Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 16, 2026.

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

R D Neal, P Tharmanathan, B France and 18 more

British Journal of Cancer · 2015 · Systematic review

doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.48

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.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 16, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

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; the English National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative has made a major contribution to this effort. We know that patients value timely diagnostic workup, and that later stage at diagnosis is one of the contributory factors to poor cancer outcomes. 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, and in colorectal cancer it was concluded that there were no associations between diagnostic delays and survival and stage. Other reviews have been published for gynaecological cancers, bladder, testicular, lung, paediatric cancers and head and neck cancers, 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). 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. 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. Reporting is in line with the PRISMA recommendations.

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, PsychINFOCochrane 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In addition, in the update, we identified studies that addressed the so-called ‘waiting time paradox', 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.Clinical outcomes: the measure of association, associations of intervals with outcomes and interpretation.

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. 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. 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. 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. In addition, in the update, we identified studies that addressed the so-called ‘waiting time paradox', 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.

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.

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.

Definition of time intervals

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 and one a negative association. 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. 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; 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.

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; 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.

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.

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. There is some evidence from papers published more recently that address the waiting time paradox in their analyses, 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, with the exception of the breast cancer, and to a lesser extent head and neck, 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 and head and neck cancers. We have also identified more recent and probably higher-quality papers providing better evidence for colorectal cancer than covered in previous reviews. 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 on a sample of 958 colorectal cancers in Scotland, and reported that longer diagnostic intervals did not adversely affect cancer outcomes. Another has reported that time to diagnosis in 436 Ewing tumours in France was not associated with metastasis, surgical outcome or survival. 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.

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. 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. 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.

References 206

  1. 1.

    Akdas A Kirkali Z Remzi D 1986 The role of delay in stage Iii testicular tumorsInt Urol Nephrol18181184

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02082606

  2. 2.

    Alam M Goldberg LH Silapunt S Gardner ES Strom SS Rademaker AW Margolis DJ 2011 Delayed treatment and continued growth of nonmelanoma skin cancerJ Am Acad Dermatol64839848

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaad.2010.06.028

  3. 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 casesCan Med Assoc J174779784

    Not in our library10.1503/cmaj.050623

  4. 4.

    Allison P Franco E Black M Feine J 1998 The role of professional diagnostic delays in the prognosis of upper aerodigestive tract carcinomaOral Oncol34147153

    Not in our library10.1016/s1368-8375(97)00088-2

  5. 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 delayEast Mediterr Health J1513011307

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Altman DG 2001 Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variablesSystematic Reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in ContextEgger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds)2nd edBMJ Books: London

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Annakkaya A Arbak P Balbay O Bilgin C Erbas M Bulut I 2007 Effect of symptom-to-treatment interval on prognosis in lung cancerTumori936167

    Not in our library10.1177/030089160709300111

  8. 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 GreeceHepatogastroenterology39355357

    Not in our library

  9. 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 studyArch Dermatol14214221427

    Not in our library10.1001/archderm.142.11.1422

  10. 10.

    Bacci G Di Fiore M Rimondini S Baldini N 1999 Delayed diagnosis and tumor stage in Ewing's sarcomaOncol Rep6465466

    Not in our library

  11. 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 presentationJ Pediatr Hematol Oncol242730

    Not in our library10.1097/00043426-200201000-00008

  12. 12.

    Balasa AF Gherasim DN Gherman B 2012 Clinical evolution of primary intramedullary tumors in adultsRom J Neurol11165171

    Not in our library

  13. 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 literatureCan J Urol133036

    Not in our library

  14. 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 leukemiaBlood12126182626

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2012-09-454553

  15. 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 cancer1981 Lancet2970972

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(81)91165-x

  16. 16.

    Brasme JF Chalumeau M Oberlin O Valteau-Couanet GasparN 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 patientsJ Clin Oncol3219351940

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2013.53.8058

  17. 17.
    Long time to diagnosis of medulloblastoma in children is not associated with decreased survival or with worse neurological outcome. · 2012
    Not checked
  18. 18.

