Time from diagnosis to surgery and prostate cancer survival: a retrospective cohort study

Theresa Redaniel, Richard M Martin, David A Gillatt, Julia Wade, Mona Jeffreys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
278 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background A diagnosis of prostate cancer leads to emotional distress and anxiety, prompting calls for rapid diagnostic pathways. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what impact time between diagnosis and surgery has upon prostate cancer survival. Methods Using national databases for England (cancer registries, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics), we identified 17,043 men with prostate cancer, aged 15 years and older, diagnosed in 1996–2009, and who had surgical resection with curative intent within 6 months of diagnosis. We used relative survival to investigate associations between waiting times and five- and ten-year survival. Results Five- and ten-year relative survival estimates for the total study sample were 1.04 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.05) and 1.08 (95% CI: 1.06-1.09), respectively. There were no notable differences in survival between patients who had surgery at 0–3 and 4–6 months after diagnosis. Relative survival was higher among the elderly (>65) and those with well and moderately differentiated tumours. Conclusion The high relative survival in our cohort probably reflects adherence to selection criteria for surgery among men with localised prostate cancer. Among men treated with surgery within 6 months of diagnosis, we found little evidence of an association between time from diagnosis to surgery and survival.
Original languageEnglish
Article number559
Number of pages6
JournalBMC Cancer
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Nov 2013

Keywords

  • Time from diagnosis to surgery
  • Prostate cancer
  • Cancer survival
  • Survival inequalities
  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Time from diagnosis to surgery and prostate cancer survival: a retrospective cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this