Article

Delay in diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma

Department of Otolaryngology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Clinical Otolaryngology (Impact Factor: 2.39). 03/1995; 20(1):21-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.1995.tb00006.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Delay in diagnosis was recorded prospectively in 167 patients with an oral squamous cell carcinoma. The median total delay was 4 months of which two-thirds was patient delay. The corrected survival did not correlate with the total delay. The patient delay was not significantly correlated with tumour or patient factors and the unreliable nature of patient delay information makes such data clinically unusable. In contrast, the professional delay correlated significantly with some of these factors. The delay was longer for women than for men and the older the patient, the longer the delay. The professional delay was longest in patients with small tumours. Thus, registration of the professional delay provides information to be used to improve the diagnostic efficiency of the health care system.

0 Followers
 · 
67 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    • "Survival Patientinterval(Koivunenetal,2001–pharyngeal;Teppo andAlho,2008–pharyngealandlaryngealcancers (separately)) Diagnosticinterval(Alhoetal,2006–headandneck unspecified;Teppoetal,2003–laryngeal;Teppoand Alho,2008–laryngeal) Symptomonsettotreatment(Hansenetal,2004– laryngeal) Treatmentinterval(Sidleretal,2010–nasopharyngeal) Survival Patientinterval(Teppoetal,2003–laryngeal;Teppoand Alho,2008–tongue) Diagnosticinterval(Seoaneetal,2010–oral;Teppoand Alho,2008–pharyngealandtongue(separately);Koivunen etal,2001–pharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Wildtetal,1995–oral) Symptomonsettotreatment(McGurketal,2005–headand neckunspecified) Treatmentinterval(Caudelletal,2011–headandneck unspecified;Brouhaetal,2000–laryngeal) Stage Patientinterval(Kumaretal,2001–oral;Brouhaetal, 2005b–oralandpharyngealcancer(separately);Leeetal, 1997–nasopharyngeal;Shengetal,2008– nasopharyngeal;Trompetal,2005–headandneck unspecified;Tokudaetal,2009–headandneck unspecified;Trompetal,2005–headandneck unspecified) Diagnosticinterval(Allisonetal,1998–aerodigestive tract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Allisonetal,1998– aerodigestivetract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal) Symptomonsettoreferral(PitchersandMartin,2006– oropharyngeal) Stage Patientinterval(Allisonetal,1998–upperaerodigestive tract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal;Brouhaetal, 2005a–laryngealcancer;Wildtetal,1995–oral;Teppoetal, 2009–vestibularschwannoma) Diagnosticinterval(Teppoetal,2009–vestibular schwannoma;Hoetal,2004–oropharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Miziaraetal,1998–laryngeal; Scottetal,2005–oral) Symptomonsettoreferral(VernhamandCrowther,1994 headandneckunspecified) Symptomonsettotreatment(McGurketal,2005–headand neckunspecified) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    British Journal of Cancer 03/2015; 112. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.48 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Survival Patientinterval(Koivunenetal,2001–pharyngeal;Teppo andAlho,2008–pharyngealandlaryngealcancers (separately)) Diagnosticinterval(Alhoetal,2006–headandneck unspecified;Teppoetal,2003–laryngeal;Teppoand Alho,2008–laryngeal) Symptomonsettotreatment(Hansenetal,2004– laryngeal) Treatmentinterval(Sidleretal,2010–nasopharyngeal) Survival Patientinterval(Teppoetal,2003–laryngeal;Teppoand Alho,2008–tongue) Diagnosticinterval(Seoaneetal,2010–oral;Teppoand Alho,2008–pharyngealandtongue(separately);Koivunen etal,2001–pharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Wildtetal,1995–oral) Symptomonsettotreatment(McGurketal,2005–headand neckunspecified) Treatmentinterval(Caudelletal,2011–headandneck unspecified;Brouhaetal,2000–laryngeal) Stage Patientinterval(Kumaretal,2001–oral;Brouhaetal, 2005b–oralandpharyngealcancer(separately);Leeetal, 1997–nasopharyngeal;Shengetal,2008– nasopharyngeal;Trompetal,2005–headandneck unspecified;Tokudaetal,2009–headandneck unspecified;Trompetal,2005–headandneck unspecified) Diagnosticinterval(Allisonetal,1998–aerodigestive tract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Allisonetal,1998– aerodigestivetract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal) Symptomonsettoreferral(PitchersandMartin,2006– oropharyngeal) Stage Patientinterval(Allisonetal,1998–upperaerodigestive tract;Al-Rajhietal,2009–nasopharyngeal;Brouhaetal, 2005a–laryngealcancer;Wildtetal,1995–oral;Teppoetal, 2009–vestibularschwannoma) Diagnosticinterval(Teppoetal,2009–vestibular schwannoma;Hoetal,2004–oropharyngeal) Symptomonsettodiagnosis(Miziaraetal,1998–laryngeal; Scottetal,2005–oral) Symptomonsettoreferral(VernhamandCrowther,1994 headandneckunspecified) Symptomonsettotreatment(McGurketal,2005–headand neckunspecified) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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
    The British journal of cancer. Supplement 03/2015; DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.48.
  • Source
    • "Any permanent mucosal lesion that does not have an obvious etiology such as trauma or infection needs further diagnostic. Failure to conform to the standard of care, which requires all unexplained lesions to be evaluated, can have dire consequences for both the patient and the oral care provider [27,28]. The results of this longitudinal study, matching fluorescent light diagnostic and scalpel biopsies were performed simultaneously on patients with minimally suspicious oral lesions demonstrate that the VELscope device is a highly sensitive and specific, noninvasive test in the chair side evaluation of all oral lesions without an etiology. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The disease specific five-year survival rate especially for patients with advanced oral cancer has not improved significantly over the period of time. The most effective way of combating this dilemma is an early detection, diagnosis and eradication of early-stage lesions and their precursors. The use of VELscope(R) using an autofluorescence as a diagnostic tool might be useful in early detection of oral malignant lesions.Materials and methods120 patients with suspicious oral premalignant lesions were examined with two examination methods. They were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 was examined conventional with white-light and group 2 was examined additionally to the white-light-examination with an autofluorescence visualization device, VELscope(R). Biopsies were obtained from all suspicious areas identified in both examination groups (n = 52). The diagnostic strategies were compared regarding sensitivity and specificity. Based upon the result, use of the VELscope(R) leads to a higher sensitivity (22.0%), but regarding specificity the additional use of the VELscope(R) is inferior (8.4%). The VELscope device is a simple, non-invasive test of the oral mucosa, which can help the experienced clinician to find oral precursor malignant lesions.
    Head & Face Medicine 08/2013; 9(1):23. DOI:10.1186/1746-160X-9-23 · 0.87 Impact Factor
Show more