    Brasme JF Morfouace M Grill J Martinot A Amalberti R Bons-Letouzey C Chalumeau M 2012 Delays in the diagnosis of paediatric cancers a systematic review and comparison with expert testimony in lawsuitsLancet Oncol13e445e459

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70361-3

  19. 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 cancerAnn Surg Oncol17(Suppl 3291296

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-010-1250-6

  20. 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 scanningLung Cancer75336341

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.08.017

  21. 21.

    Brouha X Op De Coul B Terhaard C Hordijk G 2000 Does waiting time for radiotherapy affect local control of T1N0M0 glottic laryngeal carcinomaClin Otolaryngol Allied Sci25215218

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00347.x

  22. 22.

    Brouha X Tromp D de Leeuw J Hordijk G Winnubst J 2005 Laryngeal cancer patients: analysis of patient delay at different tumor stagesHead Neck27289295

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.20146

  23. 23.

    Brouha X Tromp D Hordijk G Winnubst J de Leeuw J 2005 Oral and pharyngeal cancer: analysis of patient delay at different tumor stagesHead Neck27939945

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.20270

  24. 24.

    Butros L Abramson D Dunkel I 2002 Delayed diagnosis of retinoblastoma: analysis of degree, cause, and potential consequencesPediatrics109E45

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.109.3.e45

  25. 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 melanomaArch Dermatol139607612

    Not in our library10.1001/archderm.139.5.607

  26. 26.

    Cassileth B Clark W Heiberger R March V Tenaglia A 1982 Relationship between patients early recognition of melanoma and depth of invasionCancer49198200

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19820101)49:1<198::aid-cncr2820490138>3.0.co;2-9

  27. 27.

    Caudell J Locher J Bonner J 2011 Diagnosis-to-treatment interval and control of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancerArch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg137282285

    Not in our library10.1001/archoto.2011.20

  28. 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 yearsRev Esp Enferm Dig103458463

    Not in our library10.4321/s1130-01082011000900004

  29. 29.

    Chilvers C Saunders M Bliss J Nicholls J Horwich A 1989 Influence of delay in diagnosis on prognosis in testicular teratomaBr J Cancer59126128

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1989.25

  30. 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 operationEur J Cardiothorac Surg12880884

    Not in our library10.1016/s1010-7940(97)00275-3

  31. 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 survivalJ Neurooncol95259269

    Not in our library10.1007/s11060-009-9925-1

  32. 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 ScotlandBr Med J325196

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.325.7357.196

  33. 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 survivalColorectal Dis4848853

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02829.x

  34. 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 chinaJ Dig Dis13517524

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1751-2980.2012.00626.x

  35. 35.

    Diaconescu R Lafond C Whittom R Treatment delays in non-small cell lung cancer and their prognostic implications2011 J Thorac Oncol612541259

    Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e318217b623

  36. 36.

    Dieckmann K Becker T Bauer H 1987 Testicular tumors: presentation and role of diagnostic delayUrol Int42241247

    Not in our library10.1159/000281948

  37. 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 cancerAnn Surg Oncol2018801885

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-012-2835-z

  38. 38.

    Egger M Smith GD Altman DG (eds) (2001 Systematic Reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in Context2nd ednBMJ Books: London

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Elit L O'Leary E Pond G Seow H 2013 Impact of wait times on survival for women with uterine cancerJ Clin Oncol5167

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2013.51.3671

  40. 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 cancerNat Rev Clin Oncol113848

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.212

  41. 41.

    Ermiah E Abdalla F Buhmeida A Larbesh E Pyrhonen S Collan Y 2012 Diagnosis delay in Libyan female breast cancerBMC Res Notes5452

    Not in our library10.1186/1756-0500-5-452

  42. 42.

    Erwenne CM Franco EL 1989 Age and lateness of referral as determinants of extra-ocular retinoblastomaOphthalmic Paediatr Genet10179184

    Not in our library10.3109/13816818909009874

  43. 43.

    Esserman LJ Thompson IM Reid B 2013 Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer. An opportunity for improvementJAMA310797798

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2013.108415

  44. 44.

