis E, Theoharidis A, Georgilas V, Fotiou H, Tourkantonis A (2006) The impact of early or late diagnosis on patient survival in gastric cancer in Greece. Hepatogastroenterology 39: 355–357.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baade P, English D, Youl P, McPherson M, Elwood J, Aitken J (2006) The relationship between melanoma thickness and time to diagnosis in a large population-based study. Arch Dermatol 142: 1422–1427.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bacci G, Di Fiore M, Rimondini S, Baldini N (1999) Delayed diagnosis and tumor stage in Ewing's sarcoma. Oncol Rep 6: 465–466.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A, Forni C, Zavatta M, Versari M, Smith K (2002) High-grade osteosarcoma of the extremity: differences between localized and metastatic tumors at presentation. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 24: 27–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Balasa AF, Gherasim DN, Gherman B (2012) Clinical evolution of primary intramedullary tumors in adults. Rom J Neurol 11: 165–171.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bell D, Morash C, Dranitsaris G, Izawa J, Short T, Klotz LH, Fleshner N (2006) Does prolonging the time to testicular cancer surgery impact long-term cancer control: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Urol 13: 30–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bertoli S, Berard E, Huguet F, Huynh A, Tavitian S, Vergez F, Dobbelstein S, Dastugue N, Mansat-De Mas V, Delabesse E, Duchayne E, Demur C, Sarry A, Lauwers-Cances V, Laurent G, Attal M, Recher C (2013) Time from diagnosis to intensive chemotherapy initiation does not adversely impact the outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 121: 2618–2626.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bosl G. J, Vogelzang N, Goldman A, Fraley E, Lange P, Levitt S, Kennedy B . Impact of delay in diagnosis on clinical stage of testicular cancer (1981) Lancet 2: 970–972.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brasme JF, Chalumeau M, Oberlin O, Valteau-Couanet Gaspar N (2014) Time to diagnosis of Ewing tumours in children and adolescents is not associated with metastasis or survival: a prospective multi-center study of 436 patients. J Clin Oncol 32: 1935–1940.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brasme JF, Grill J, Doz F, Lacour B, Valteau-Couanet D, Gaillard S, Delalande O, Aghakhani N, Puget S, Chalumeau M (2012a) Long time to diagnosis of medulloblastoma in children is not associated with decreased survival or with worse neurological outcome. PLoS One 7: e33415.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brasme JF, Morfouace M, Grill J, Martinot A, Amalberti R, Bons-Letouzey C, Chalumeau M (2012b) Delays in the diagnosis of paediatric cancers a systematic review and comparison with expert testimony in lawsuits. Lancet Oncol 13: e445–e459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brazda A, Estroff J, Euhus D, Leitch AM, Huth J, Andrews V, Moldrem A, Rao R (2010) Delays in time to treatment and survival impact in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17 (Suppl 3): 291–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brocken P, Kiers Berni AB, Looijen-Salamon MG, Dekhuijzen PNR, Smits-van der Graaf C, Peters-Bax L, de Geus-Oei L, van der Heijden HFM (2012) Timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in a rapid outpatient diagnostic program with combined 18FDG-PET and contrast enhanced CT scanning. Lung Cancer 75: 336–341.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brouha X, Op De Coul B, Terhaard C, Hordijk G (2000) Does waiting time for radiotherapy affect local control of T1N0M0 glottic laryngeal carcinoma? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 25: 215–218.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brouha X, Tromp D, de Leeuw J, Hordijk G, Winnubst J (2005a) Laryngeal cancer patients: analysis of patient delay at different tumor stages. Head Neck 27: 289–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brouha X, Tromp D, Hordijk G, Winnubst J, de Leeuw J (2005b) Oral and pharyngeal cancer: analysis of patient delay at different tumor stages. Head Neck 27: 939–945.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Butros L, Abramson D, Dunkel I (2002) Delayed diagnosis of retinoblastoma: analysis of degree, cause, and potential consequences. Pediatrics 109: E45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carli P, De Giorgi V, Palli D, Maurichi A, Mulas P, Orlandi C, Imberti G, Stanganelli I, Soma P, Dioguardi D, Catricalá C, Betti R, Cecchi R, Bottoni U, Bonci A, Scalvenzi M, Giannotti B (2003) Dermatologist detection and skin self-examination are associated with thinner melanomas results from a survey of the italian multidisciplinary group on melanoma. Arch Dermatol 139: 607–612.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cassileth B, Clark W, Heiberger R, March V, Tenaglia A (1982) Relationship between patients early recognition of melanoma and depth of invasion. Cancer 49: 198–200.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Caudell J, Locher J, Bonner J (2011) Diagnosis-to-treatment interval and control of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137: 282–285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cerdan-Santacruz C, Cano-Valderrama O, Cardenas-Crespo S, Torres-Garcia A, Cerdan-Miguel J (2011) Colorectal cancer and its delayed diagnosis: have we improved in the past 25 years? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 103: 458–463.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chilvers C, Saunders M, Bliss J, Nicholls J, Horwich A (1989) Influence of delay in diagnosis on prognosis in testicular teratoma. Br J Cancer 59: 126–128.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Christensen E, Harvald T, Jendresen M, Aggestrup S, Petterson G (1997) The impact of delayed diagnosis of lung cancer on the stage at the time of operation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 12: 880–884.