Trends in time to cancer diagnosis around the period of changing national guidance on referral of symptomatic patients: A serial cross-sectional study using UK electronic healthcare records from 2006-17

Unlocking cancer vaccine potential: What are the key factors?

Cancer is a global health challenge, with changing demographics and lifestyle factors producing an increasing burden worldwide. Screening advancements are enabling earlier diagnoses, but current cancer immunotherapies only induce remission in a small proportion of patients and come at a high cost. Cancer vaccines may offer a solution to these challenges, but they have been mired by poor results in past decades. Greater understanding of tumor biology, coupled with the success of vaccine technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, has reinvigorated cancer vaccine development. With the first signs of efficacy being reported, cancer vaccines may be beginning to fulfill their potential. Solid tumors, however, present different hurdles than infectious diseases. Combining insights from previous cancer vaccine clinical development and contemporary knowledge of tumor immunology, we ask: who are the 'right' patients, what are the 'right' targets, and which are the 'right' modalities to maximize the chances of cancer vaccine success?

Time to Diagnosis and Treatment for Ovarian Cancer and Associations with Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background: Ovarian cancer is commonly diagnosed symptomatically at an advanced stage. Better survival for early disease suggests improving diagnostic pathways may increase survival. This study examines literature assessing diagnostic intervals and their association with clinical and psychological outcomes. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and EmCare databases were searched for studies including quantitative measures of at least one interval, published between January 1, 2000 and August 9, 2022. Interval measures and associations (interval, outcomes, analytic strategy) were synthesized. Risk of bias of association studies was assessed using the Aarhus Checklist and ROBINS-E tool. Results: In total, 65 papers (20 association studies) were included and 26 unique intervals were identified. Interval estimates varied widely and were impacted by summary statistic used (mean or median) and group focused on. Of Aarhus-defined intervals, patient (symptom to presentation, n = 23; range [median]: 7-168 days) and diagnostic (presentation to diagnosis, n = 22; range [median]: 7-270 days) were most common. Nineteen association studies examined survival or stage outcomes with most, including five low risk-of-bias studies, finding no association. Conclusions: Studies reporting intervals for ovarian cancer diagnosis are limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Greater utilization of the Aarhus statement to define intervals and appropriate analytic methods is needed to strengthen findings from future studies.

Phenotypes and rates of cancer-relevant symptoms and tests in the year before cancer diagnosis in UK Biobank and CPRD Gold

Early diagnosis of cancer relies on accurate assessment of cancer risk in patients presenting with symptoms, when screening is not appropriate. But recorded symptoms in cancer patients pre-diagnosis may vary between different sources of electronic health records (EHRs), either genuinely or due to differential completeness of symptom recording. To assess possible differences, we analysed primary care EHRs in the year pre-diagnosis of cancer in UK Biobank and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) populations linked to cancer registry data. We developed harmonised phenotypes in Read v2 and CTV3 coding systems for 21 symptoms and eight blood tests relevant to cancer diagnosis. Among 22,601 CPRD and 11,594 UK Biobank cancer patients, 54% and 36%, respectively, had at least one consultation for possible cancer symptoms recorded in the year before their diagnosis. Adjusted comparisons between datasets were made using multivariable Poisson models, comparing rates of symptoms/tests in CPRD against expected rates if cancer site-age-sex-deprivation associations were the same as in UK Biobank. UK Biobank cancer patients compared with those in CPRD had lower rates of consultation for possible cancer symptoms [RR: 0.61 (0.59-0.63)], and lower rates for any primary care consultation [RR: 0.86 (95%CI 0.85-0.87)]. Differences were larger for 'non-alarm' symptoms [RR: 0.54 (0.52-0.56)], and smaller for 'alarm' symptoms [RR: 0.80 (0.76-0.84)] and blood tests [RR: 0.93 (0.90-0.95)]. In the CPRD cohort, approximately representative of the UK population, half of cancer patients had recorded symptoms in the year before diagnosis. The frequency of non-specific presenting symptoms recorded in the year pre-diagnosis of cancer was substantially lower among UK Biobank participants. The degree to which results based on highly selected biobank cohorts are generalisable needs to be examined in disease-specific contexts.