    Fahmy NM Mahmud S Aprikian AG 2006 Delay in the surgical treatment of bladder cancer and survival: systematic review of the literatureEur Urol5011761182

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2006.05.046

  45. 45.

    Fernandez E Porta M Malats N Belloc J Gallén M 2002 Symptom-to-diagnosis interval and survival in cancers of the digestive tractDig Dis Sci4724342440

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1020535304670

  46. 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 sarcomasCancer116177183

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.24695

  47. 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 tumoursInt J Androl4134144

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2605.1981.tb00664.x

  48. 48.

    Foulc P N'Guyen JM Dréno B 2003 Prognostic factors in Sezary syndrome: a study of 28 patientsBr J Dermatol14911521158

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2133.2003.05677.x

  49. 49.

    Franceschi S La Vecchia C Gallus G Decarli A Colombo E Mangioni C Tognoni G 1983 Delayed diagnosis of endometrial cancer in ItalyCancer51(611761178

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19830315)51:6<1176::aid-cncr2820510634>3.0.co;2-o

  50. 50.

    Friese CR Abel GA Magazu LS Neville BA Richardson LC Earle CC 2009 Diagnostic delay and complications for older adults with multiple myelomaLeuk Lymphoma50392400

    Not in our library10.1080/10428190902741471

  51. 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 leukemiaCancer11714701477

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.25655

  52. 52.

    Fruchter RG Boyce J 1981 Delays in diagnosis and stage of disease in gynecologic cancerCancer Detect Prev4481486

    Not in our library

  53. 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 cancerCancer Epidemiol37186190

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canep.2012.12.002

  54. 54.

    Goddard AG Kingston JE 1999 Delay in diagnosis of retinoblastoma: Risk factors and treatment outcomeBr J Ophthalmol8313201323

    Not in our library10.1136/bjo.83.12.1320

  55. 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 cancerClin Transl Oncol12836842

    Not in our library10.1007/s12094-010-0606-5

  56. 56.

    Gort M Otter R Plukker JTM Broekhuis M Klazinga NS 2010 Actionable indicators for short and long term outcomes in rectal cancerEur J Cancer4618081814

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.044

  57. 57.

    Gould MK Ghaus SJ Olsson JK Schultz EM 2008 Timeliness of care in veterans with non-small cell lung cancerChest13311671173

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.07-2654

  58. 58.

    Goy J Hall SF Feldman-Stewart D Groome P 2009 Diagnostic delay and disease stage in head and neck cancer: a systematic reviewLaryngoscope119889898

    Not in our library10.1002/lary.20185

  59. 59.

    Grotenhuis BA van Hagen P Wijnhoven BPL Spaander MCW Tilanus HW van Lanschot JJB 2010 Delay in diagnostic workup and treatment of esophageal cancerJ Gastrointest Surg14476483

    Not in our library10.1007/s11605-009-1109-y

  60. 60.

    Gulliford MC Petruckevitch A Burney PG 1991 Survival with bladder cancer, evaluation of delay in treatment, type of surgeon, and modality of treatmentBr Med J303437440

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.303.6800.437

  61. 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 cancerRev Esp Enferm Dig1031319

    Not in our library10.4321/s1130-01082011000100003

  62. 62.

    Halperin EC Watson DM George SL 2001 Duration of symptoms prior to diagnosis is related inversely to presenting disease stage in children with medulloblastomaCancer9114441450

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8<1444::aid-cncr1151>3.0.co;2-u

  63. 63.

    Hansen O Larsen S Bastholt L Godballe C Jørgensen KE 2005 Duration of symptoms: impact on outcome of radiotherapy in glottic cancer patientsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys61789794

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.07.720

  64. 64.

    Hanson PR Belitsky P Millard OH Lannon SG 1993 Prognostic factors in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumoursCan J Surg36537540

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Harding M Paul J Kaye SB 1995 Does delayed diagnosis or scrotal incision affect outcome for men with non-seminomatous germ cell tumoursBr J Urol76491494

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07754.x

  66. 66.

