You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 3, Issue 6
  • Gender inequalities in the promptness of diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer after symptomatic presentation: evidence from secondary analysis of an English primary care audit survey

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Health services research
Research
Gender inequalities in the promptness of diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer after symptomatic presentation: evidence from secondary analysis of an English primary care audit survey
  1. Georgios Lyratzopoulos1,
  2. Gary A Abel1,
  3. Sean McPhail2,
  4. Richard D Neal3,
  5. Gregory P Rubin4
  1. 1Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN), London, UK
  3. 3North Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Wrexham, UK
  4. 4Wolfson Research Institute, School of Medicine and Health, University of Durham, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Georgios Lyratzopoulos; gl290{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To explore whether women experience greater delays in the diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer when first presenting to a general practitioner with symptoms caused by those cancers and potential reasons for such gender inequalities.

Design Prospective national audit survey of cancer diagnosis.

Setting English primary care (2009–2010).

Participants 920 patients with bladder and 398 patients with renal cancer (252 (27%) and 165 (42%), respectively, were women).

Primary and secondary outcome measures Proportion of patients with three or more pre-referral consultations; number of days from first presentation to referral; proportion of patients who presented with haematuria and proportion of patients investigated in primary care.

Results Women required three or more prereferral consultations more often than men (27% (95% CI 21% to 33%) vs 11% (9% to 14%) for bladder (p<0.001); and 30% (22% to 39%) vs 18% (13% to 25%) for renal cancer (p=0.025)) and had a greater number of days from presentation to referral. In multivariable analysis (adjusting for age, haematuria status and use of primary care-led investigations), being a woman was independently associated with higher odds of three or more pre-referral consultations (OR=3.29 (2.06 to 5.25, p<0.001) for bladder cancer; and OR=1.90 (1.06 to 3.42, p=0.031) for renal cancer). Although presentation with haematuria was associated with more timely diagnosis of bladder cancer, gender inequalities did not vary by haematuria status for either cancer (p=0.18 for bladder and p=0.27 for renal). Each year in the UK, approximately 700 women with either bladder or renal cancer experience a delayed diagnosis because of their gender, of whom more than a quarter (197, or 28%) present with haematuria.

Conclusions There are notable gender inequalities in the timeliness of diagnosis of urological cancers. There is a need to both reinforce existing guidelines on haematuria investigation and develop new diagnostic decision aids and tests for patients who present without haematuria.

  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • PRIMARY CARE

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002861

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Article summary

    Article focus

    • Limited previous evidence suggests that women with urinary tract cancers may be diagnosed less promptly than men with the same cancers.

    • Evidence is needed from contemporary clinical data sources to establish whether gender inequalities do exist, their magnitude, and their potential causes.

    Key messages

    • Women with bladder and renal cancer are more likely than men to require three or more prereferral consultations with a general practitioner, and to experience longer time intervals between presentation and hospital referral.

    • There were gender differences for patients both with and without haematuria, suggesting that doctors often interpret the clinical importance of haematuria differently in men and women.

    • Population health impact estimates suggest that gender inequalities can be reduced by reinforcing existing clinical guidelines on haematuria management. However, new approaches (such as use of clinical decision support tools) also need to be developed to improve the diagnosis of patients of either gender who present without haematuria.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • We were able to explore potential confounding of gender differences in diagnosis by gender differences in the management of haematuria or by differential use of primary care-led investigations.

    • We have estimated the population health impact of the observed relative differences in the timeliness of diagnosis.

    • The sample size of the study was relatively small (particularly for patients with renal cancer).

    Introduction

    Promptly diagnosing patients who present with symptoms caused by cancer is a pressing priority for healthcare systems worldwide.1–5 Globally, most patients with cancer first present to a non-specialist doctor (usually a general practitioner), who has to appropriately suspect the diagnosis in order to instigate an onward referral to a specialist. Some diagnostic delays therefore occur after presentation to a general practitioner,6 because signs and symptoms are initially attributed to a benign cause. Patients with certain sociodemographic characteristics may be at higher risk of experiencing a less prompt specialist referral.7 ,8 Avoiding delays in diagnosis after presentation to a doctor is an important determinant of patient experience and matters greatly to all patients and their carers.9–12