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Crawford J, Zaninovic A, Santi M, Rushing EJ, Olsen CH, Keating RF, Vezina G, Kadom N, Packer RJ (2009) Primary spinal cord tumors of childhood: effects of clinical presentation, radiographic features, and pathology on survival. J Neurooncol 95: 259–269.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Crawford S, Davis J, Siddiqui N, de Caestecker L, Gillis C, Hole D, Penney G (2002) The waiting time paradox: Population based retrospective study of treatment delay and survival of women with endometrial cancer in Scotland. Br Med J 325: 196.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Currie A, Evans J, Smith N, Brown G, Abulafi A, Swift R (2012) The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival. Colorectal Dis 4: 848–853.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Deng S, An W, Gao J, Yin J, Cai Q, Yang M, Hong S, Fu X, Yu E, Xu X, Zhu W, Li Z (2012) Factors influencing diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a hospital-based survey in china. J Dig Dis 13: 517–524.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Diaconescu R, Lafond C, Whittom R . Treatment delays in non-small cell lung cancer and their prognostic implications (2011) J Thorac Oncol 6: 1254–1259.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dieckmann K, Becker T, Bauer H (1987) Testicular tumors: presentation and role of diagnostic delay. Urol Int 42: 241–247.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Eastman A, Tammaro Y, Moldrem A, Andrews V, Huth J, Euhus D, Leitch M, Rao R (2013) Outcomes of delays in time to treatment in triple negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20: 1880–1885.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) (2001) Systematic Reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in Context 2nd edn BMJ Books: London.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Elit L, O'Leary E, Pond G, Seow H (2013) Impact of wait times on survival for women with uterine cancer. J Clin Oncol 51: 67.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Emery J, Shaw K, Williams B, Maaza D, Fallon-Ferguson J, Varlow M, Trevena L (2014) The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11: 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ermiah E, Abdalla F, Buhmeida A, Larbesh E, Pyrhonen S, Collan Y (2012) Diagnosis delay in Libyan female breast cancer. BMC Res Notes 5: 452.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Erwenne CM, Franco EL (1989) Age and lateness of referral as determinants of extra-ocular retinoblastoma. Ophthalmic Paediatr Genet 10: 179–184.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B (2013) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer. An opportunity for improvement. JAMA 310: 797–798.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fahmy NM, Mahmud S, Aprikian AG (2006) Delay in the surgical treatment of bladder cancer and survival: systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 50: 1176–1182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fernandez E, Porta M, Malats N, Belloc J, Gallén M (2002) Symptom-to-diagnosis interval and survival in cancers of the digestive tract. Dig Dis Sci 47: 2434–2440.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ferrari A, Miceli R, Casanova M, Meazza C, Favini F, Luksch R, Catania S, Fiore M, Morosi C, Mariani L (2010) The symptom interval in children and adolescents with soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer 116: 177–183.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fossa DF, Klepp O, Elgio RF, Eliassen G, Melsom H, Urnes T, Wang M (1981) The effect of patient's and doctor's delay in patients with malignant germ cell tumours. Int J Androl 4: 134–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Foulc P, N'Guyen JM, Dréno B (2003) Prognostic factors in Sezary syndrome: a study of 28 patients. Br J Dermatol 149: 1152–1158.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Franceschi S, La Vecchia C, Gallus G, Decarli A, Colombo E, Mangioni C, Tognoni G (1983) Delayed diagnosis of endometrial cancer in Italy. Cancer 51 (6): 1176–1178.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Friese CR, Abel GA, Magazu LS, Neville BA, Richardson LC, Earle CC (2009) Diagnostic delay and complications for older adults with multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 50: 392–400.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Friese CR, Earle CC, Magazu LS, Brown JR, Neville BA, Hevelone ND, Richardson LC, Abel GA (2011) Timeliness and quality of diagnostic care for medicare recipients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer 117: 1470–1477.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fruchter RG, Boyce J (1981) Delays in diagnosis and stage of disease in gynecologic cancer. Cancer Detect Prev 4: 481–486.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gobbi PG, Bergonzi M, Comelli M, Villano L, Pozzoli D, Vanoli A, Dionigi P (2013) The prognostic role of time to diagnosis and presenting symptoms in patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 37: 186–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Goddard AG, Kingston JE (1999) Delay in diagnosis of retinoblastoma: Risk factors and treatment outcome. Br J Ophthalmol 83: 1320–1323.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Gonzalez-Barcala FJ, Garcia-Prim JM, Alvarez-Dobano JM, Moldes-Rodriguez M, Garcia-Sanz MT, Pose-Reino A, Valdes-Cuadrado L (2010) Effect of delays on survival in patients with lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 12: 836–842.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gort M, Otter R, Plukker JTM, Broekhuis M, Klazinga NS (2010) Actionable indicators for short and long term outcomes in rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 46: 1808–1814.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gould MK, Ghaus SJ, Olsson JK, Schultz EM (2008) Timeliness of care in veterans with non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 133: 1167–1173.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Goy J, Hall SF, Feldman-Stewart D, Groome P (2009) Diagnostic delay and disease stage in head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 119: 889–898.