    Haugstvedt TK Viste A Eide GE Soreide O 1991 Patient and physician treatment delay in patients with stomach cancer in Norway is it importantScand J Gastroenterol26611619

    Not in our library10.3109/00365529109043635

  67. 67.

    Hayden JA Cote P Bombardier C 2006 Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviewsAnn Intern Med144427437

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010

  68. 68.

    Hayden JA van der Windt D Cartwright JL Cote P Bombardier C 2013 Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factorsAnn Intern Med158280286

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009

  69. 69.

    Helsing P Faye R Langmark F 1997 Cutaneous malignant melanoma. Correlation between tumor characteristics and diagnostic delay in Norwegian patientsEur J Dermatol7359361

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    Ho T Zahurak M Koch WM 2004 Prognostic significance of presentation-to-diagnosis interval in patients with oropharyngeal carcinomaArch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1304551

    Not in our library10.1001/archotol.130.1.45

  71. 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 mortalityCancer11652355242

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.25310

  72. 72.

    Holmang S Johansson SL 2006 Impact of diagnostic and treatment delay on survival in patients with renal pelvic and ureteral cancerScand J Urol Nephrol40479484

    Not in our library10.1080/00365590600864093

  73. 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 studyEur Urol5217101716

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.003

  74. 74.

    Jacobi N Rogers TB Peterson BA 2008 Prognostic factors in follicular lymphoma: a single institution studyOncol Rep20185193

    Not in our library10.3892/or.20.1.185

  75. 75.

    Jensen AR Mainz J Overgaard J 2002 Impact of delay on diagnosis and treatment of primary lung cancerActa Oncol41147152

    Not in our library10.1080/028418602753669517

  76. 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 2000-2011Br J Neurosurg27364369

    Not in our library10.3109/02688697.2012.741731

  77. 77.

    Kariyawasan CC Hughes DA Jayatillake MM Mehta AB 2007 Multiple myeloma: causes and consequences of delay in diagnosisQJM100635640

    Not in our library10.1093/qjmed/hcm077

  78. 78.

    Kim YH Bishop K Varghese A Hoppe RT 1995 Prognostic factors in erythrodermic mycosis fungoides and the sezary syndromeArch Dermatol13110031008

    Not in our library

  79. 79.

    Koivunen P Rantala N Hyrynkangas K Jokinen K Alho OP 2001 The impact of patient and professional diagnostic delays on survival in pharyngeal cancerCancer9228852891

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(20011201)92:11<2885::aid-cncr10119>3.0.co;2-g

  80. 80.

    Korets R Seager CM Pitman MS Hruby GW Benson MC McKiernan JM 2012 Effect of delaying surgery on radical prostatectomy outcomes: a contemporary analysisBr J Urol Int110211216

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10666.x

  81. 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 patientsCancer6820642068

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19911101)68:9<2064::aid-cncr2820680937>3.0.co;2-3

  82. 82.

    Kukal K Dobrovoljac M Boltshauser E Ammann RA Grotzer MA 2009 Does diagnostic delay result in decreased survival in paediatric brain tumoursEur J Pediatr168303310

    Not in our library10.1007/s00431-008-0755-5

  83. 83.

    Kumar S Heller RF Pandey U Tewari V Bala N Oanh KT 2001 Delay in presentation of oral cancer: a multifactor analytical studyNatl Med J India141317

    Not in our library

  84. 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 paediatricsArch Dis Child99244250

    Not in our library10.1136/archdischild-2013-304778

  85. 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 diagnosisHong Kong Med J3355361

    Not in our library

  86. 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 cancerArch Dis Child98349355

    Not in our library10.1136/archdischild-2012-303034

  87. 87.

    Liedberg F Anderson H Månsson A Månsson W 2003 Diagnostic delay and prognosis in invasive bladder cancerScand J Urol Nephrol37396400

    Not in our library10.1080/00365590310006246

  88. 88.

