Cancer treatment delays in Finland are raising concerns about patient safety and survival outcomes, as an investigation by public broadcaster Yle has found that the country lacks a comprehensive national registry to track treatment delays and differences in the quality of care.
Yle’s investigative programme MOT reported that Finland has no national cancer quality registry comparable to those used in other Nordic countries. Without a central system to collect and analyse hospital data, identifying where delays occur and how they affect patients remains difficult.
The findings come after earlier research reported by Yle showed that patients in Finland have poorer survival outcomes than patients in other Nordic countries for several types of cancer. The problem is also examined in MOT’s documentary, “Slowly Towards Cancer Treatment” (Hitaasti syöpähoitoon).
Instead of relying on a nationwide system, Finnish researchers have had to investigate delays affecting individual cancer types. One ongoing study, coordinated by Outi Kuittinen, professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Finland, is examining the time it takes to diagnose and begin treating lung cancer patients in Kuopio, Tampere, Turku and Rovaniemi.
Unpublished findings from the study, obtained by MOT, indicate that the average time from the onset of lung cancer symptoms to the start of treatment in Finland is approximately 155 days, or five months. More than 50 days of that period are attributed to the patient, while primary healthcare accounts for 41 days and specialised healthcare for another 58 days.
According to MOT, the corresponding total delay is 107 days in Sweden and 67 days in Denmark. The figures highlight differences in how quickly patients move through the diagnostic and treatment process, although the reasons behind the gaps have not been fully investigated.
Cancer organisations have identified several possible reasons why people delay seeking medical attention, including financial concerns and fear of receiving a cancer diagnosis. Once patients contact healthcare services, further delays can occur if appointments are difficult to obtain or symptoms are not recognised promptly.
Kuittinen says diagnostic pathways are too slow, a problem she believes is familiar to doctors who treat cancer. Delays can begin when patients struggle to secure appointments, continue when general practitioners fail to recognise warning signs or make diagnostic errors, and grow when patients wait for scans, test reports or tissue samples in specialised healthcare.
She argues that better training for primary care doctors, faster access to medical imaging and a fast-track referral system for people suspected of having cancer could help shorten the process.
The consequences of delays are illustrated by the experience of Heidi Rintahaka, who was 39 when she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of triple-negative breast cancer. Her first drug treatments at Helsinki University Hospital began six weeks after her initial symptoms appeared. During that period, the tumour grew from three centimetres to eight centimetres.
Rintahaka said she found the situation difficult to believe but did not think to challenge the pace of her care at the time.
Her later experience raised further concerns. About six months after her most recent surgery, she noticed suspicious redness on her chest. A public health centre took a skin biopsy, but she waited nearly a month for the results. In the meantime, she sought care at a private cancer hospital, where results were available within days.
The health centre eventually informed her that its sample had shown no cancer. An hour or two later, a doctor at the private hospital called to tell her that cancer had been found in the sample taken there.
Rintahaka described the situation as an incomprehensible medical error. MOT’s investigation found that the biopsy taken at the health centre had been performed incorrectly.
The case raises questions about diagnostic procedures, communication between healthcare providers and the time patients may lose when an initial assessment fails to identify a serious condition.
Finland’s efforts to improve cancer care have also faced funding difficulties. The country adopted its first national cancer strategy in November 2025 following work by more than 200 experts. However, progress in implementing the strategy has been slow.
A roadmap prepared by oncologists and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health estimates that putting the strategy’s proposed measures into practice would require 140 million euros. The ministry declined to publish the roadmap under its own name, explaining that doing so could give the impression that the necessary funding had already been secured.
Tuula Helander, the ministry’s director for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, helped develop the strategy and roadmap. She said that funding decisions would ultimately depend on political priorities.
In a response forwarded by the ministry’s communications team, Helander said that many important policy areas compete for the same resources and that decisions about how public money is allocated are political.
However, the next state budget provides no funding for measures specifically aimed at improving cancer treatment outcomes. It also removes 400,000 euros previously earmarked for developing a national cancer quality registry.
Kuittinen criticised the decision, arguing that the amount being cut is small compared with the cost of treating some individual patients with serious cancers. She noted that treating one patient with aggressive lymphoma can easily cost 400,000 euros.
Cancer specialists argue that better monitoring and earlier treatment could improve survival while also reducing the financial burden associated with advanced disease. Denmark provides an example of how a public quality registry can support improvements in care, with its system helping to improve treatment outcomes for lymphoma and lung cancer.
Social Affairs and Health Minister Wille Rydman of the Finns Party acknowledged that cancer is a major societal concern but noted that other diseases also require attention and resources.
Concerns about delayed diagnosis are particularly significant for younger women with breast cancer. Päivi Auvinen, chief physician at the cancer centre of Kuopio University Hospital, says breast cancer can be more difficult to detect in younger patients because the disease is less common in this age group and dense breast tissue can make tumours harder to identify.
The experience of a 32-year-old woman identified as Julia illustrates the risks. She was initially diagnosed with benign breast tumours but received a cancer diagnosis eight months later. By then, the cancer had grown considerably and spread to lymph nodes in her armpit.
Julia had repeatedly tried to obtain another appointment but was unsuccessful because her earlier tumours had been classified as benign. Her case highlights the importance of reassessing symptoms when they persist or change, even after an initial examination has found no evidence of cancer.
Kuittinen has also criticised Finland’s extension of the treatment guarantee from two weeks to three months. She warns that patients whose symptoms are incorrectly classified as non-urgent may face prolonged waits before receiving further assessment.
For some cancers, she argues, a delay of several months following an incorrect initial assessment can have serious consequences.
The investigation points to a broader problem in Finland’s cancer care system: without comprehensive national data, it is harder to identify recurring delays, compare hospital performance and determine where improvements are most urgently needed. The lack of dedicated funding for a national quality registry adds another obstacle to efforts to monitor treatment outcomes and address differences in care.
