Loading
Young people often say their cancer took a long time to diagnose, and the research agrees that time to diagnosis varies widely by tumour type and age. What the research does not support is a single number: a systematic review found the studies used different definitions and skewed data that could not be combined, so no meta-analysis was possible.
This is a subject where the honest answer is a method problem rather than a figure, and saying so is more useful than quoting a median from one hospital series.
The systematic review. A search from 1948 onward identified 1,665 potentially eligible citations in children and young adults aged 0 to 30, of which 32 papers met the inclusion criteria. Most of the work was European (15 papers) or North American (8). Most focused on brain tumours (10), retinoblastoma (5) and bone and soft tissue sarcomas (4). Twenty-five were hospital-based and only seven were population-based. The summary statistics presented were mostly median time to diagnosis, and the reviewers state that "the skewed distribution of the data meant comparisons between studies based on medians were difficult and combining studies within a meta-analysis was not appropriate". Their conclusion is that time to diagnosis "varies between diagnostic groups and with age at diagnosis in the majority of studies", and that future research needs "specific criteria identifying circumstances in which delay has occurred" alongside "a defined time line to diagnosis or treatment in every study".
What that means for a reader. There is good reason to think diagnosis in this age group is harder than in children or older adults: the cancers are rare, the symptoms overlap with ordinary adolescent complaints such as back pain, tiredness, headache and weight change, young people present to primary care less often, and the cancers that occur here are not the ones screening programmes or primary care referral rules are built around. There is not good evidence for how long it takes on average or for how much outcome depends on it. The commonly repeated assumption that longer time to diagnosis means more advanced disease and worse survival is, in the reviewers' framing, "often assumed" rather than established in this population.
Why it is graded insufficient. The grade attaches to the proposition that shortening time to diagnosis in this age group improves survival, not to the existence of delay, which is real and reported by young people themselves. The United Kingdom's national evaluation of teenage and young adult services found that young people's own interpretation of the results highlighted "the importance of the diagnostic experience", which the professional analysis had not captured, and noted that it "also incurred costs to TYA/families".
What is being done about it anyway, on other grounds. Awareness campaigns aimed at young people and at general practitioners, symptom checklists built for this age group, and direct-access diagnostic pathways all exist and are reasonable on the grounds of experience and anxiety even without survival evidence. A reader who feels they are not being heard can reasonably ask for a specific test and a specific timeframe, and ask for it to be written down.
What comes back, and when: not applicable. What can be recovered here is the record: the project of defining time to diagnosis consistently, so that the question can actually be answered, is still open.
Time to diagnosis in a rare disease is a skewed distribution with a long tail, so medians from hospital series describe the typical patient poorly and the harmed patient not at all. Without an agreed definition of the interval being measured, from first symptom, first presentation or first referral, and an agreed criterion for what counts as delay, studies cannot be pooled, and the quantity most relevant to outcome cannot be estimated.
Query for this technology: (TITLE:"How long it takes to diagnose cancer in a young person, and what the evidence actually says" OR ABSTRACT:"How long it takes to diagnose cancer in a young person, and what the evidence actually says") AND (cancer OR tumor OR tumour OR oncology OR carcinoma OR lymphoma OR leukemia OR leukaemia OR myeloma OR sarcoma OR melanoma OR glioma). Results are unfiltered search hits about How long it takes to diagnose cancer in a young person, and what the evidence actually says, not a curated reading list.
Shares Services built for teenagers and young adults, and what the national evaluation found, Adolescents and young adults: a group with its own cancers, its own gap and its own needs, Childhood cancers (all types), Quality of life and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Teenage Cancer Trust, Services built for teenagers and young adults, and what the national evaluation found, Childhood cancers (all types), Hodgkin lymphoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Ewing sarcoma, Childhood cancers (all types), The hardest cancers are found late, Hodgkin lymphoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Adolescents and young adults: a group with its own cancers, its own gap and its own needs, Ewing sarcoma, Childhood cancers (all types), Osteosarcoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Ewing sarcoma, Childhood cancers (all types), Osteosarcoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Services built for teenagers and young adults, and what the national evaluation found, Childhood cancers (all types), Hodgkin lymphoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Testicular germ cell tumours, Ewing sarcoma, Childhood cancers (all types), Hodgkin lymphoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.
Shares Ewing sarcoma, Childhood cancers (all types), Osteosarcoma, Hodgkin lymphoma and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, paediatric, late-effects.