Cited by 214Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence

Open access
Zhou, Yin, Abel, Gary A., Hamilton, Willie, Pritchard-Jones, Kathy, Gross, Cary P., Walter, Fiona M., Renzi, Cristina, Johnson, Sam +3 more·2017·Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.155

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after a non-specific disease course leading to emergency hospital admission.

    “over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Up to 85% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have cancers that are not surgically resectable when identified.

    “Unfortunately, up to 85% of patients have cancers that are not surgically resectable when identified, and over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [11]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Y., Abel, G. A., Hamilton, W., Pritchard-Jones, K., Gross, C. P., Walter, F. M., Renzi, C., Johnson, S., McPhail, S., Elliss-Brookes, L., & Lyratzopoulos, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Public Health England (GB)
Corresponding author
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Venue
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Published
2016-10-11
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
45-56
ISSN
  • 1759-4774 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4782
OpenAlex
W2531472381
Cited by
214
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 9
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (18667, 18180)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006584/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
emergency department presentation, oncological outcomes, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, health disparities, cancer screening, emergency treatment, public health policy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Emergencies, Emergency Treatment, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Neoplasm Staging, Neoplasms, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Primary Health Care, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Karnofsky Performance Status, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult, General Practice, Neoplasm Grading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review