    Lim BS Dennis CR Gardner B Newman J 1974 Analysis of survival versus patient and doctor delay of treatment in gastrointestinal cancerAm J Surg127210214

    Not in our library10.1016/0002-9610(74)90159-7

  89. 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, BrazilJ Pediatr Hematol Oncol34e271e276

    Not in our library10.1097/mph.0b013e3182580bea

  90. 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 outcomesPediatr Blood Cancer58561565

    Not in our library10.1002/pbc.23382

  91. 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 carcinomaMalays J Med Sci133742

    Not in our library

  92. 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 analysisGynecol Oncol119278284

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.05.028

  93. 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 survivalScand J Gastroenterol3812491255

    Not in our library10.1080/00365520310006360

  94. 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-functionEur J Cancer30A785792

    Not in our library10.1016/0959-8049(94)90293-3

  95. 95.

    Martin IG Young S Sue-Ling H Johnston D 1997 Delays in the diagnosis of oesophagogastric cancer: a consecutive case seriesBr Med J314467470

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.314.7079.467

  96. 96.

    Marwaha RK Kulkarni KP Bansal D Trehan A 2010 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia masquerading as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: diagnostic pitfall and association with survivalAnn Hematol89249254

    Not in our library10.1007/s00277-009-0826-3

  97. 97.

    Marwaha RK Kulkarni KP Bansal D Trehan A 2010 Pattern of mortality in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: experience from a single center in northern IndiaJ Pediatr Hematol Oncol32366369

    Not in our library10.1097/mph.0b013e3181e0d036

  98. 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 cancerBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg43281284

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.01.016

  99. 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 cancerJ Clin Oncol3044934500

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.39.7695

  100. 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 adenocarcinomasJ Surg Oncol107853858

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.23338

  101. 101.

    Medical Research Council Work Party, Testicular Tumours1985 Prognostic factors in advanced non-seminomatous germ-cell testicular tumours results of a multicenter studyLancet1811

    Not in our library

  102. 102.

    Meffan PJ Delahunt B Nacey JN 1991 The value of early diagnosis in the treatment of patients with testicular cancerNZ Med J104393394

    Not in our library

  103. 103.

    Menczer J 2000 Diagnosis and treatment delay in gynecological malignancies: does it affect outcomeInt J Gynecol Cancer108994

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1525-1438.2000.00020.x

  104. 104.

    Menczer J Chetrit A Sadetzki S 2009 The effect of symptom duration in epithelial ovarian cancer on prognostic factorsArch Gynecol Obstet279797801

    Not in our library10.1007/s00404-008-0814-1

  105. 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 carcinomaAm J Obstet Gynecol173774778

    Not in our library10.1016/0002-9378(95)90340-2

  106. 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 melanomaMelanoma Res8181186

    Not in our library10.1097/00008390-199804000-00014

  107. 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 delayRev Laryngol Otol Rhinol119101104

    Not in our library

  108. 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 importantEur J Cancer Care15293298

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00654.x

  109. 109.

    Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG The PRISMA Group2009 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementAnn Intern Med151264269

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

  110. 110.

    Mommsen S Aagaard J Sell A 1983 Presenting symptoms, treatment delay and survival in bladder cancerScand J Urol Nephrol17163167

    Not in our library10.3109/00365598309180162

  111. 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 ItalyPrev Med35271277

    Not in our library10.1006/pmed.2002.1067

  112. 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 yearsJ Urol143520523

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40007-3

  113. 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 survivalPrev Med56222224

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.12.001

  114. 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 radiotherapyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys82463467

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.001

  115. 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 survivalBr J Cancer111461469

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2014.352

  116. 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 cancerThorax594549

    Not in our library

  117. 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 GroupJ Clin Oncol2922532258

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2010.32.2164

  118. 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 metastasisJ Surg Oncol104771775

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.22006

  119. 119.

    Napier MP Rustin GJ 2000 Diagnostic delay and risk of relapse in patients with stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumour followed on active surveillanceBr J Urol Int86486489

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00779.x

  120. 120.
    Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter? · 2009
    No notice
  121. 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 routesBr J Gen Pract57212219

    Not in our library

  122. 122.

    NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination2001 Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews2nd ednNHS CRD, University of York: York, UK

    Not in our library

  123. 123.

