Correction to: International variation in child healthcare practices and implications for childhood cancer diagnosis: a scoping review and cross-country clinician survey (European Journal of Pediatrics, (2026), 185, 7, (491), 10.1007/s00431-026-07109-9)

Autores de IIS La Fe

• Adela Cañete Nieto

  Autor

Participantes ajenos a IIS La Fe

• Lopez-Cortes A.
• Al-Mahdy A.
• Jakab Z.
• Shimato M.
• Botta L.
• Didonè F.
• Desandes E.
• Hjalgrim L.L.
• Polanco A.
• Stiller C.A.
• Zeller B.
• Gatta G.
• Pritchard-Jones K.

Grupos

• Investigación Clínica y Traslacional en Cáncer

Abstract

An erratum has been published for the article titled "International variation in child healthcare practices and implications for childhood cancer diagnosis: a scoping review and cross-country clinician survey". Published form: Four lines of study types with their associated percentage of all the Observation studies are displayed as part of a continuous list. Descriptive characteristics of 33 articles included in the review Number (%) Publication year 2012–2015 9 (27%) 2016–2019 8 (24%) 2020–2025 16 (48%) Setting UK 14 (42%) Denmark 6 (18%) USA 4 (12%) Multi-country 3 (9%) Brazil 2 (6%) Germany 1 (3%) Italy 1 (3%) Spain 1 (3%) Sweden 1 (3%) Population studied National population-level data 21 (64%) Regional-level data 5 (15%) Not stated 4 (12%) Patient-level data 3 (9%) Study type Observational 28 (85%) Cohort 14 (42%) Case–control 4 (12%) Cross sectional 2 (6%) Not specified 8 (24%) Review 3 (9%) Systematic review and meta-analysis 1 (3%) Exploratory 1 (3%) Age range of the population studied* Children and teenagers 10 (30%) Children, teenagers, and young adults 9 (27%) Children, teenagers, young adults, and adults 4 (12%) Teenagers and young adults 4 (12%) Not applicable (literature reviews or reviews) 4 (12%) Children and adults 2 (6%) *Age definitions used are described in Table 2 Corrected form: These four lines of study types and their associated percentages have been indented to properly show they are sub-categories under Observation studies, correcting the total percentage calculation. Descriptive characteristics of 33 articles included in the review Number (%) Publication year 2012–2015 9 (27%) 2016–2019 8 (24%) 2020–2025 16 (48%) Setting UK 14 (42%) Denmark 6 (18%) USA 4 (12%) Multi-country 3 (9%) Brazil 2 (6%) Germany 1 (3%) Italy 1 (3%) Spain 1 (3%) Sweden 1 (3%) Population studied National population-level data 21 (64%) Regional-level data 5 (15%) Not stated 4 (12%) Patient-level data 3 (9%) Study type Observational 28 (85%) Cohort 14 (42%) Case–control 4 (12%) Cross sectional 2 (6%) Not specified 8 (24%) Review 3 (9%) Systematic review and meta-analysis 1 (3%) Exploratory 1 (3%) Age range of the population studied* Children and teenagers 10 (30%) Children, teenagers, and young adults 9 (27%) Children, teenagers, young adults, and adults 4 (12%) Teenagers and young adults 4 (12%) Not applicable (literature reviews or reviews) 4 (12%) Children and adults 2 (6%) *Age definitions used are described in Table 2 Published form: "Median primary care interval (presentation at a health-care facility to referral to an oncology centre): 1 × 7 weeks (IQR 0.1–12.0)" Time intervals and number of visits before diagnosis identified in the scoping review Age range (yrs) Time intervals in children, teenagers, and young adults Ref. 0-18 CNS tumours only, Swedish national cohort diagnosed 2013–2016 Median total interval (symptom onset to start of treatment): 9.9 weeks (IQR 3.7–30.2) Median total diagnostic interval (symptom onset to diagnosis): 8.3 weeks (IQR 2.7–25.3) Median patient interval (symptom onset to presentation at a health-care facility): 2.6 weeks (IQR 0.3–8.4) Median primary care interval (presentation at a health-care facility to referral to an oncology centre): 1 × 7 weeks (IQR 0.1–12.0) [39] Not stated CNS tumours only, data collected from 18 children’s cancer centres in UK Following a UK national awareness campaign called “HeadSmart: Be Brain Tumour Aware”, the median total diagnostic interval reduced from 9.1 weeks in 2011 to 6.7 weeks in the second year post-launch (2012–2013) The median diagnostic interval (from first medical contact to CNS imaging) reduced from 3.3 weeks to 1.4 weeks (p = 0.009) No significant change in patient interval (first symptom to first presentation) [35] Children All cancers, retrospective audit of paediatricians in a single region in Italy All cancers, retrospective audit of paediatricians in a single region in Italy Estimated number of new children with cancer per paediatrician was 0.17 per year [29] 0–25 CNS tumours only, USA single institution, diagnosed 2008–2017 Median total diagnostic interval (TDI): 42 days (IQR 14–120) Median TDI longer 150 days (IQR 60–135) in patients without a recognised cancer predisposition syndrome Evidence of significant differences in total diagnostic interval by tumour location and age [32] 0–24 Multiple cancer types, England GP research database (1300 practices), diagnosed 1998–2018 Median total diagnostic interval (from first medical contact to diagnosis) for any symptom: 41 days Childhood cases (0–14 years old) had 25 associated symptoms with a median diagnostic time interval of 38 days In teenagers and young adults (15–24 years old), 20 symptoms were identified, and the median diagnostic interval was 44 days [38] 0–18 Prospective study of all new cancer cases (n = 1933) presenting to the national network of children’s cancer treatment centres in the UK, 2020–2023 Median total diagnostic interval: 4.6 weeks (IQR 2.0–11.4) Median symptom interval (parent-reported to first medical contact): 1.1 weeks (IQR 0.1–4.0) Median system interval (first presentation to diagnosis): 1.7 weeks (IQR 0.4–5.9) Median TDI longest in 15–18 years (8.7 weeks, IQR 3.0–17.4) and in bone tumours (12.6 weeks, IQR 6.6–23.4) [41] Number of visits before cancer diagnosis 4–18 Bone tumours (Ewing or Osteosarcoma), USA, Institutional retrospective audit. © The Author(s) 2026.

Keywords

• erratum