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Grotenhuis BA, van Hagen P, Wijnhoven BPL, Spaander MCW, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJB (2010) Delay in diagnostic workup and treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 14: 476–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gulliford MC, Petruckevitch A, Burney PG (1991) Survival with bladder cancer, evaluation of delay in treatment, type of surgeon, and modality of treatment. Br Med J 303: 437–440.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Guzman-Laura KP, Bolibar RI, Alepuz MT, Gonzalez D, Martin M (2011) Impact on the care and time to tumor stage of a program of rapid diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 103: 13–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Halperin EC, Watson DM, George SL (2001) Duration of symptoms prior to diagnosis is related inversely to presenting disease stage in children with medulloblastoma. Cancer 91: 1444–1450.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hansen O, Larsen S, Bastholt L, Godballe C, Jørgensen KE (2005) Duration of symptoms: impact on outcome of radiotherapy in glottic cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 789–794.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hanson PR, Belitsky P, Millard OH, Lannon SG (1993) Prognostic factors in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumours. Can J Surg 36: 537–540.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Harding M, Paul J, Kaye SB (1995) Does delayed diagnosis or scrotal incision affect outcome for men with non-seminomatous germ cell tumours? Br J Urol 76: 491–494.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Haugstvedt TK, Viste A, Eide GE, Soreide O (1991) Patient and physician treatment delay in patients with stomach cancer in Norway is it important. Scand J Gastroenterol 26: 611–619.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hayden JA, Cote P, Bombardier C (2006) Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 144: 427–437.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hayden JA, van der Windt D, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C (2013) Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 158: 280–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Helsing P, Faye R, Langmark F (1997) Cutaneous malignant melanoma. Correlation between tumor characteristics and diagnostic delay in Norwegian patients. Eur J Dermatol 7: 359–361.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ho T, Zahurak M, Koch WM (2004) Prognostic significance of presentation-to-diagnosis interval in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130: 45–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hollenbeck BK, Dunn RL, Ye Z, Hollingsworth JM, Skolarus TA, Kim SP, Montie JE, Lee CT, Wood DP, Miller DC (2010) Delays in diagnosis and bladder cancer mortality. Cancer 116: 5235–5242.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Holmang S, Johansson SL (2006) Impact of diagnostic and treatment delay on survival in patients with renal pelvic and ureteral cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40: 479–484.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Huyghe E, Muller A, Mieusset R, Bujan L, Bachaud JM, Chevreau C, Plante P, Thonneau P (2007) Impact of diagnostic delay in testis cancer: results of a large population-based study. Eur Urol 52: 1710–1716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Jacobi N, Rogers TB, Peterson BA (2008) Prognostic factors in follicular lymphoma: a single institution study. Oncol Rep 20: 185–193.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Jensen AR, Mainz J, Overgaard J (2002) Impact of delay on diagnosis and treatment of primary lung cancer. Acta Oncol 41: 147–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kameda-Smith MM, White MAJ, George EJS, Brown JIM (2013) Time to diagnosis of paediatric posterior fossa tumours: an 11-year West of Scotland experience 2000-2011. Br J Neurosurg 27: 364–369.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kariyawasan CC, Hughes DA, Jayatillake MM, Mehta AB (2007) Multiple myeloma: causes and consequences of delay in diagnosis. QJM 100: 635–640.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kim YH, Bishop K, Varghese A, Hoppe RT (1995) Prognostic factors in erythrodermic mycosis fungoides and the sezary syndrome. Arch Dermatol 131: 1003–1008.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Koivunen P, Rantala N, Hyrynkangas K, Jokinen K, Alho OP (2001) The impact of patient and professional diagnostic delays on survival in pharyngeal cancer. Cancer 92: 2885–2891.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Korets R, Seager CM, Pitman MS, Hruby GW, Benson MC, McKiernan JM (2012) Effect of delaying surgery on radical prostatectomy outcomes: a contemporary analysis. Br J Urol Int 110: 211–216.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Krige JE, Isaacs S, Hudson DA, King HS, Strover RM, Johnson CA (1991) Delay in the diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma. A prospective study in 250 patients. Cancer 68: 2064–2068.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kukal K, Dobrovoljac M, Boltshauser E, Ammann RA, Grotzer MA (2009) Does diagnostic delay result in decreased survival in paediatric brain tumours? Eur J Pediatr 168: 303–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kumar S, Heller RF, Pandey U, Tewari V, Bala N, Oanh KT (2001) Delay in presentation of oral cancer: a multifactor analytical study. Natl Med J India 14: 13–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Launay E, Morfouace M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Gras le-Guen C, Ravaud P, Chalumeau M (2013) Quality of reporting of studies evaluating time to diagnosis: a systematic review in paediatrics. Arch Dis Child 99: 244–250.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lee AWM, Foo W, Law SC, Poon YF, Sze WM, O SK, Tung SY, Lau WH (1997) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma–presenting symptoms and duration before diagnosis. Hong Kong Med J 3: 355–361.