    Norum J 1995 The effect of diagnostic delay in patients with Hodgkin's lymphomaAnticancer Res1527072710

    Not in our library

  124. 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 cancerAnticancer Res16947949

    Not in our library

  125. 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 cancerJ Urol18521432147

    Not in our library10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.009

  126. 126.

    Olsson JK Schultz EM Gould MK 2009 Timeliness of care in patients with lung cancer: a systematic reviewThorax64749756

    Not in our library10.1136/thx.2008.109330

  127. 127.

    Pirog EC Heller DS Westhoff C 1997 Endometrial adenocarcinoma–Lack of correlation between treatment delay and tumor stageGynecol Oncol67303308

    Not in our library10.1006/gyno.1997.4874

  128. 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 cancerJ Clin Epidemiol56820825

    Not in our library10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00166-5

  129. 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 survivalBr J Cancer94955958

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6603044

  130. 130.

    Prabhu M Kochupillai V Sharma S Ramachandran P Sundaram KR Bijlani L Ahuja RK 1986 Prognostic assessment of various parameters in chronic myeloid leukemiaCancer5813571360

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19860915)58:6<1357::aid-cncr2820580629>3.0.co;2-m

  131. 131.

    Prout GR Griffin PP Testicular tumors: delay in diagnosis and influence on survival1984 Am Fam Physician29205209

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Pruitt SL Harzke AJ Davidson NO Schootman M 2013 Do diagnostic and treatment delays for colorectal cancer increase risk of deathCancer Causes Control24961977

    Not in our library10.1007/s10552-013-0172-6

  133. 133.

    Radzikowska E Roszkowski-Sliz K Glaz P 2012 The impact of timeliness of care on survival in non-small cell lung cancer patientsPneumonol Alergol Pol80422429

    Not in our library

  134. 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 reviewEur J Cancer4324672478

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.023

  135. 135.

    Ramos M Esteva M Cabeza E Llobera J Ruiz A 2008 Lack of association between diagnostic and therapeutic delay and stage of colorectal cancerEur J Cancer44510521

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2008.01.011

  136. 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 cancerColorectal Dis14e375e377

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02961.x

  137. 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 cancerSurgeon8239246

    Not in our library10.1016/j.surge.2010.03.001

  138. 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 EnglandBr J Cancer1094249

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2013.317

  139. 139.

    Renzi C Mastroeni S Passarelli F Mannooranparampil TJ Caggiati A Potenza C Pasquini P 2010 Factors associated with large cutaneous squamous cell carcinomasJ Am Acad Dermatol63404411

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaad.2009.09.044

  140. 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 diagnosisArch Dermatol135269274

    Not in our library10.1001/archderm.135.3.269

  141. 141.
    The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence · 2009
    No notice
  142. 142.
    The size of the prize for earlier diagnosis of cancer in England · 2009
    No notice
  143. 143.
    The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence · 2009
    No notice
  144. 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 studyQual Life Res2115191525

    Not in our library10.1007/s11136-011-0077-3

  145. 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 adenocarcinomaSurgery154421428

    Not in our library10.1016/j.surg.2013.04.049

  146. 146.

    Rougraff BT Davis K Lawrence J 2007 Does length of symptoms before diagnosis of sarcoma affect patient survivalClin Orthop Relat Res462181189

    Not in our library10.1097/blo.0b013e3180f62608

  147. 147.

    Rubin G Walter F Emery J Neal RD Hamilton W Wardle J 2014 Research into practice: earlier diagnosis of symptomatic cancerBr J Gen Pract64428430

    Not in our library10.3399/bjgp14x681205

  148. 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 sarcomasEur J Cancer Clin Oncol2415831588

    Not in our library10.1016/0277-5379(88)90049-1

  149. 149.

    Saithna A Pynsent PB Grimer RJ 2008 Retrospective analysis of the impact of symptom duration on prognosis in soft tissue sarcomaInt Orthop32381384

    Not in our library10.1007/s00264-007-0319-8

  150. 150.

