BACKGROUND: Non-specific symptoms are  common and often sign of a non-serious disease. Because of this, patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer (NSSC) present a challenge for general practitioners (GP). Studies describing characteristics of patients with NSSC have been done after fast-track pathways were created to diagnose and treat patients with NSSC. This study reviews characteristics of patients with NSSC and their patient pathways.
METHODS: Database searches of Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, Cinahl and Web of Science were performed. Search terms used were cancer, patient pathway, and NSSC with their synonyms. The flow diagram Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Review was applied to the systematic search. The Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to compare the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criterias. All studies were considered to be of high methodological quality. Patient Pathway: 11-35% of patients were diagnosed with cancer. Median number of days through diagnostic process was 7-10.
METHODS: The most prevalent cancers included hematological-(14-30%), gastrointestinal-(13-23%) and lung cancers (13%). Rheumatological, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal diseases were among the most common non-malignant diseases diagnosed. Weight loss, fatigue, pain and loss of appetite were the most common symptoms. Cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and previous diagnosed cancer were the most common comorbidities. Mean age of included patients was 60-72 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited number of studies were found and they lacked sufficient heterogenic data to conduct a metaanalysis. Symptoms, diagnoses, age and gender were described with some heterogenic results. Further studies should be conducted to gather broader knowledge about patients with NSSC.

Health facilities which do not have capacity to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) depend on other facilities. This involves the courier of specimen such as sputum to diagnostic centers. This study was aimed at determining the turnaround time of sputum examinations for TB patients involving a courier system between the treatment and diagnostic centers.
The study tracked the sputum samples between TB treatment and diagnostic centers. Sputum samples for both diagnosis and follow-up reasons were purposely and serially tracked from the time they were sent to the laboratory to the time results were received at the treatment centers.
Of the 65 sputum samples tracked at Chazanga, results were available for 49 (75.4%), 6 (9.2%) were unaccounted for, 4 (6.2%) were rejected by the laboratory, 4 (6.2%) had \"error\" results, and 2 (3.1%) were declared \"missing\" because it took more than a month to return the results. The turnaround time ranged from 2 days to 18 days with an average of 5.8 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5-7.1 days). At Kaunda Square, of the 49 samples tracked, results were available for 44 (89.8%), 2 (4.1%) were unaccounted for, 2 (4.1%) were rejected, and 1 (2.0%) was declared \"missing.\" The turnaround time ranged from 2 to 25 days with an average of 6.3 days (95% CI: 5.3-7.4 days).
The turnaround times of sputum examinations of the two treatment centers were long. The courier system should be closely monitored to determine if it is performing well because the system is still necessary for facilities without laboratories.

UNASSIGNED: Fast-track referral pathways for patients with nonspecific, serious symptoms have been implemented in several countries. Our objective was to analyze time intervals in the diagnostic routes of patients diagnosed with cancer at Sweden\'s first Diagnostic Center (DC) for nonspecific symptoms and compare with time intervals of matched control patients.
UNASSIGNED: Adult patients with nonspecific symptoms that could not be explained by an initial investigation in primary care were eligible for referral to the DC. Patients diagnosed with cancer were matched with patients at another hospital within the same healthcare organization. We aimed for two control patients per DC-patient and matched on tumor type, age and sex. Five time intervals were compared: 1) patient interval (first symptom-primary care contact), 2) primary care interval (first visit-referral to the DC/secondary care), 3) diagnostic interval (first visit-cancer diagnosis), 4) information interval (cancer diagnosis-patient informed) and 5) treatment interval (cancer diagnosis-treatment start). Comparisons between groups and matched cohort analyses were made.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty-four patients (22.1%) were diagnosed with cancer at the DC, of which eight were not matchable. Forty-two patients were matched with two controls and 14 were matched with one control. There were no significant differences in patient-, primary care-, or diagnostic intervals between the groups. The information interval was shorter at the DC compared to the control group (difference between matched pairs 7 days, p = 0.001) and the treatment interval was also shorter at the DC with significant differences in the matched analysis (difference between matched pairs 13 days, p = 0.049). The findings remained the same in four sensitivity analyses, made to compensate for differences between the groups.
UNASSIGNED: Up to diagnosis, we could not detect significant differences in time intervals between the DC and the control group. However, the shorter information and treatment intervals at the DC should be advantageous for these patients who will get timely access to treatment or palliative care. Due to limitations regarding comparability between the groups, the results must be interpreted with caution and further research is warranted.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov-ID: NCT01709539. Registration-date: October 18, 2012.

BACKGROUND: We have developed a rare disease center in China.
METHODS: In this study we analyzed how patients with periodic paralysis accessed centers in China vs. in the USA and UK.
RESULTS: A total of 116 patients with periodic paralysis were evaluated in Beijing and Hangzhou (2003-2012). These patients traveled long distances for outpatient specialist care without an appointment or physician referral. In contrast, at the University of Rochester in the USA, >90% of patients were referred from physicians throughout the country by identifying physician expertise or by referrals from a patient advocacy group. In the UK, a single center, supported by the National Health Service, provides assessment/genetic testing for all UK patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Rare disease centers in China require: (1) establishing a center for clinical characterization of the disease (e.g., periodic paralysis); (2) establishing a genetic diagnostic platform; (3) placing the center at a major city hospital; and (4) facilitating patient access through internet websites.