A taxonomy of early diagnosis research to guide study design and funding prioritisation

Researchers and research funders aiming to improve diagnosis seek to identify if, when, where, and how earlier diagnosis is possible. This has led to the propagation of research studies using a wide range of methodologies and data sources to explore diagnostic processes. Many such studies use electronic health record data and focus on cancer diagnosis. Based on this literature, we propose a taxonomy to guide the design and support the synthesis of early diagnosis research, focusing on five key questions: Do healthcare use patterns suggest earlier diagnosis could be possible? How does the diagnostic process begin? How do patients progress from presentation to diagnosis? How long does the diagnostic process take? Could anything have been done differently to reach the correct diagnosis sooner? We define families of diagnostic research study designs addressing each of these questions and appraise their unique or complementary contributions and limitations. We identify three further questions on relationships between the families and their relevance for examining patient group inequalities, supported with examples from the cancer literature. Although exemplified through cancer as a disease model, we recognise the framework is also applicable to non-neoplastic disease. The proposed framework can guide future study design and research funding prioritisation.

Incidence of 'Low-Risk but Not No-Risk' Features of Cancer Prior to High-Risk Feature Occurrence: An Observational Cohort Study in Primary Care

Diagnosing cancer may be expedited by decreasing referral risk threshold. Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants (≥40 years) had a positive predictive value (PPV) ≥3% feature for breast, lung, colorectal, oesophagogastric, pancreatic, renal, bladder, prostatic, ovarian, endometrial or laryngeal cancer in 2016. The numbers of participants with features representing a 1-1.99% or 2-2.99% PPV for same cancer in the previous year were reported, alongside the time difference between meeting the ≥3% criteria and the lower threshold criteria. A total of 8616 participants had a PPV ≥3% feature, of whom 365 (4.2%) and 1147 (13.3%), respectively, met 2-2.99% and 1-1.99% criteria in the preceding year. The median time difference was 131 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 27 to 256) for the 2-2.99% band and 179 days (IQR 58 to 289) for the 1-1.99% band. Results were heterogeneous across cancer sites. For some cancers, participants may progress from presenting lower- to higher-risk features before meeting urgent referral criteria; however, this was not usually the case. The details of specific features across multiple cancer sites will allow for a tailored approach to future reductions in referral thresholds, potentially improving the efficiency of urgent cancer referrals for the benefit both of individuals and the National Health Service (NHS).

Evaluation of treatment delays in hepatopancreatico-biliary surgery during the first COVID-19 wave

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused oncological services worldwide to face unprecedented challenges resulting in treatment disruption for surgical patients. Hepatopancreatico-biliary (HPB) cancers are characterised by rapid disease progression. This study aims to assess delays in receiving surgery for this patient cohort during the first COVID-19 wave.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery between April and July 2020 (COVID-19 period) were compared with a control group from the preceding year. Delay in receiving surgery was defined as more than 50 days between referral and surgery date. Statistical analysis was carried out to evaluate predictors of delay and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods, 94 and 115 patients underwent surgery, respectively. No patients contracted COVID-19 postoperatively. Some 118 patients waited more than 50 days for surgery versus 91 who received surgery within 50 days from referral. Independent predictors for surgical delay were undergoing surgery in the COVID-19 era (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.1; p=0.015), referral pathway (OR 35.1, 95% CI 4.2-296; p=0.001) and presenting pathology (OR 8.3, 95% CI 1.2-56.1; p=0.03). Short-term outcomes were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient referral pathway and presenting pathology may contribute to delays in undergoing HPB cancer surgery during COVID-19 outbreaks. It is hoped that a better understanding of these factors will aid in designing shifts in healthcare policy during future pandemic outbreaks.

Are There Ethnic Differences in Recorded Features among Patients Subsequently Diagnosed with Cancer? An English Longitudinal Data-Linked Study

We investigated ethnic differences in the presenting features recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

English population-based cancer-registry-linked primary care data were analysed. We identified the coded features of six cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, and myeloma) in the year pre-diagnosis. Logistic regression models investigated ethnic differences in first-incident cancer features, adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Of 130,944 patients, 92% were White. In total, 188,487 incident features were recorded in the year pre-diagnosis, with 48% (89,531) as sole features. Compared with White patients, Asian and Black patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer were more likely than White patients to have multiple features; the opposite was seen for the Black and Other ethnic groups with lung or prostate cancer. The proportion with relevant recorded features was broadly similar by ethnicity, with notable cancer-specific exceptions. Asian and Black patients were more likely to have low-risk features (e.g., cough, upper abdominal pain) recorded. Non-White patients were less likely to have alarm features.