    Salomaa E Sällinen S Hiekkanen H Liippo K 2005 Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancerChest12822822288

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.128.4.2282

  151. 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 cancerUrology21559561

    Not in our library10.1016/0090-4295(83)90190-5

  152. 152.

    Schmid-Wendtner MH Baumert J Stange J Volkenandt M 2002 Delay in the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of 233 patientsMelanoma Res12389394

    Not in our library10.1097/00008390-200208000-00012

  153. 153.

    Scott SE Grunfeld EA McGurk M 2005 The idiosyncratic relationship between diagnostic delay and stage of oral squamous cell carcinomaOral Oncol41396403

    Not in our library10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.10.010

  154. 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 cancerHead Neck3213771384

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.21338

  155. 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-analysisClin Otolaryngol3799106

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1749-4486.2012.02464.x

  156. 156.

    Sethi RV Marino R Niemierko A Tarbell NJ Yock TI MacDonald SM 2013 Delayed diagnosis in children with intracranial germ cell tumorsJ Pediatr16314481453

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.06.024

  157. 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 cancerEur J Surg Oncol36977981

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejso.2010.07.002

  158. 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 carcinomaAm J Rhinol22317320

    Not in our library10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3174

  159. 159.

    Sidler D Winterhalder R Huber G Haerle SK 2010 Undifferentiated carcinoma of nasopharyngeal type (UCNT): A Swiss single-institutional experience during 1990-2005Swiss Med Wkly140273279

    Not in our library10.4414/smw.2010.12844

  160. 160.

    Simpson PM Reid R Porter D 2005 Ewing's sarcoma of the upper extremity: Presenting symptoms, diagnostic delay and outcomeSarcoma91520

    Not in our library10.1080/00207540500050113

  161. 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 carcinomaJ Natl Compr Canc Netw1111011108

    Not in our library10.6004/jnccn.2013.0131

  162. 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 outcomesCan J Gastroenterol26877880

    Not in our library10.1155/2012/363242

  163. 163.

    Skaug K Eide GE Gulsvik A 2011 Predictors of long-term survival of lung cancer patients in a Norwegian communityClin Respir J55058

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1752-699x.2010.00200.x

  164. 164.

    Smith EC Ziogas A Anton-Culver H 2013 Delay in surgical treatment and survival after breast cancer diagnosis in young women by race/ethnicityJAMA Surg148516523

    Not in our library10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1680

  165. 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 ovaryCancer5627272732

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19851201)56:11<2727::aid-cncr2820561138>3.0.co;2-8

  166. 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 situAm Surg79561565

    Not in our library

  167. 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 cancerJ Sex Med929612969

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02806.x

  168. 168.

    Sundi D Svatek RS Margulis V Wood CG Matin SF Dinney CP Kamat AM 2012 Upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Impact of time to surgeryUrol Oncol30266272

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.04.002

  169. 169.

    Temoshok L DiClemente RJ Sweet DM Blois MS Sagebiel RW 1984 Factors related to patient delay in seeking medical attention for cutaneous malignant melanomaCancer5430483053

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19841215)54:12<3048::aid-cncr2820541239>3.0.co;2-m

  170. 170.

    Teppo H Alho OP 2008 Relative importance of diagnostic delays in different head and neck cancersClin Otolaryngol33325330

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01704.x

  171. 171.

    Teppo H Heikkinen J Alho OP 2009 Diagnostic delays in vestibular schwannomaJ Laryngol Otol123289293

    Not in our library10.1017/s0022215108003113

  172. 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 carcinomaClin Otolaryngol30157163

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.00954.x

  173. 173.

    Teppo H Koivunen P Hyrynkangas K Alho OP 2003 Diagnostic delays in laryngeal carcinoma: professional diagnostic delay is a strong independent predictor of survivalHead Neck25389394

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.10208

  174. 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 studyBMC Cancer10332

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2407-10-332

  175. 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 survivalColorectal Dis1312421248

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02438.x

  176. 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 survivalColorectal Dis13616

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01986.x

  177. 177.