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Lethaby CD, Picton S, Kinsey SE, Phillips R, van Laar M, Feltbower RG (2013) A systematic review of time to diagnosis in children and young adults with cancer. Arch Dis Child 98: 349–355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Liedberg F, Anderson H, Månsson A, Månsson W (2003) Diagnostic delay and prognosis in invasive bladder cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 37: 396–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Lim BS, Dennis CR, Gardner B, Newman J (1974) Analysis of survival versus patient and doctor delay of treatment in gastrointestinal cancer. Am J Surg 127: 210–214.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Lins MM, Amorim M, Vilela P, Viana M, Ribeiro RC, Pedrosa A, Lucena-Silva N, Howard SC, Pedrosa F (2012) Delayed diagnosis of leukemia and association with morbid-mortality in children in Pernambuco, Brazil. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 34: e271–e276.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Loh AHP, Aung L, Ha C, Tan A-M, Quah TC, Chui C-H (2012) Diagnostic delay in pediatric solid tumors: a population based study on determinants and impact on outcomes. Pediatr Blood Cancer 58: 561–565.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Loh LC, Chan LY, Tan RY, Govindaraju S, Ratnavelu K, Kumar S, Raman S, Vijayasingham P, Thayaparan T (2006) Time delay and its effect on survival in Malaysian patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma. Malays J Med Sci 13: 37–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Lurie G, Wilkens LR, Thompson PJ, Matsuno RK, Carney ME, Goodman MT (2010) Symptom presentation in invasive ovarian carcinoma by tumor histological type and grade in a multiethnic population: a case analysis. Gynecol Oncol 119: 278–284.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Maconi G, Kurihara H, Panizzo V, Russo A, Cristaldi M, Marrelli D, Roviello F, de Manzoni G, Di Leo A, Morgagni P, Bechi P, Bianchi Porro G, Taschieri AM (2003) Gastric cancer in young patients with no alarm symptoms: focus on delay in diagnosis, stage of neoplasm and survival. Scand J Gastroenterol 38: 1249–1255.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Maguire A, Porta M, Malats N, Gallén M, Piñol JL, Fernandez E (1994) Cancer survival and the duration of symptoms–an analysis of possible forms of the risk-function. Eur J Cancer 30A: 785–792.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Martin IG, Young S, Sue-Ling H, Johnston D (1997) Delays in the diagnosis of oesophagogastric cancer: a consecutive case series. Br Med J 314: 467–470.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Marwaha RK, Kulkarni KP, Bansal D, Trehan A (2010a) Acute lymphoblastic leukemia masquerading as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: diagnostic pitfall and association with survival. Ann Hematol 89: 249–254.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Marwaha RK, Kulkarni KP, Bansal D, Trehan A (2010b) Pattern of mortality in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: experience from a single center in northern India. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 32: 366–369.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. McGurk MC, Chan C, Jones J, O'regan E, Sherriff M (2005) Delay in diagnosis and its effect on outcome in head and neck cancer. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43: 281–284.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. McLaughlin JM, Anderson RT, Ferketich AK, Seiber EE, Balkrishnan R, Paskett ED (2012) Effect on survival of longer intervals between confirmed diagnosis and treatment initiation among low-income women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30: 4493–4500.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. McLean SR, Karsanji D, Wilson J, Dixon E, Sutherland FR, Pasieka J, Ball C, Bathe OF (2013) The effect of wait times on oncological outcomes from periampullary adenocarcinomas. J Surg Oncol 107: 853–858.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Medical Research Council Work Party, Testicular Tumours (1985) Prognostic factors in advanced non-seminomatous germ-cell testicular tumours results of a multicenter study. Lancet 1: 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Meffan PJ, Delahunt B, Nacey JN (1991) The value of early diagnosis in the treatment of patients with testicular cancer. NZ Med J 104: 393–394.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Menczer J (2000) Diagnosis and treatment delay in gynecological malignancies: does it affect outcome? Int J Gynecol Cancer 10: 89–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Menczer J, Chetrit A, Sadetzki S (2009) The effect of symptom duration in epithelial ovarian cancer on prognostic factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279: 797–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Menczer J, Krissi H, Chetrit A, Gaynor J, Lerner L, Ben-Baruch G, Modan B (1995) The effect of diagnosis and treatment delay on prognostic factors and survival in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173: 774–778.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Metzger S, Ellwanger U, Stroebel W, Schiebel U, Rassner G, Fierlbeck G (1998) Extent and consequences of physician delay in the diagnosis of acral melanoma. Melanoma Res 8: 181–186.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Miziara ID, Cahali MB, Murakami MS, Figueiredo LA, Guimaraes JR (1998) Cancer of the larynx: correlation of clinical characteristics, site of origin, stage, histology and diagnostic delay. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 119: 101–104.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Mohan A, Mohan C, Bhutani M, Pathak AK, Pal H, Das C, Guleria R (2006) Quality of life in newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer in a developing country: is it important? Eur J Cancer Care 15: 293–298.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151: 264–269.