CONCLUSION

The degree to which these differences reflect disease, patient or healthcare factors is unclear. Further research examining the predictive value of cancer features in ethnic minority groups and their association with cancer outcomes is needed.

Reduction in COVID-19 related resource loss and decline in prevalence of probable depression in Chinese adults: an application of the Conservation of Resource Theory

BACKGROUND

The levels of resource losses due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mental distress may change during the pandemic period. Based on the Conservation of Resource (COR) Theory, this study investigated such changes and the mediation between survey time (Round 2 versus Round 1) and depression via resource losses.

METHODS

Two serial random population-based telephone surveys interviewed 209 and 458 Hong Kong Chinese adults in April 2020 and May 2021, respectively. Probable depression was defined as 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥ 10. The validated Conservation of Resources Scale for COVID-19 (CORS-COVID-19) scale was used to assess resource losses due to COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, hierarchical logistic regression analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the association, interaction, and mediation hypotheses, respectively.

RESULTS

The prevalence of probable depression declined from 8.6% to 1.0% over time, together with reductions in losses of financial resource (Cohen's d = 0.88), future control (Cohen's d = 0.39), social resource (Cohen's d = 0.60), and family resource (Cohen's d = 0.36) due to COVID-19. All the overall scale/subscales of the CORS-COVID-19 were positively and associated with probable depression [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) ranged from 2.72 to 42.30]. In SEM, the survey time was negatively associated with the latent variable of resource loss (β = - 0.46), which in turn was positively associated with probable depression (β = 0.73). In addition, the direct effect of survey time on probable depression was statistically non-significant (β = - 0.08), indicating a full mediation effect of resource losses.

CONCLUSIONS

The lessening of the resource losses might have fully accounted for the significant decline in probable depression from Month 3 to 15 since the first COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong, China. The level of depression might have increased during the first phase of the pandemic, but might decline in the later phases if resources losses could be lessened. All stakeholders should hence work together to minimize individuals' COVID-19-related resource losses to prevent depression in the general population, as COVID-19 might be lasting.

A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies

BACKGROUND

The referral process is an important research focus because of the potential consequences of delays, especially for patients with serious medical conditions that need immediate care, such as those with metastatic cancer. Thus, a systematic literature review of recent and influential manuscripts is critical to understanding the current methods and future directions in order to improve the referral process.

METHODS

A hybrid bibliometric-structured review was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Searches were conducted of three databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, in addition to the references from the eligible papers. The papers were considered to be eligible if they were relevant English articles or reviews that were published from January 2010 to June 2021. The searches were conducted using three groups of keywords, and bibliometric analysis was performed, followed by content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 163 papers that were published in impactful journals between January 2010 and June 2021 were selected. These papers were then reviewed, analyzed, and categorized as follows: descriptive analysis (n = 77), cause and effect (n = 12), interventions (n = 50), and quality management (n = 24). Six future research directions were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal attention was given to the study of the primary referral of blood cancer cases versus those with solid cancer types, which is a gap that future studies should address. More research is needed in order to optimize the referral process, specifically for suspected hematological cancer patients.

Measurement of clinical delay intervals among younger adults with colorectal cancer using health administrative data: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical delays may be important contributors to outcomes among younger adults (<50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to describe delay intervals for younger adults with CRC using health administrative data to understand drivers of delay in this population.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of adults <50 diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Using administrative code-based algorithms (including billing codes), we identified four time points along the pathway to treatment-first presentation with a CRC-related symptom, first investigation, diagnosis date and treatment start. Intervals between these time points were calculated. Multivariable quantile regression was performed to explore associations between patient and disease factors with the median length of each interval.

RESULTS

6853 patients aged 15-49 were diagnosed with CRC and met the inclusion criteria. Males comprised 52% of the cohort, the median age was 45 years (IQR 40-47), and 25% had stage IV disease. The median time from presentation to treatment start (overall interval) was 109 days (IQR 55-218). Time between presentation and first investigation was short (median 5 days), as was time between diagnosis and treatment start (median 23 days). The greatest component of delay occurred between first investigation and diagnosis (median 78 days). Women, patients with distal tumours, and patients with earlier stage disease had significantly longer overall intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Some younger CRC patients experience prolonged times from presentation to treatment, and time between first investigation to diagnosis was an important contributor. Access to endoscopy may be a target for intervention.