    In England, uniquely pronounced gender inequalities in relative survival from bladder cancer exist, with 5-year relative survival for men being 57%, compared with 44% for women.13 Further, specifically for bladder and renal cancer (and using English patient-reported data), notable gender inequalities have been reported in the number of times patients had to see their general practitioner with cancer symptoms before referral to a specialist (table 1).8 A US study also showed that women presenting with haematuria to a primary care physician are referred to a urologist for investigation less promptly than men.14 Misattribution of symptoms of urinary tract cancers in women to benign urogenital causes (eg, urinary tract infection) has been hypothesised as the reason for these gender differences,8 but several uncertainties remain: are gender differences in the number of pre-referral consultations apparent when using data sources other than patient surveys? Do differences in the number of prereferral consultations translate to differences in the time interval between first presentation and specialist referral? Could at least some of the gender differences in the promptness of diagnosis be explained by differences in presenting signs and symptoms (particularly haematuria)? Against this background, we set out to examine gender differences in the promptness of diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Gender differences in the promptness of diagnosis of urinary tract cancer (Cancer Patient Experience Survey, 2010)8

    Methods

    Data

    We analysed data from the (English) National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (2009–2010).15 Data on different aspects of the diagnostic process were collected by general practitioners or other primary care professionals in an estimated total of 1170 general practices (∼14% of all practices in England). Details of the methods used in the audit have been published previously.15 ,16 Although general practice participation was voluntary, comparisons with cancer registration statistics indicate that the data set is representative of the age, sex and cancer type breakdown of patients with cancer in England.15 Data were available on two interrelated measures of promptness of diagnosis,16 that is, the number of prereferral consultations and the primary care interval (ie, the time interval between the first symptomatic presentation of a patient with cancer to a general practitioner and their first specialist referral for further investigation,6 measured in days by subtracting the date of first hospital referral from the date of first presentation). We used a binary form of the number of prereferral consultations (three or more vs one or two consultations) reflecting the use of this outcome by both patient groups and UK policy-makers for purposes of public reporting of the performance of NHS hospitals.17 Data were also available for patients’ 5 year age group, sex, main presenting symptom and primary care investigations.

    Analysis

    Initial analysis was restricted to patients with at least one recorded general practitioner consultation before hospital referral and complete information on sex and age group.

    In univariable analysis, we examined crude gender differences in promptness of diagnosis. We also described gender differences in haematuria status and in use of ‘blood test’ and ultrasound scan investigations (as these three factors have the potential to at least partially explain gender differences in promptness of diagnosis). Symptom analysis was restricted to macroscopic haematuria because it was the most common main presenting symptom, because of its singularly strong association with urological cancers18–22 and because of the UK clinical guidelines by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) mandating urgent specialist referral of patients who present with macroscopic haematuria, independently of their gender (‘male or female adult patients of any age who present with painless macroscopic haematuria should be referred urgently’).23 Hereafter, in this manuscript and tables, the term ‘haematuria’ will denote macroscopic haematuria. Investigations were restricted to ‘blood test’ (not otherwise specified in the data set) and ultrasound scan because they were the only two commonly recorded investigations (see online supplementary appendix 1).

    Using multivariable logistic regression, we further explored the association between the number of prereferral consultations (three or more consultations vs one or two) and gender. First, we examined to what extent gender differences are confounded by other variables (age, haematuria status, ultrasound scan investigation, and ‘blood test’). Subsequently, we used a final (‘full’) model including all variables. We further explored interactions of gender by all other variables. Because patients attend different practices, we used a sandwich estimator of standard errors.

    Sensitivity analysis

    We first repeated the multivariable regression model using different definitions of binary categories of the number of prereferral consultations (two or more vs one; and four or more vs one, two or three consultations). We further explored potential bias arising from missing data, using multiple imputation to produce a complete data set,24–27 and repeated the multivariable analysis (outlined above). Multiple imputation assumes that data are ‘missing at random’ (MAR), that is, that any systematic differences between the missing and observed values can be estimated using information from the observed data. The imputation model included all variables used in the analysis model and, in addition, the primary care interval variable (as the primary care interval is strongly correlated with the proportion of three or more prereferral consultations16).