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Mommsen S, Aagaard J, Sell A (1983) Presenting symptoms, treatment delay and survival in bladder cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 17: 163–167.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Montella M, Crispo A, Grimaldi M, De Marco MR, Ascierto PA, Parasole R, Melucci MT, Silvestro P, Fabbrocini G (2002) An assessment of factors related to tumor thickness and delay in diagnosis of melanoma in Southern Italy. Prev Med 35: 271–277.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Moul JW, Paulson DF, Dodge RK, Walther PJ (1990) Delay in diagnosis and survival in testicular cancer: Impact of effective therapy and changes during 18 years. J Urol 143: 520–523.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Mujar M, Dahlui M, Yip CH, Taib NA (2013) Delays in time to primary treatment after a diagnosis of breast cancer: does it impact survival? Prev Med 56: 222–224.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Murai T, Shibamoto Y, Baba F, Hashizume C, Mori Y, Ayakawa S, Kawai T, Takemoto S, Sugie C, Ogino H (2012) Progression of non-small-cell lung cancer during the interval before stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82: 463–467.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Murchie P, Raja EA, Brewster DH, Campbell NC, Ritchie LD, Robertson R, Samuel L, Gray N, Lee AJ (2014) Time from presentation in primary care to treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer: effect on disease stage and survival. Br J Cancer 111: 461–469.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Myrdal G, Lambe M, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, Agustsson T, Ståhle E (2004) Effect of delays on prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax 59: 45–49.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Nagle CM, Francis JE, Nelson AE, Zorbas H, Luxford K, de Fazio A, Fereday S, Bowtell DD, Green AC, Webb PM (2011) Reducing time to diagnosis does not improve outcomes for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 29: 2253–2258.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Nakamura T, Matsumine A, Matsubara T, Asanuma K, Uchida A, Sudo A (2011) The symptom-to-diagnosis delay in soft tissue sarcoma influence the overall survival and the development of distant metastasis. J Surg Oncol 104: 771–775.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Napier MP, Rustin GJ (2000) Diagnostic delay and risk of relapse in patients with stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumour followed on active surveillance. Br J Urol Int 86: 486–489.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Neal RD (2009) Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter? Br J Cancer 101: S9–S12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Neal RD, Allgar VL, Ali N, Leese B, Heywood P, Proctor G, Evans J (2007) Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes. Br J Gen Pract 57: 212–219.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews 2nd edn NHS CRD, University of York: York, UK.

  123. Norum J (1995) The effect of diagnostic delay in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Anticancer Res 15: 2707–2710.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Obermair AE, Hanzal E, Schreiner-Frech I, Buxbaum P, Bancher-Todesca D, Thoma M, Kurz C, Vavra N, Gitsch G, Sevelda P (1996) Influence of delayed diagnosis on established prognostic factors in endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res 16: 947–949.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. O’Brien D, Loeb S, Carvalhal GF, McGuire BB, Kan D, Hofer MD, Casey JT, Helfand BT, Catalona WJ (2011) Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 185: 2143–2147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Olsson JK, Schultz EM, Gould MK (2009) Timeliness of care in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review. Thorax 64: 749–756.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Pirog EC, Heller DS, Westhoff C (1997) Endometrial adenocarcinoma–Lack of correlation between treatment delay and tumor stage. Gynecol Oncol 67: 303–308.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Pita-Fernandez S, Montero-Martinez C, Pértega-Diaz S, Verea-Hernando H (2007) Relationship between delayed diagnosis and the degree of invasion and survival in lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 56: 820–825.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Pitchers M, Martin C (2006) Delay in referral of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma to secondary care correlates with a more advanced stage at presentation, and is associated with poorer survival. Br J Cancer 94: 955–958.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Prabhu M, Kochupillai V, Sharma S, Ramachandran P, Sundaram KR, Bijlani L, Ahuja RK (1986) Prognostic assessment of various parameters in chronic myeloid leukemia. Cancer 58: 1357–1360.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Prout GR, Griffin PP . Testicular tumors: delay in diagnosis and influence on survival (1984) Am Fam Physician 29: 205–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Pruitt SL, Harzke AJ, Davidson NO, Schootman M (2013) Do diagnostic and treatment delays for colorectal cancer increase risk of death? Cancer Causes Control 24: 961–977.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Radzikowska E, Roszkowski-Sliz K, Glaz P (2012) The impact of timeliness of care on survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Pneumonol Alergol Pol 80: 422–429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Ramos M, Esteva M, Cabeza E, Campillo C, Llobera J, Aguiló A (2007) Relationship of diagnostic and therapeutic delay with survival in colorectal cancer: a review. Eur J Cancer 43: 2467–2478.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Ramos M, Esteva M, Cabeza E, Llobera J, Ruiz A (2008) Lack of association between diagnostic and therapeutic delay and stage of colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 44: 510–521.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Ramsay G, MacKay C, Nanthakumaran S, Craig WL, McAdam TK, Loudon MA (2012) Urgency of referral and its impact on outcome in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 14: e375–e377.