The Effect of Older Age and Frailty on the Time to Diagnosis of Cancer: A Connected Bradford Electronic Health Records Study

Over 60% of cancer diagnoses in the UK are in patients aged 65 and over. Cancer diagnosis and treatment in older adults is complicated by the presence of frailty, which is associated with lower survival rates and poorer quality of life. This population-based cohort study used a longitudinal database to calculate the time between presentation to primary care with a symptom suspicious of cancer and a confirmed cancer diagnosis for 7460 patients in the Bradford District. Individual frailty scores were calculated using the electronic frailty index (eFI) and categorised by severity. The median time from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis for all patients was 48 days (IQR 21-142). 23% of the cohort had some degree of frailty. After adjustment for potential confounders, mild frailty added 7 days (95% CI 3-11), moderate frailty 23 days (95% CI 4-42) and severe frailty 11 days (95% CI -27-48) to the median time to diagnosis compared to not frail patients. Our findings support use of the eFI in primary care to identify and address patient, healthcare and system factors that may contribute to diagnostic delay. We recommend further research to explore patient and clinician factors when investigating cancer in frail patients.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies.

Results

55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes.

Discussion

Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival.

Other

This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs.

METHODS

Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden.

RESULTS

Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision.

CONCLUSIONS

The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.

Concordance with urgent referral guidelines in patients presenting with any of six 'alarm' features of possible cancer: a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care records

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines advise GPs in England which patients warrant an urgent referral for suspected cancer. This study assessed how often GPs follow the guidelines, whether certain patients are less likely to be referred, and how many patients were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year of non-referral.

METHODS

We used linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) and cancer registration data. Patients presenting with haematuria, breast lump, dysphagia, iron-deficiency anaemia, post-menopausal or rectal bleeding for the first time during 2014-2015 were included (for ages where guidelines recommend urgent referral). Logistic regression was used to investigate whether receiving a referral was associated with feature type and patient characteristics. Cancer incidence (based on recorded diagnoses in cancer registry data within 1 year of presentation) was compared between those receiving and those not receiving referrals.

RESULTS

48 715 patients were included, of which 40% (n=19 670) received an urgent referral within 14 days of presentation, varying by feature from 17% (dysphagia) to 68% (breast lump). Young patients (18-24 vs 55-64 years; adjusted OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (4 vs 0 comorbidities; adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, p<0.001) were less likely to receive a referral. Associations between patient characteristics and referrals differed across features: among patients presenting with anaemia, breast lump or haematuria, those with multi-morbidity, and additionally for breast lump, more deprived patients were less likely to receive a referral. Of 29 045 patients not receiving a referral, 3.6% (1047) were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year, ranging from 2.8% for rectal bleeding to 9.5% for anaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline recommendations for action are not followed for the majority of patients presenting with common possible cancer features. A significant number of these patients developed cancer within 1 year of their consultation, indicating scope for improvement in the diagnostic process.

Assessing Ethnic Inequalities in Diagnostic Interval of Common Cancers: A Population-Based UK Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated ethnic differences in diagnostic interval (DI)-the period between initial primary care presentation and diagnosis.

METHODS

We analysed the primary care-linked data of patients who reported features of seven cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, myeloma, and ovarian) one year before diagnosis. Accelerated failure time (AFT) models investigated the association between DI and ethnicity, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 126,627 eligible participants, 92.1% were White, 1.99% Black, 1.71% Asian, 1.83% Mixed, and 2.36% were of Other ethnic backgrounds. Considering all cancer sites combined, the median (interquartile range) DI was 55 (20-175) days, longest in lung [127, (42-265) days], and shortest in breast cancer [13 (13, 8-18) days]. DI for the Black and Asian groups was 10% (AFT ratio, 95%CI 1.10, 1.05-1.14) and 16% (1.16, 1.10-1.22), respectively, longer than for the White group. Site-specific analyses revealed evidence of longer DI in Asian and Black patients with prostate, colorectal, and oesophagogastric cancer, plus Black patients with breast cancer and myeloma, and the Mixed group with lung cancer compared with White patients. DI was shorter for the Other group with lung, prostate, myeloma, and oesophagogastric cancer than the White group.

