早发性结直肠癌的诊断途径:探索诊断间隔及其对预后的影响。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Future oncology Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-08 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2526319
Oliver Waddell, Andrew McCombie, Tamara Glyn, John Pearson, Jacqueline Keenan, Frank Frizelle
{"title":"早发性结直肠癌的诊断途径:探索诊断间隔及其对预后的影响。","authors":"Oliver Waddell, Andrew McCombie, Tamara Glyn, John Pearson, Jacqueline Keenan, Frank Frizelle","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2526319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early-onset colorectal cancer, diagnosed before 50 years (EOCRC), is rising. Previous studies suggest younger patients experience longer diagnostic intervals potentially contributing to poorer outcomes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study comparing EOCRC patients in Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand, with a control group of late-onset patients (65+ years, LOCRC). Pathways to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-three consecutive EOCRC patients were compared 64 LOCRC patients. The younger cohort was more likely to have advanced disease (stage four in 32% v 17%). Pathways to diagnosis were comparable between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). EOCRC patients, however, visited their GP more frequently before diagnosis (<i>p</i> = 0.04), and 40% had an appraisal interval (time from symptoms to seeking medical advice) exceeding 3 months compared to 26% of LOCRC patients, though this was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.146). Stage four EOCRCs were less likely to have appraisal intervals >3 months (OR 0.28, <i>p</i> = 0.046).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pathways to diagnosis were similar between EOCRC and LOCRC patients. Shorter diagnostic intervals were associated with advanced disease, indicating that shortening diagnostic intervals alone may not improve outcomes. Diagnosing CRC prior to symptoms develop (screening) is likely the best way to improve outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"2471-2482"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12330238/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pathway to diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer: exploring diagnostic intervals and their effect on outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Waddell, Andrew McCombie, Tamara Glyn, John Pearson, Jacqueline Keenan, Frank Frizelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14796694.2025.2526319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early-onset colorectal cancer, diagnosed before 50 years (EOCRC), is rising. Previous studies suggest younger patients experience longer diagnostic intervals potentially contributing to poorer outcomes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study comparing EOCRC patients in Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand, with a control group of late-onset patients (65+ years, LOCRC). Pathways to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-three consecutive EOCRC patients were compared 64 LOCRC patients. The younger cohort was more likely to have advanced disease (stage four in 32% v 17%). Pathways to diagnosis were comparable between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). EOCRC patients, however, visited their GP more frequently before diagnosis (<i>p</i> = 0.04), and 40% had an appraisal interval (time from symptoms to seeking medical advice) exceeding 3 months compared to 26% of LOCRC patients, though this was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.146). Stage four EOCRCs were less likely to have appraisal intervals >3 months (OR 0.28, <i>p</i> = 0.046).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pathways to diagnosis were similar between EOCRC and LOCRC patients. Shorter diagnostic intervals were associated with advanced disease, indicating that shortening diagnostic intervals alone may not improve outcomes. Diagnosing CRC prior to symptoms develop (screening) is likely the best way to improve outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2471-2482\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12330238/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2526319\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2526319","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:50岁前诊断的早发性结直肠癌(EOCRC)正在上升。先前的研究表明,年轻患者的诊断间隔时间较长,可能导致预后较差。研究设计和方法:一项前瞻性队列研究,比较新西兰坎特伯雷的EOCRC患者和对照组的晚发患者(65岁以上,LOCRC)。比较诊断途径和诊断间隔。结果:63例EOCRC患者与64例LOCRC患者相比较。较年轻的队列更有可能患有晚期疾病(4期为32% vs 17%)。两组之间的诊断途径具有可比性(p < 0.05)。然而,EOCRC患者在诊断前更频繁地去看全科医生(p = 0.04), 40%的评估间隔(从症状到寻求医疗建议的时间)超过3个月,而LOCRC患者的这一比例为26%,尽管这并不显著(p = 0.146)。4期eoccs的评估间隔为10 ~ 3个月的可能性较小(OR 0.28, p = 0.046)。结论:EOCRC与LOCRC患者的诊断途径相似。较短的诊断间隔与晚期疾病相关,表明仅缩短诊断间隔可能无法改善预后。在症状出现之前诊断结直肠癌(筛查)可能是改善结果的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The pathway to diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer: exploring diagnostic intervals and their effect on outcomes.

Background: Early-onset colorectal cancer, diagnosed before 50 years (EOCRC), is rising. Previous studies suggest younger patients experience longer diagnostic intervals potentially contributing to poorer outcomes.

Research design and methods: A prospective cohort study comparing EOCRC patients in Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand, with a control group of late-onset patients (65+ years, LOCRC). Pathways to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals were compared.

Results: Sixty-three consecutive EOCRC patients were compared 64 LOCRC patients. The younger cohort was more likely to have advanced disease (stage four in 32% v 17%). Pathways to diagnosis were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). EOCRC patients, however, visited their GP more frequently before diagnosis (p = 0.04), and 40% had an appraisal interval (time from symptoms to seeking medical advice) exceeding 3 months compared to 26% of LOCRC patients, though this was not significant (p = 0.146). Stage four EOCRCs were less likely to have appraisal intervals >3 months (OR 0.28, p = 0.046).

Conclusion: Pathways to diagnosis were similar between EOCRC and LOCRC patients. Shorter diagnostic intervals were associated with advanced disease, indicating that shortening diagnostic intervals alone may not improve outcomes. Diagnosing CRC prior to symptoms develop (screening) is likely the best way to improve outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Future oncology
Future oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
335
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community. The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信