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Raptis DA, Fessas C, Belasyse-Smith P, Kurzawinski TR (2010) Clinical presentation and waiting time targets do not affect prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. Surgeon 8: 239–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Redaniel MT, Martin RM, Cawthorn S, Wade J, Jeffreys M (2013) The association of waiting times from diagnosis to surgery with survival in women with localised breast cancer in England. Br J Cancer 109: 42–49.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Renzi C, Mastroeni S, Passarelli F, Mannooranparampil TJ, Caggiati A, Potenza C, Pasquini P (2010) Factors associated with large cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. J Am Acad Dermatol 63: 404–411.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Richards MA, Grob JJ, Avril MF, Delaunay M, Thirion X, Wolkenstein P, Souteyrand P, Dreno B, Bonerandi JJ, Dalac S, Machet L, Guillaume JC, Chevrant-Breton J, Vilmer C, Aubin F, Guillot B, Beylot-Barry M, Lok C, Raison-Peyron N, Chemaly P (1999) Melanoma and tumor thickness: challenges of early diagnosis. Arch Dermatol 135: 269–274.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Richards MA (2009a) The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence. Br J Cancer 101: S1–S4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Richards MA (2009b) The size of the prize for earlier diagnosis of cancer in England. Br J Cancer 101: S125–S129.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Richards MA, Hiom S (2009) Diagnosing cancer earlier: evidence for a national awareness and early diagnosis initiative. Br J Cancer 101: S1–S129.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Robinson KM, Christensen KB, Ottesen B, Krasnik A (2012) Diagnostic delay, quality of life and patient satisfaction among women diagnosed with endometrial or ovarian cancer: a nationwide Danish study. Qual Life Res 21: 1519–1525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Roland CL, Schwarz RE, Tong L, Ahn C, Balch GC, Yopp AC, Anthony T, Mansour JC (2013) Is timing to delivery of treatment a reliable measure of quality of care for patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma? Surgery 154: 421–428.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Rougraff BT, Davis K, Lawrence J (2007) Does length of symptoms before diagnosis of sarcoma affect patient survival? Clin Orthop Relat Res 462: 181–189.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Rubin G, Walter F, Emery J, Neal RD, Hamilton W, Wardle J (2014) Research into practice: earlier diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Br J Gen Pract 64: 428–430.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Ruka W, Emrich LJ, Driscoll DL, Karakousis CP (1988) Tumor size/symptom duration ratio as a prognostic factor in patients with high-grade soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 24: 1583–1588.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Saithna A, Pynsent PB, Grimer RJ (2008) Retrospective analysis of the impact of symptom duration on prognosis in soft tissue sarcoma. Int Orthop 32: 381–384.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Salomaa E, Sällinen S, Hiekkanen H, Liippo K (2005) Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Chest 128: 2282–2288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Scher H, Bosl G, Geller N, Cirrincione C, Whitmore W, Golbey R (1983) Impact of symptomatic interval on prognosis of patients with stage III testicular cancer. Urology 21: 559–561.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Schmid-Wendtner MH, Baumert J, Stange J, Volkenandt M (2002) Delay in the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 233 patients. Melanoma Res 12: 389–394.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Scott SE, Grunfeld EA, McGurk M (2005) The idiosyncratic relationship between diagnostic delay and stage of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 41: 396–403.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Seoane J, Pita-Fernandez S, Gomez I, Vazquez I, Lopez-Cedrun Jose L, De Augustin A, Vareal-Centelles P (2010) Proliferative activity and diagnostic delay in oral cancer. Head Neck 32: 1377–1384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Seoane J, Takkouche B, Varela-Centelles P, Tomas I, Seoane-Romero JM (2012) Impact of delay in diagnosis on survival to head and neck carcinomas: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 37: 99–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Sethi RV, Marino R, Niemierko A, Tarbell NJ, Yock TI, MacDonald SM (2013) Delayed diagnosis in children with intracranial germ cell tumors. J Pediatr 163: 1448–1453.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Sharpe D, Williams RN, Ubhi SS, Sutton CD, Bowrey DJ (2010) The ‘two-week wait’ referral pathway allows prompt treatment but does not improve outcome for patients with oesophago-gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 36: 977–981.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Sheng L, Shui Y, Shen L, Wei Q (2008) Effect of patient-related delay in diagnosis on the extent of disease and prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Am J Rhinol 22: 317–320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Sidler D, Winterhalder R, Huber G, Haerle SK (2010) Undifferentiated carcinoma of nasopharyngeal type (UCNT): A Swiss single-institutional experience during 1990-2005. Swiss Med Wkly 140: 273–279.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Simpson PM, Reid R, Porter D (2005) Ewing's sarcoma of the upper extremity: Presenting symptoms, diagnostic delay and outcome. Sarcoma 9: 15–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  161. Singal AG, Waljee AK, Patel N, Chen EY, Tiro JA, Marrero JA, Yopp AC (2013) Therapeutic delays lead to worse survival among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11: 1101–1108.