CONCLUSION

We found limited and inconsistent evidence of ethnic differences in DI among patients who reported cancer features in primary care before diagnosis. Our findings suggest that inequalities in diagnostic intervals, where present, are unlikely to be the sole explanation for ethnic variations in cancer outcomes.

Pre-diagnostic clinical features and blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective linked data study

Background: The majority of colorectal cancer cases are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation in the United Kingdom. Aim: To identify windows of opportunity for timely investigations or referrals in patients presenting with colon and rectal cancer-relevant symptoms or abnormal blood tests. Design and setting: Retrospective cohort study using linked primary care and cancer registry data of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in England between 2012-2015. Methods: Monthly consultation rates for relevant clinical features (change in bowel habit, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, mass, constitutional symptoms, and other bowel symptoms) and abnormal blood test results (low haemoglobin, high platelets and inflammatory markers) up to 24 months pre-diagnosis were calculated. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and relevant comorbidities was used to estimate the most likely month when consultation rates increased above baseline trend. Results: 5033 colon and 2516 rectal cancer patients were included. Consultations for all examined clinical features and abnormal blood tests increased in the year pre-diagnosis. Rectal bleeding was the earliest clinical feature to increase from baseline rate: 10 months (95%CI 8.3-11.7) pre-diagnosis for colon cancer; 8 months (95%CI 6.1-9.9) for rectal cancer. Low haemoglobin, high platelets and inflammatory markers increased from as early as 9 months pre-diagnosis. Conclusion: Our study found evidence for early increase in rates of consultation for relevant clinical features and abnormal blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer, suggesting that earlier instigation of cancer-specific investigations or referrals may be warranted in some symptomatic patients.

Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals.

DESIGN

A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021.

ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We summarised findings graphically and descriptively.

RESULTS

From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Cancer detection via primary care urgent referral and association with practice characteristics: a retrospective cross-sectional study in England from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019

Background

There is substantial variation in the use of urgent suspected cancer referral (2-week wait [2WW]) between practices.

Aim

To examine the change in use of 2WW referrals in England over 10 years (2009/2010 to 2018/2019) and the practice and population factors associated with cancer detection.

Design and setting

Retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practices and their 2WW referral and Cancer Waiting Times database detection data (all cancers other than non-melanoma skin cancers) from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019.

Method

A retrospective study conducted using descriptive statistics of changes over 10 years in 2WW referral data. Yearly linear regression models were used to determine the association between cancer detection rates and quintiles of practice and population characteristics. Predicted cancer detection rates were calculated, as well as the difference between lowest to highest quintiles.

Results

Over the 10 years studied there were 14.89 million 2WW referrals (2.24 million in 2018/2019), and 2.68 million new cancer diagnoses, of which 1.26 million were detected following 2WW. The detection rate increased from 41% to 52% over the time period. In 2018/2019 an additional 66 172 cancers were detected via 2WW compared with 2009/2010. Higher cancer detection via 2WW referrals was associated with larger practices and those with younger GPs. From 2016/2017 onwards more deprived practice populations were associated with decreased cancer detection.

Conclusion

From 2009/2010 to 2018/2019 2WW referrals increased on average by 10% year on year. The most consistent association with higher cancer detection was found for larger practices and those with younger GPs, though these differences became attenuated over time. The more recent association between increased practice deprivation and lower cancer detection is a cause for concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant impacts on 2WW referral activity and the impact on patient outcomes will need to be studied.

The impact of changing risk thresholds on the number of people in England eligible for urgent investigation for possible cancer: an observational cross-sectional study

Background

Expediting cancer diagnosis may be achieved by targeted decreases in referral thresholds to increase numbers of patients referred for urgent investigation.

Methods

Clinical Practice Research Datalink data from England for 150,921 adults aged ≥40 were used to identify participants with features of possible cancer equating to risk thresholds ≥1%, ≥2% or ≥3% for breast, lung, colorectal, oesophago-gastric, pancreatic, renal, bladder, prostatic, ovarian, endometrial and laryngeal cancers.

Results

The mean age of participants was 60 (SD 13) years, with 73,643 males (49%). In 2016, 8576 consultation records contained coded features having a positive predictive value (PPV) of ≥3% for any of the 11 cancers. This equates to a rate of 5682/100,000 patients compared with 4601/100,000 Suspected Cancer NHS referrals for these cancers from April 2016–March 2017. Nine thousands two hundred ninety-one patient-consultation records had coded features equating to a ≥2% PPV, 8% more than met PPV ≥ 3%. Similarly, 19,517 had features with a PPV ≥ 1%, 136% higher than for PPV ≥ 3%.

