Nationwide study reveals how diagnostic routes affect biomarker testing and HRQOL in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.
Abstract BackgroundThe diagnostic route is an important determinant in advanced colorectal cancer, yet its impact remains understudied in China.MethodsIn this nationwide cross-sectional study (2020–2021), we enrolled 4,589 patients with advanced colorectal cancer in China. Diagnostic routes included symptomatic presentation, proactive health-seeking, and comorbidity presentation. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate their determinants and associations with two outcomes: receipt of biomarker testing and post-treatment HRQOL, adjusted for baseline scores and covariates.ResultsThe majority of patients (87.0%) were diagnosed via the symptomatic pathway, with the remainder following Proactive Health-Seeking (6.0%) or comorbidity (6.0%) pathways. Higher educational attainment was a significant predictor of presentation through a non-symptomatic pathway relative to the symptomatic pathway. Analysis of post-diagnosis outcomes revealed divergent associations for these non-symptomatic routes. The Comorbid pathway was independently associated with a higher likelihood of receiving biomarker testing (Odds Ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05–1.88). A similar positive, though not statistically significant, trend was observed for the Proactive Health-Seeking pathway (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.99–1.80). Conversely, both the Proactive Health-Seeking (β = -2.28; 95% CI, -3.94 to -0.63) and the Comorbid (β = -2.86; 95% CI, -4.49 to -1.23) pathways were significantly associated with a greater decline in the post-treatment physical functioning domain of HRQOL.ConclusionsThe predominance of symptomatic diagnoses highlights the urgent need for earlier detection. Although non-symptomatic routes improved access to biomarker testing, they were also associated with greater short-term physical decline, underscoring the need to integrate psychosocial support into early diagnostic pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: