Abstract 1590P
Background
International studies have highlighted the poor outcomes associated with cancer diagnosis following an emergency presentation (EP) to hospital. This study aims at assessing the rate of cancer patients newly referred to the Greater Paris University Hospitals (APHP) after an EP and the impact of EP on patient survival across various types of cancer.
Methods
A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted using the data warehouse of APHP. Consecutive patients newly referred with breast, lung, colon, rectum or pancreatic cancer between January 2019 and June 2022 were identified using claims data (ICD-10 codes). Comparative analyses between EP (diagnosis confirmed ≤30 days after emergency admission) and non-EP patients comprised in-hospital imaging, initial tumor staging from baseline PET/CT and CT-scan reports, and surgical treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess EP prevalence and its association with patient survival, adjusting for age, gender, diagnostic year (considering potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), and cancer site. A Cox model was used to assess association of EP with survival, adjusting for the same factors and baseline metastatic status.
Results
The final cohort comprised 25,845 patients with 3,960 (15.3%) newly referred after an EP. EP patients exhibited higher rates of metastatic cancer (59% vs. 45%) and in-hospital imaging (53% vs. 31%), lower surgery rates (except for colon cancer patients) (18% vs 41%), and a higher risk to die within a year of diagnosis (49% vs 16%). Lung and pancreatic cancers were more frequent in EP than other cancer sites (20% and 23% respectively). The proportion of EP and non-EP patients was comparable during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, except for lung cancer. In the multivariable analysis, EP was strongly associated with age only for patients above 80 years of age (odds ratio: 3.1, 95% CI; 2.6-3.6). After adjusting for age and cancer site, patient mortality rate increased with EP referral (HR: 2.7, 95% CI 2.5-2.8).
Conclusions
Emergency presentation in a university hospital is a marker of poor outcome among newly referred cancer patients. Better coordination between hospitals and ambulatory health care networks is needed.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1553P - Access to EMA approved drugs in Europe, disparities across a border
Presenter: Orla Fitzpatrick
Session: Poster session 10
1554P - Co payments in cancer patients: Analysis and estimating OOP
Presenter: Krishnamani Kalpathi
Session: Poster session 10
1555P - Estimating the social value of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies in Japan
Presenter: Tomoya Ohno
Session: Poster session 10
1556P - Current landscape of drug approvals for genitourinary (GU) cancers in North America and Europe
Presenter: Jose Tapia
Session: Poster session 10
1557P - The use of patient experience in UK NICE decision making in oncology
Presenter: Noemi Muszbek
Session: Poster session 10
1558P - Independent validation of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (Gail model) for predicting breast cancer risk in Egyptian population
Presenter: Elaria Yacoub
Session: Poster session 10
1559P - Equity of access and clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with cancer in a UK early phase clinical trials unit
Presenter: Jonathan Poon
Session: Poster session 10
1560P - Optimal age versus real age in breast and gynaecological risk reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 carriers
Presenter: Alberta Ferrari
Session: Poster session 10
1561P - Targeted screening methodologies to select high risk individuals: LungFlag performance in Estonia Lung Cancer Screening Pilot
Presenter: Tanel Laisaar
Session: Poster session 10
1562P - The feasibility of polygenic risk score-based population screening for breast cancer: The experience from the BRIGHT study in Estonia
Presenter: Anni Lepland
Session: Poster session 10