Conclusions

This study estimated the number of primary-care patients presenting at lower thresholds of cancer risk. The resource implications of liberalising this threshold to 2% are modest and manageable. The details across individual cancer sites should assist planning of English cancer services.

Predictive values for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease of 6 common abdominal symptoms among more than 1.9 million primary care patients in the UK: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic assessment of abdominal symptoms in primary care presents a challenge. Evidence is needed about the positive predictive values (PPVs) of abdominal symptoms for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the United Kingdom (2000-2017), we estimated the PPVs for diagnosis of (i) cancer (overall and for different cancer sites); (ii) IBD; and (iii) either cancer or IBD in the year post-consultation with each of 6 abdominal symptoms: dysphagia (n = 86,193 patients), abdominal bloating/distension (n = 100,856), change in bowel habit (n = 106,715), rectal bleeding (n = 235,094), dyspepsia (n = 517,326), and abdominal pain (n = 890,490). The median age ranged from 54 (abdominal pain) to 63 years (dysphagia and change in bowel habit); the ratio of women/men ranged from 50%:50% (rectal bleeding) to 73%:27% (abdominal bloating/distension). Across all studied symptoms, the risk of diagnosis of cancer and the risk of diagnosis of IBD were of similar magnitude, particularly in women, and younger men. Estimated PPVs were greatest for change in bowel habit in men (4.64% cancer and 2.82% IBD) and for rectal bleeding in women (2.39% cancer and 2.57% IBD) and lowest for dyspepsia (for cancer: 1.41% men and 1.03% women; for IBD: 0.89% men and 1.00% women). Considering PPVs for specific cancers, change in bowel habit and rectal bleeding had the highest PPVs for colon and rectal cancer; dysphagia for esophageal cancer; and abdominal bloating/distension (in women) for ovarian cancer. The highest PPVs of abdominal pain (either sex) and abdominal bloating/distension (men only) were for non-abdominal cancer sites. For the composite outcome of diagnosis of either cancer or IBD, PPVs of rectal bleeding exceeded the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended specialist referral threshold of 3% in all age-sex strata, as did PPVs of abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, and dyspepsia, in those aged 60 years and over. Study limitations include reliance on accuracy and completeness of coding of symptoms and disease outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence from more than 1.9 million patients presenting in primary care, the findings provide estimated PPVs that could be used to guide specialist referral decisions, considering the PPVs of common abdominal symptoms for cancer alongside that for IBD and their composite outcome (cancer or IBD), taking into account the variable PPVs of different abdominal symptoms for different cancers sites. Jointly assessing the risk of cancer or IBD can better support decision-making and prompt diagnosis of both conditions, optimising specialist referrals or investigations, particularly in women.

Quantifying the impact of pre-existing conditions on the stage of oesophagogastric cancer at diagnosis: a primary care cohort study using electronic medical records

BACKGROUND

Pre-existing conditions interfere with cancer diagnosis by offering diagnostic alternatives, competing for clinical attention or through patient surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate associations between oesophagogastric cancer stage and pre-existing conditions.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data, with English cancer registry linkage. Participants aged ≥40 years had consulted primary care in the year before their incident diagnosis of oesophagogastric cancer in 01/01/2010-31/12/2015. CPRD records pre-diagnosis were searched for codes denoting clinical features of oesophagogastric cancer and for pre-existing conditions, including those providing plausible diagnostic alternatives for those features. Logistic regression analysed associations between stage and multimorbidity (≥2 conditions; reference category: no multimorbidity) and having 'diagnostic alternative(s)', controlling for age, sex, deprivation and cancer site.

RESULTS

Of 2444 participants provided, 695 (28%) were excluded for missing stage, leaving 1749 for analysis (1265/1749, 72.3% had advanced-stage disease). Multimorbidity was associated with stage [odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.85, P = 0.002], with moderate evidence of an interaction term with sex (1.76, 1.08-2.86, P = 0.024). There was no association between alternative explanations and stage (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, P = 0.278).

CONCLUSIONS

In men, multimorbidity is associated with a reduced chance of advanced-stage oesophagogastric cancer, to levels seen collectively for women.