    Population health impact

    Assuming that the national audit data are generalisable to contemporary UK practice, we illustrate the potential population health impact of the findings. For this estimation, we used a logistic regression model (three or more vs one or two consultations) including age, gender and haematuria status as covariates to predict the proportion of men and women (with and without haematuria) who require three or more prereferral consultations both in the presence and absence of gender differences. When assuming no gender differences, we replace the odds ratio for gender by 1. The obtained proportions are scaled using national incidence statistics to give annual numbers for the UK. Stata V.11 was used for all analyses, including the uses of ice and mim commands for multiple imputation.28

    Results

    In total, there were 920 patients with bladder cancer and 398 patients with renal cancer, of whom 252 (27%) and 165 (42%), respectively, were women—proportions similar to contemporary UK population-based incidence statistics (28% and 38%, respectively, for bladder and renal cancer).29 Unless where noted, after exclusion of patients whose diagnosis did not involve a prereferral consultation and missing data (see online supplementary appendix 2), complete case analysis was restricted to 740 patients with bladder cancer and 287 patients with renal cancer with at least one known prereferral consultation. Among patients with bladder and renal cancer, respectively, 91% and 85% were 55 years of age or older (ie, older than the age by which most women would have experienced their menopause) with no evidence of gender differences in these proportions (p=0.77 and p=0.76, respectively, for either cancer).

    Univariable analysis

    Women had longer primary care intervals compared with men for both cancers (table 2) and required three or more prereferral consultations more often than men for either bladder (27% vs 11%, p<0.001) or renal cancer (30% vs 18%, p=0.025, table 3). Although gender differences in the median primary care interval were relatively small (6 vs 4 days for bladder cancer and 16 vs 10 days for renal cancer), substantial differences existed in the tails of the distribution. For either bladder or renal cancer, the 75th centile in women was longer than that in men by about 2 weeks (table 2) and at the 90th centile, the difference increased to over 2 months for bladder cancer and to about 3 weeks for renal cancer.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Centiles of the primary care interval by gender for bladder and renal patients with cancer

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Univariable associations between gender and number of prereferral consultations, recorded haematuria, investigation by ‘blood test’ and ultrasound scan

    About two-thirds of all patients with bladder cancer and about one-quarter of all patients with renal cancer had haematuria as the main recorded primary symptom (table 3)—proportions similar to those previously reported in relevant patient populations (see online supplementary appendix 3).18 ,19 ,21

    Multivariable analysis

    Haematuria status was strongly related to having three or more prereferral consultations but explained only a small amount of the crude gender difference for either cancer (table 4 and online supplementary appendix 4). Similarly, there was no or a limited degree of confounding of the gender association by the other three variables (see online supplementary appendix 4). Using the full model, for bladder cancer, we find that three or more prereferral consultations were substantially more likely in women (OR=3.29 (2.06 to 5.25, p<0.001, table 4)) and less likely among those presenting with haematuria (OR=0.29 (0.19 to 0.46, p<0.001). For renal cancer, three or more prereferral consultations were more likely in women (OR=1.90 (1.06 to 3.42, p=0.031)) without evidence for an association with haematuria (p=0.25).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Crude associations and independent predictors of three or more prereferral consultations from the ‘full’ model (adjusted for gender, age, haematuria status and investigation status)

    Regarding interactions, there was no evidence that gender differences in the proportion of patients with three or more prereferral consultations varied between patients with and without haematuria (p=0.18 for bladder and p=0.27 for renal cancer), as well as by age group (p=0.38 and p=0.10), ‘blood test’ use (p=0.71 and p=0.91) or ultrasound scan use (p=0.20 and p=0.59).

    Sensitivity analysis

    Repeating the multiple logistic regression using different binary categories of the number of prereferral consultations produced similar findings, particularly regarding associations with gender and haematuria status. Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation of missing data also produced similar findings (see online supplementary appendices 5 and 6).

    Population health impact

    Each year in the UK, about 2900 women are diagnosed with bladder cancer and 3000 with renal cancer.29 Of those women, we estimate that each year approximately 693 (∼435 with bladder cancer and ∼258 with renal cancer) experience three or more prereferral consultations when they would have required only one or two had gender inequalities not been present (see online supplementary appendix 7). More than a quarter (197, or 28%) of those women experience gender inequalities in the presence of haematuria.