    Tokuda Y Chinen K Obara H Joishy SK 2009 Intervals between symptom onset and clinical presentation in cancer patientsIntern Med48899905

    Not in our library10.2169/internalmedicine.48.1720

  178. 178.

    Tomlinson C Wong C Au HJ Schiller D 2012 Factors associated with delays to medical assessment and diagnosis for patients with colorectal cancerCan Fam Physician58e495e501

    Not in our library

  179. 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 datasetsJ Clin Epidemiol65669678

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.006

  180. 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 careBr J Cancer104934940

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2011.60

  181. 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 careEur J Cancer49(921872198

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2013.01.025

  182. 182.

    Toth-Fejel S Pommier RF 2004 Relationships among delay of diagnosis, extent of disease, and survival in patients with abdominal carcinoid tumorsAm J Surg187575579

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.01.019

  183. 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 neckOral Oncol41313319

    Not in our library10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.09.008

  184. 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 survivalArch Gynecol Obstet285493497

    Not in our library10.1007/s00404-011-1966-y

  185. 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 MadridFam Pract29182188

    Not in our library10.1093/fampra/cmr080

  186. 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 cancerEur J Gastroenterol Hepatol2310561063

    Not in our library10.1097/meg.0b013e32834c4839

  187. 187.

    Vernham GA Crowther JA 1994 Head and neck carcinoma–Stage at presentationClin Otolaryngol Allied Sci19120124

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2273.1994.tb01194.x

  188. 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 patientsAnn Surg254119124

    Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e318217e97f

  189. 189.

    Wahl SK Gildengorin G Feusner J 2012 Weekend delay in initiation of chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: does it matterJ Pediatr Hematol Oncol34e8e11

    Not in our library10.1097/mph.0b013e31822e9c0b

  190. 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 upstagingBr J Urol Int105812817

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1464-410x.2009.08821.x

  191. 191.

    Wallace DM Bryan RT Dunn JA Begum G Bathers S 2002 Delay and survival in bladder cancerBr J Urol Int89868878

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02776.x

  192. 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 2004Pediatrics118e1493e1498

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2006-0784

  193. 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 esophagusJpn J Clin Oncol388791

    Not in our library10.1093/jjco/hym169

  194. 194.

    Ware SM Al-Askari S Morales P 1980 Testicular germ cell tumors: Prognostic factorsUrology15348352

    Not in our library10.1016/0090-4295(80)90467-7

  195. 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/ethnicityBreast Cancer Res Treat136813821

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-012-2304-1

  196. 196.
    The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis · 2012
    No notice
  197. 197.

    Wildt J Bundgaard T Bentzen SM 1995 Delay in the diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinomaClin Otolaryngol Allied Sci202125

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2273.1995.tb00006.x

  198. 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 outcomeJ Surg Oncol81118124

    Not in our library10.1002/jso.10157

  199. 199.

    Wishnow KI Johnson DE Preston WL Tenney DM Brown BW 1990 Prompt orchiectomy reduces morbidity and mortality from testicular carcinomaBr J Urol65629633

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14834.x

  200. 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 treatmentAm Surg7611191122

    Not in our library

  201. 201.

    Wurtz LD Peabody TD Simon MA 1999 Delay in the diagnosis and treatment of primary bone sarcoma of the pelvisJ Bone Joint Surg81317325

    Not in our library10.2106/00004623-199903000-00003

  202. 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 outcomeHong Kong Med J15434439

    Not in our library

  203. 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 stageUps J Med Sci113287296

    Not in our library10.3109/2000-1967-236

  204. 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 surgeryAnn Oncol2327312737

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mds101

  205. 205.

    Zafar A Mak T Whinnie S Chapman MAS 2011 The 2-week wait referral system does not improve 5-year colorectal cancer survivalColorectal Dis14177180

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02826.x

  206. 206.

    Ziliotto AJ Kunzle JE De Souza A Colicchio-Filho O 1987 Evolutive and prognostic aspects in gastric cancer analysis of 189 casesCancer59811817

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19870215)59:4<811::aid-cncr2820590426>3.0.co;2-s

Cited by papers we hold 10

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.