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Singh H, Shu E, Demers A, Bernstein CN, Griffith J, Fradette K (2012) Trends in time to diagnosis of colon cancer and impact on clinical outcomes. Can J Gastroenterol 26: 877–880.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Skaug K, Eide GE, Gulsvik A (2011) Predictors of long-term survival of lung cancer patients in a Norwegian community. Clin Respir J 5: 50–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Smith EC, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H (2013) Delay in surgical treatment and survival after breast cancer diagnosis in young women by race/ethnicity. JAMA Surg 148: 516–523.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Smith EM, Anderson B (1985) The effects of symptoms and delay in seeking diagnosis on stage of disease at diagnosis among women with cancers of the ovary. Cancer 56: 2727–2732.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Sue GR, Lannin Donald R, Killelea B, Tsangaris T, Chagpar AB (2013) Does time to definitive treatment matter in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ? Am Surg 79: 561–565.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Sun M, Abdollah F, Hansen J, Trinh Q-D, Bianchi M, Tian Z, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Is a treatment delay in radical prostatectomy safe in individuals with low-risk prostate cancer? J Sex Med 9: 2961–2969.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Sundi D, Svatek RS, Margulis V, Wood CG, Matin SF, Dinney CP, Kamat AM (2012) Upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Impact of time to surgery. Urol Oncol 30: 266–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Temoshok L, DiClemente RJ, Sweet DM, Blois MS, Sagebiel RW (1984) Factors related to patient delay in seeking medical attention for cutaneous malignant melanoma. Cancer 54: 3048–3053.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Teppo H, Alho OP (2008) Relative importance of diagnostic delays in different head and neck cancers. Clin Otolaryngol 33: 325–330.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Teppo H, Heikkinen J, Alho OP (2009) Diagnostic delays in vestibular schwannoma. J Laryngol Otol 123: 289–293.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Teppo H, Hyrynkangas K, Koivunen P, Jokinen K, Alho OP (2005) Impact of patient and professional diagnostic delays on the risk of recurrence in laryngeal carcinoma. Clin Otolaryngol 30: 157–163.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Teppo H, Koivunen P, Hyrynkangas K, Alho OP (2003) Diagnostic delays in laryngeal carcinoma: professional diagnostic delay is a strong independent predictor of survival. Head Neck 25: 389–394.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Terhaar sive Droste JS, Oort FA, van der Hulst RW, Coupe VM, Craanen ME, Meijer GA, Morsink LM, Visser O, van Wanrooij RLJ, Mulder CJJ (2010) Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study. BMC Cancer 10: 332.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  175. Thompson MR, Asiimwe A, Flashman K, Tsavellas G (2011) Is earlier referral and investigation of bowel cancer patients presenting with rectal bleeding associated with better survival? Colorectal Dis 13: 1242–1248.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Thompson MR, Heath I, Swarbrick ET, Faulds Wood L, Ellis BG (2010) Earlier diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic bowel cancer: can it be achieved and how much will it improve survival? Colorectal Dis 13: 6–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  177. Tokuda Y, Chinen K, Obara H, Joishy SK (2009) Intervals between symptom onset and clinical presentation in cancer patients. Intern Med 48: 899–905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Tomlinson C, Wong C, Au HJ, Schiller D (2012) Factors associated with delays to medical assessment and diagnosis for patients with colorectal cancer. Can Fam Physician 58: e495–e501.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Tørring ML, Frydenberg M, Hamilton W, Hansen RP, Lautrup MD, Vedsted P (2012) Diagnostic interval and mortality in colorectal cancer: U-shaped association demonstrated for three different datasets. J Clin Epidemiol 65: 669–678.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Tørring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Hamilton W, Vedsted P (2011) Time to diagnosis and mortality in colorectal cancer: a cohort study in primary care. Br J Cancer 104: 934–940.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Tørring ML, Frydenberg M, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P (2013) Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. Eur J Cancer 49 (9): 2187–2198.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Toth-Fejel S, Pommier RF (2004) Relationships among delay of diagnosis, extent of disease, and survival in patients with abdominal carcinoid tumors. Am J Surg 187: 575–579.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Tromp DM, Brouha X, Hordijk GJ, Winnubst JAM, de Leeuw RJ (2005) Patient and tumour factors associated with advanced carcinomas of the head and neck. Oral Oncol 41: 313–319.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Umezu T, Shibata K, Kajiyama H, Yamamoto E, Mizuno M, Kikkawa F (2012) Prognostic factors in stage IA-IIA cervical cancer patients treated surgically: does the waiting time to the operation affect survival? Arch Gynecol Obstet 285: 493–497.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Valentin-Lopez B, Ferrandiz-Santos J, Blasco-Amaro J-A, Morillas-Sainz J-D, Ruiz-Lopez P (2012) Assessment of a rapid referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer in Madrid. Fam Pract 29: 182–188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Van Hout A, de Wit NJ, Rutten FH, Peeters PHM (2011) Determinants of patient's and doctor's delay in diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23: 1056–1063.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Vernham GA, Crowther JA (1994) Head and neck carcinoma–Stage at presentation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 19: 120–124.