    Discussion

    In our study population, we found that women were more likely than men to experience a non-prompt diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer. Being a woman was an independent risk factor for a less timely diagnosis even after adjustment for age and presence/absence of haematuria or use of investigations. Moreover, differences in haematuria status between men and women explain only a small fraction of the crude gender differences. The findings indicate that generalists are less likely to suspect the diagnosis of urinary tract cancers in women and that haematuria is often interpreted differently by general practitioners depending on the patient's gender. Optimising referral decisions for women with bladder and renal cancer who present with haematuria may have a notable impact on gender inequalities in promptness of diagnosis. However, many patients with urinary tract cancers (both women and men) present without haematuria. For those patients, new approaches are needed to help improve the promptness of diagnosis for patients of either gender.

    Our findings amplify previous limited evidence on gender inequalities in the diagnosis of urinary tract cancers using patient-reported data in England and also previous US research.8 ,14 The strengths of the present study include the use of two different measures of promptness of diagnosis; the adjustment of the analysis for haematuria status and investigation use; the examination of potential interactions between gender and all other variables and the use of sensitivity analysis (including for missing data). Considering generalisability, the sample of patients was similar to population-based incidence data in respect of age, sex and cancer;15 and to other primary care study populations in respect of the proportions of patients who presented with haematuria (see online supplementary appendix 3).18 ,19 ,21 Further, in supplementary analysis, we compared the characteristics of 535 participating with 2349 non-participating practices and found trivial differences in practice care quality and patient experience measures, and small differences for practice population and team size (see online supplementary appendix 8).

    We believe that the principal reason for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis among symptomatic patients is to ensure as positive an experience of cancer care as possible for all patients,9–12 although achieving such improvements may also help to improve treatment and prognosis for some. Indeed, there is some evidence indicating an association between delay and worse oncological outcomes for patients with bladder cancer presenting with haematuria.30 ,31 For bladder cancer in particular, women are more likely than men to be diagnosed at an advanced stage,32 and there are also uniquely large gender inequalities in relative survival, as women have a substantially worse 5-year relative survival than men (57% vs 44%, respectively).13 While the median primary care intervals for men and women with bladder cancer were similar (4 and 6 days, respectively), there were substantial differences in the tails of the distributions that may have contributed to gender inequalities in stage and survival, although other factors such as gender differences in tumour subtypes or other biological factors may also be responsible.33 These considerations however apply only to bladder cancer; we are not aware of evidence suggesting substantial gender differences in stage and survival from renal cancer.13 The findings concord with and substantially amplify previous evidence from patient survey data indicating notable inequalities in the promptness of diagnosis of women with bladder and renal cancer (table 1).8 The degree of concordance of the observed gender inequalities between national audit and patient-reported data is remarkable, given the differences in the methodologies used (see table 5).

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Comparison of survey design and methodologies used by the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care,15 and the Cancer Patient Experience Survey 20108

    The findings signal a large potential for improving the timeliness of diagnosis of urinary tract cancer in women. In part, this can be achieved by reinforcement and more rigorous adherence to existing clinical guidelines on investigation and management of haematuria.23 Previous US research indicates that primary care physicians often do not adhere to guidelines for prompt investigation of patients presenting with haematuria.34 Interventions to help general practitioners avoid initial misattribution of haematuria in women with urinary tract cancer to benign causes need to be promptly developed and evaluated. Elimination of gender differences in referral decisions in the presence of haematuria would only partially address overall gender inequalities, although it can help produce notable improvements with relative ease and speed. However, because many patients with urinary tract cancers present without haematuria, research to better understand these less specific presentations is also required. The implementation of clinical decision support tools (ideally combined with evaluation of their utility) may be helpful, since they incorporate information from multiple symptoms, signs and systemic manifestations (such as thrombocytosis).20 ,35 The application of consultation techniques, such as ‘safety-netting’, the development of new service models such as outreach facilities for specialist consultation with urologists and the development of new tests (eg, based on biomarkers) are also worthy of exploration and prioritisation of research investment. Improvements in the sensitivity of generalist consultations to suspect the presence of urological cancer among symptomatic patients should reduce gender inequalities, but should also benefit all patients of either gender. The positive predictive value of haematuria for urological cancer is generally lower than 15% (depending on age),20 and is lower in women than men.21 This means that even in a hypothetical situation where all patients presenting to general practitioners with haematuria as the main presenting symptom were referred promptly for specialist investigation, the great majority of them would be found not to have cancer. Nevertheless, clinical guidelines, such as those produced by NICE, mandate the referral of all patients who present with painless macroscopic haematuria independently of their gender–see also Methods.23 Health economics analyses to explore the cost-effectiveness of these clinical protocols may be justified. These realisations can serve as potent reminders of the need for the development of newer tests (particularly easily accessible and acceptable point-of-care tests) and service models.

