Diagnostic delay in XXXX .

@entity1 @entity5 @entity0
BACKGROUND: Delay in the diagnosis of @entity0 has important clinical and medicolegal implications. This study assessed the frequency, causes and effects of delay in the diagnosis of @entity0 in a specialist breast unit. METHODS: Details of @entity1 who attended the breast clinic between 1988 and 1999 inclusive, and for whom the interval between first attendance and diagnosis of @entity0 was greater than 2 months, were reviewed. Potential causes of delay were identified and the consequence of the delay assessed. The clinical features were compared with those of @entity1 diagnosed with @entity0 during a 2-year period from 1999 and 2001. RESULTS: @entity0 was diagnosed in 5283 @entity1 during the interval reviewed; delay in diagnosis was suggested in 72 @entity1 (1.4 per cent). @entity1 with a delayed diagnosis were younger (P < 0.001) and had a smaller @entity5 at diagnosis (P = 0.011) compared with all @entity1 diagnosed with @entity0 between 1999 and 2001. There were no differences in the rate of axillary node positivity or the need for mastectomy. @entity1 unsuitable for conservation therapy in the delayed group had a significantly longer interval to diagnosis (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The likelihood that conservation therapy will be appropriate is reduced when the hospital delay in the diagnosis of @entity0 is more than 240 days. All @entity1 with a palpable mass require triple assessment to minimize delay in diagnosis of @entity0 .