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Wagner JL, Warneke CL, Mittendorf EA, Bedrosian I, Babiera GV, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Yang W, Sahin AA, Meric-Bernstam F (2011) Delays in primary surgical treatment are not associated with significant tumor size progression in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg 254: 119–124.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Wahl SK, Gildengorin G, Feusner J (2012) Weekend delay in initiation of chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: does it matter? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 34: e8–e11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Waldert M, Karakiewicz PI, Raman JD, Remzi M, Isbarn H, Lotan Y, Capitanio U, Bansalah K, Marberger MJ, Shariat SF (2010) A delay in radical nephroureterectomy can lead to upstaging. Br J Urol Int 105: 812–817.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Wallace DM, Bryan RT, Dunn JA, Begum G, Bathers S (2002) Delay and survival in bladder cancer. Br J Urol Int 89: 868–878.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  192. Wallach MA, Balmer A, Munier F, Houghton S, Pampallona S, von der Weid N, Beck-Popovic M (2006) Shorter time to diagnosis and improved stage at presentation in Swiss patients with retinoblastoma treated from 1963 to 2004. Pediatrics 118: e1493–e1498.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Wang J, Liu F, Gao H, Wei W, Zhang X, Liang Y, Cheng Y (2008) The symptom-to-treatment delay and stage at the time of treatment in cancer of esophagus. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38: 87–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Ware SM, Al-Askari S, Morales P (1980) Testicular germ cell tumors: Prognostic factors. Urology 15: 348–352.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Warner ET, Tamimi RM, Hughes ME, Ottesen RA, Wong Y-N, Edge SB, Theriault RL, Blayney DW, Niland JC, Winer EP, Weeks JC, Partridge AH (2012) Time to diagnosis and breast cancer stage by race/ethnicity. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136: 813–821.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  196. Weller D, Vedsted P, Rubin G, Walter FM, Emery J, Scott S, Campbell C, Andersen RS, Hamilton W, Olesen F, Rose P, Nafees S, van Rijswijk E, Hiom S, Muth C, Beyer M, Neal RD (2012) ‘The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis’. Br J Cancer 106: 1262–1267.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Wildt J, Bundgaard T, Bentzen SM (1995) Delay in the diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 20: 21–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Windham TC, Termuhlen PM, Ajani JA, Mansfield PF (2002) Adenocarcinoma of the stomach in patients age 35 years and younger: No impact of early diagnosis on survival outcome. J Surg Oncol 81: 118–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Wishnow KI, Johnson DE, Preston WL, Tenney DM, Brown BW (1990) Prompt orchiectomy reduces morbidity and mortality from testicular carcinoma. Br J Urol 65: 629–633.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Wright GP, Wong JH, Morgan JW, Roy-Chowdhury S, Kazanjian K, Lum SS (2010) Time from diagnosis to surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing delays in initiating treatment. Am Surg 76: 1119–1122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Wurtz LD, Peabody TD, Simon MA (1999) Delay in the diagnosis and treatment of primary bone sarcoma of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg 81: 317–325.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Yang JYK, Cheng FW, Wong KC, Lee V, Leung WK, Shing MM, Kumta SM, Li CK (2009) Initial presentation and management of osteosarcoma, and its impact on disease outcome. Hong Kong Med J 15: 434–439.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Yilmaz A, Damadoglu E, Salturk C, Okur E, Tuncer LY, Halezeroglu S (2008) Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of primary lung cancer: are longer delays associated with advanced pathological stage? Ups J Med Sci 113: 287–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Yun YH, Kim YA, Park S, Won YJ, Kim DY, Choi IJ, Kim YW (2012) The influence of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on long term survival after cancer surgery. Ann Oncol 23: 2731–2737.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Zafar A, Mak T, Whinnie S, Chapman MAS (2011) The 2-week wait referral system does not improve 5-year colorectal cancer survival. Colorectal Dis 14: 177–180.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Ziliotto AJ, Kunzle JE, De Souza A, Colicchio-Filho O (1987) Evolutive and prognostic aspects in gastric cancer analysis of 189 cases. Cancer 59: 811–817.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The original study and the update were funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C8350/A8870 and C8350/A17915, through EDAG–Early Diagnosis Advisory Group). RDN also receives funding from Public Health Wales and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. We thank other members of the ABC-DEEP consortium who did not contribute directly to this review but gave valuable advice throughout the study. We also thank others who contributed to the original review. We also thank staff at Cancer Research UK for their support and feedback throughout the review. Last, we thank Emma Kennerley for administrative support. We acknowledge that two of the co-authors (RDN and MLT) were also authors of papers included in the review. These papers were independently assessed by other members of the research team. The updated review is registered with PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014006301).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R D Neal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on British Journal of Cancer website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neal, R., Tharmanathan, P., France, B. et al. Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer 112, S92–S107 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.48

Download citation

Keywords

  • systematic review
  • diagnosis
  • delays
  • survival
  • stage

Further reading

Search