    In conclusion, we report compelling evidence that in the study setting and during the study period women with urinary tract cancers were likely to experience a delayed diagnosis compared with men with the same cancers. Reinforcing existing guidelines on haematuria investigation and development of new diagnostic aids for patients who present without haematuria are needed. The findings should inform similar investigations in other country populations.

    Acknowledgments

    We are grateful to all primary care professionals in participating practices for collecting, collating and submitting anonymous data; and respective Cancer Networks, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the National Cancer Action Team for supporting the audit and the National Clinical Intelligence Network (NCIN).

    References

    1. ↵
      Department of Health. Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer. 2011. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_123371 (accessed Apr 2013).
    2. ↵
      1. Prades J,
      2. Espinas JA,
      3. Font R,
      4. et al
      . Implementing a cancer fast-track programme between primary and secondary care in Catalonia (Spain): a mixed methods study. Br J Cancer 2011;105:753–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      New South Wales Government. Cancer Plan 2011–15. 2011. http://www.cancerplan.cancerinstitute.org.au/ (accessed Apr 2013).
    4. ↵
      1. Olesen F,
      2. Hansen RP,
      3. Vedsted P
      . Delay in diagnosis: the experience in Denmark. Br J Cancer 2009;101(Suppl 2):S5–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Cancer Care Ontario. Diagnostic assessment programs: an environmental scan. 2009. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=64068 (accessed Apr 2013).
    6. ↵
      1. Weller D,
      2. Vedsted P,
      3. Rubin G,
      4. et al
      . The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1262–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Neal RD,
      2. Allgar VL
      . Sociodemographic factors and delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the ‘National Survey of NHS Patients: Cancer’. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1971–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Lyratzopoulos G,
      2. Neal RD,
      3. Barbiere JM,
      4. et al
      . Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: findings from the 2010 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:353–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      Rarer Cancer Foundation. Primary cause? An audit of the experience in primary care of rarer cancer patients. 2011. http://www.rarercancers.org.uk/images/stories/cdf/p8and9/primary%20cause%20-%20final.pdf (accessed Apr 2013).
    10. ↵
      Pancreatic Cancer UK. Study for survival 2011. 2011. http://www.pancreaticcancer.org.uk/media/100292/report_final_for_web.pdf (accessed Apr 2013).
    11. ↵
      The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Explaining variations in lung cancer in England. 2011. http://www.roycastle.org/Resources/Roy%20Castle/Documents/PDF/Variations%20in%20lung%20cancer%20in%20England.pdf (accessed Apr 2013).
    12. ↵
      Teenage Cancer Trust. One in four teenage cancer patients forced to visit GP at least four times before referral. 2012. http://www.teenagecancertrust.org/who-we-are/media-centre/press-releases/one-in-four-teenage-cancer-patients-forced-to-visi/ (accessed Apr 2013).
    13. ↵
      1. Rachet B,
      2. Maringe C,
      3. Nur U,
      4. et al
      . Population-based cancer survival trends in England and Wales up to 2007: an assessment of the NHS cancer plan for England. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:351–69.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Johnson EK,
      2. Daignault S,
      3. Zhang Y,
      4. et al
      . Patterns of hematuria referral to urologists: does a gender disparity exist? Urology 2008;72:498–502.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Rubin G,
      2. Elliott K,
      3. McPhail S
      , Royal College of General Practitioners. National audit of cancer diagnosis in primary care. 2011. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/pdf/National_Audit_of_Cancer_Diagnosis_in_Primary-Care.pdf (accessed Apr 2013).
    16. ↵
      1. Lyratzopoulos G,
      2. Abel GA,
      3. McPhail S,
      4. et al
      . Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers. Br J Cancer 2013;108:1550–1.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2011/12—National Report. http://www.quality-health.co.uk/images/stories/pdfs/2012CancerReports/2011-12cancerpatientexperiencesurveynational report.pdf (accessed Apr 2013).
    18. ↵
      1. Shephard EA,
      2. Stapley S,
      3. Neal RD,
      4. et al
      . Clinical features of bladder cancer in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2012;62:e598–604.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Bruyninckx R,
