Predictive Value of Diagnostic Delay Factors for Stage Distribution in Colorectal Cancer Screening
Keywords:
Colorectal Cancer, Diagnostic Delay, Cancer Registry, Stage Distribution, Public HealthAbstract
Colorectal cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide, heavily dependent on the stage at diagnosis for prognostic outcomes. Screening programs have been widely implemented to detect precancerous lesions and early-stage malignancies, yet the effectiveness of these interventions is frequently undermined by diagnostic delays. This paper presents a comprehensive academic investigation into predicting stage distribution based on diagnostic delay factors using extensive registry analysis. By examining large-scale population data, the study identifies critical patient-level, system-level, and clinical factors that contribute to prolonged intervals between initial screening abnormalities and definitive diagnosis. A meticulous methodological framework is employed to harmonize disparate registry data, ensuring robust categorization of delay intervals and cancer stages. Through advanced predictive modeling techniques, described conceptually without mathematical notation, the analysis quantifies the probability of stage progression as a function of time delay. The findings emphasize that delays exceeding a specific threshold significantly shift the distribution toward advanced stages, compounding the burden on healthcare systems and worsening patient survival rates. This research highlights the urgent need for optimized clinical pathways, integrated registry surveillance, and targeted health policies to minimize delays, thereby maximizing the life-saving potential of colorectal cancer screening programs on a global scale.References
1. Champaneria, M.C. A Complete History of Breast Reconstruction. In Breast Reconstruction: Art, Science, and New Clinical Techniques; Shiffman, M.A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–39.
2. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS Global Survey 2024; International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: Mt. Royal, NJ, USA, 2024.
3. Global Statistics. Available online: https://www.isaps.org/discover/about-isaps/global-statistics/ (accessed on 6 March 2026).
4. Geddes, D.T. Inside the Lactating Breast: The Latest Anatomy Research. J. Midwifery Womens Health 2007, 52, 556–563.
5. Yadav, K.; Lewis, R.J. Gatekeeping Strategies for Avoiding False-Positive Results in Clinical Trials With Many Comparisons. JAMA 2017, 318, 1385–1386.
6. Savic, R.M.; Karlsson, M.O. Importance of shrinkage in empirical bayes estimates for diagnostics: Problems and solutions. AAPS J. 2009, 11, 558–569.
7. Manallack, D.T. The pK(a) Distribution of Drugs: Application to Drug Discovery. Perspect. Medicin. Chem. 2007, 1, 25–38.
8. Gelman, A.; Loken, E. The Garden of Forking Paths: Why Multiple Comparisons Can Be a Problem, Even When There Is No “Fishing Expedition” or “p-Hacking” and the Research Hypothesis was Posited Ahead of Time; Department of Statistics, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
9. de Faria Castro Fleury, E.; Gianini, A.C.; Ayres, V.; Ramalho, L.C.; Seleti, R.O.; Roveda, D. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Tips for the Diagnosis of Silicone-Induced Granuloma of a Breast Implant Capsule (SIGBIC). Insights Imaging 2017, 8, 439–446.
10. MR Imaging of Extracapsular Silicone from Breast Implants Diagnostic Pitfalls|AJR. Available online: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780465 (accessed on 6 March 2026).
11. Solvi, A.S.; Foss, K.; von Soest, T.; Roald, H.E.; Skolleborg, K.C.; Holte, A. Motivational Factors and Psychological Processes in Cosmetic Breast Augmentation Surgery. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2010, 63, 673–680.
12. POLYTECH Health & Aesthetics GmbH. Our Breast Implant Series | POLYTECH Health & Aesthetics. Available online: https://polytech-health-aesthetics.com/en/pro/breast-implants/implant-types/ (accessed on 7 March 2026).
13. Vidya, R.; Iqbal, F.M. A Guide to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A New Dimension to Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Clin. Breast Cancer 2017, 17, 266–271.
14. Fan, J.; Chen, S.; Chow, E.C.; Pang, K.S. PBPK modeling of intestinal and liver enzymes and transporters in drug absorption and sequential metabolism. Curr. Drug Metab. 2010, 11, 743–761.
15. Neyman, J.; Pearson, E.S. On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. A Contain. Pap. A Math. Phys. Character 1933, 231, 289–337.
16. Barr, S.; Hill, E.W.; Bayat, A. Functional Biocompatibility Testing of Silicone Breast Implants and a Novel Classification System Based on Surface Roughness. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2017, 75, 75–81.
17. Tanas, Y.; Gasper, G.; Tanas, J.; Swed, S.; De Sario Velasquez, G. Comparative Outcomes of Human Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Framework. Syst. Rev. 2025, 14, 157.
18. Quality of Life and Satisfaction after Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Breast-Q Patient-Reported Outcomes—Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. Available online: https://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815(24)00351-6/fulltext (accessed on 7 March 2026).
19. Curry, L.; Alrubia, S.; Bois, F.Y.; Clayton, R.; El-Khateeb, E.; Johnson, T.N.; Faisal, M.; Neuhoff, S.; Wragg, K.; Rostami-Hodjegan, A. A guide to developing population files for physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling in the Simcyp Simulator. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2024, 13, 1429–1447.
20. Hoekstra, R.; Morey, R.D.; Rouder, J.N.; Wagenmakers, E.J. Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2014, 21, 1157–1164.
21. Jordan, C.; Sosnowski, K.; Shah, R.; Malata, C. Implant Surface Selection in Primary Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: A National Cross-Sectional Study of UK Plastic Surgeons. JPRAS Open 2025, 45, 212–224.
22. Peters, S.A. Front Matter. In Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling and Simulations; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. i–xxv.
23. Frost, C.E.; Song, Y.; Shenker, A.; Wang, J.; Barrett, Y.C.; Schuster, A.; Harris, S.I.; LaCreta, F. Effects of age and sex on the single-dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of apixaban. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2015, 54, 651–662.
24. Motulsky, H.J. Common misconceptions about data analysis and statistics. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2015, 3, e00093.
25. Rowland, M. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling and Simulations Principles, Methods, and Applications in the Pharmaceutical Industry. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2013, 2, e55.
26. Hahn, D.; Emoto, C.; Euteneuer, J.C.; Mizuno, T.; Vinks, A.A.; Fukuda, T. Influence of OCT1 Ontogeny and Genetic Variation on Morphine Disposition in Critically Ill Neonates: Lessons From PBPK Modeling and Clinical Study. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 105, 761–768.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.