      2. Buntinx F,
      3. Aertgeerts B,
      4. et al
      . The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:31–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Hippisley-Cox J,
      2. Coupland C
      . Identifying patients with suspected renal tract cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012;62:e251–60.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Jones R,
      2. Latinovic R,
      3. Charlton J,
      4. et al
      . Alarm symptoms in early diagnosis of cancer in primary care: cohort study using General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2007;334:1040.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Shephard E,
      2. Neal R,
      3. Rose P,
      4. et al
      . Clinical features of kidney cancer in primary care: a case-control study using primary care records. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63:250–5.
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Referral for suspected cancer: a clinical practice guideline. London. 2005. Clinical guideline 27. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG027 (accessed Apr 2013).
    24. ↵
      1. He Y,
      2. Yucel R,
      3. Zaslavsky AM
      . Misreporting, missing data, and multiple imputation: improving accuracy of cancer registry databases. Chance (NY) 2008;21:55–8.
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. Nur U,
      2. Shack LG,
      3. Rachet B,
      4. et al
      . Modelling relative survival in the presence of incomplete data: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39:118–28.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Lyratzopoulos G,
      2. Abel GA,
      3. Barbiere JM,
      4. et al
      . Variation in advanced stage at diagnosis of lung and female breast cancer in an English region 2006–2009. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1068–75.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Lyratzopoulos G,
      2. Abel GA,
      3. Brown CH,
      4. et al
      . Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2013;24:843–50.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Royston P
      . Multiple imputation of missing values: further update of ice, with an emphasis on interval censoring. Stata J 2007;7:445–64.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      Office for National Statistics. Cancer incidence and mortality in the United Kingdom, 2007–2009. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-251462 (accessed Apr 2013).
    30. ↵
      1. Wallace DM,
      2. Bryan RT,
      3. Dunn JA,
      4. et al
      . West Midlands Urological Research Group. Delay and survival in bladder cancer. BJU Int 2002;89:868–78.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Hollenbeck BK,
      2. Dunn RL,
      3. Ye Z,
      4. et al
      . Delays in diagnosis and bladder cancer mortality. Cancer 2010;116:5235–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Barbiere JM,
      2. Saeb-Parsy K,
      3. Greenberg DC,
      4. et al
      . Trends in the use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for patients with bladder urothelial cell carcinoma in East Anglia, 1995–2006. BJU Int 2011;108:1106–14.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Noon AP,
      2. Albertsen PC,
      3. Thomas F,
      4. et al
      . Competing mortality in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer: evidence of undertreatment in the elderly and female patients. Br J Cancer 2013; 108:1534–40.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Nieder AM,
      2. Lotan Y,
      3. Nuss GR,
      4. et al
      . Are patients with hematuria appropriately referred to Urology? A multi-institutional questionnaire based survey. Urol Oncol 2010;28:500–3.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Hamilton W,
      2. Green T,
      3. Martins T,
      4. et al
      . Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63:30–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRef

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The study was conceived and the methods developed in discussions between all authors. The idea for the study is rooted in the findings of a previous collaborative project involving four of the authors using patient experience data. GL, GAA and SMP analysed the data and the findings were interpreted by all authors. In addition, RDN and GPR provided expert clinical commenting. GL wrote the first draft, which was edited over several versions by all other authors. Authors communicated frequently during the course of the project. All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. GL is the guarantor.

    • Funding The paper is independent research arising from a Post-Doctoral Fellowship award to GL supported by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2011-04-047). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Please contact the corresponding author.