Guideline interval: A new time interval in the diagnostic pathway for symptomatic cancer

BACKGROUND

A standard measure of the cancer diagnostic pathway, diagnostic interval, is the time from "first presentation of cancer" to diagnosis. Cancer presentation may be unclear in patients with multimorbidity or non-specific symptoms, signs or test results ("features"). We propose an alternative, guideline interval, with a more certain start date; namely, when the patient first meets suspected-cancer criteria for investigation or referral.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and English cancer registry data. Participants, aged ≥55 years, had diagnostic codes for oesophagogastric cancers in 1/1/12-31/12/17. Features of oesophagogastric cancer in the year before diagnosis were identified from CPRD codes for dysphagia, haematemesis, upper-abdominal mass or pain, low haemoglobin, reflux, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, weight loss or thrombocytosis. Diagnostic interval was the time from first feature to diagnosis; guidance interval, the time from first meeting criteria in NICE suspected-cancer guidance to diagnosis. Multimorbidity burden was quantified using Adjusted Clinical Groups®. Accelerated failure-time models explored associations between multimorbidity burden and length of both diagnostic and guideline interval.

RESULTS

There were 3,793 eligible participants (69.0 % male), mean age 74.1 years (SD 10.5). 3,097 (81.7 %) presented with ≥1 feature in the year before diagnosis, and 1,990 (52.5 %) met NICE suspected-cancer criteria. The median for both intervals was 11 days in healthy users, and rose with increasing morbidity burden. At very high multimorbidity burden, diagnostic interval was 5.47 (95%CI 3.25-9.20) times longer and guideline interval was 3.91 (2.63-5.80) times longer than for healthy users.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline interval is proposed as a new measure of the cancer diagnostic pathway. It has a more certain start date than diagnostic interval, and is lengthened less than diagnostic interval in people with a very high multimorbidity burden. Guideline interval has potential for assessing the implementation of suspected-cancer policies.

Changes in presentations with features potentially indicating cancer in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of people aged 50+ years presenting to primary care with features that could potentially indicate cancer, and to explore how reporting differed by patient characteristics and in face-to-face vs remote consultations.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study of general practitioner (GP), nurse and paramedic primary care consultations in 21 practices in South-West England covering 123 947 patients. The models compared potential cancer indicators reported in April-July 2019 with April-July 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Potential indicators of cancer were identified using code lists for symptoms, signs, test results and diagnoses listed in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suspected cancer referral guidance (NG12).

RESULTS

During April-July 2019, 17% of registered patients aged 50+ years reported a potential cancer indicator in a consultation with a GP or nurse. During April-July 2020, this reduced to 11% (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.67, p<0.001). Reductions in potential cancer indicators were stable across age group, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation quintile and shielding status, but less marked in patients with mental health conditions than without (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79, interaction p<0.001). Proportions of GP consultations with potential indicators of cancer reduced between 2019 and 2020 for face-to-face consultations (IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92, p<0.001) and increased for remote consultations (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29, p=0.001), although it remained lower in remote consulting than face-to-face in April-July 2020. This difference was greater for nurse/paramedic consultations (face-to-face: IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83, p=0.002; remote: IRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.333, p=0.014).

CONCLUSION

The number of patients consulting with presentations that could potentially indicate cancer reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients should be encouraged to continue contacting primary care for persistent signs and symptoms, and GPs and nurses should be encouraged to probe patients for further information during remote consulting, in the absence of non-verbal cues.

Measuring the impact of national guidelines: What methods can be used to uncover time-varying effects for healthcare evaluations?

We examine the suitability of three methods using patient-level data to evaluate the time-varying impacts of national healthcare guidelines. Such guidelines often codify progressive change and are implemented gradually; for example, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suspected-cancer referral guidelines. These were revised on June 23, 2015, to include more cancer symptoms and test results ("features"), partly reflecting changing practice. We explore the time-varying impact of guideline revision on time to colorectal cancer diagnosis, which is linked to improved outcomes in decision-analytic models. We included 11,842 patients diagnosed in 01/01/2006-31/12/2017 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with England cancer registry data linkage. Patients were classified by whether their first pre-diagnostic cancer feature was in the original guidelines (NICE-2005) or was added during the revision (NICE-2015-only). Outcome was diagnostic interval: time from first cancer feature to diagnosis. All analyses adjusted for age and sex. Two difference-in-differences analyses used either a Pre (01/08/2012-31/12/2014, n = 2243) and Post (01/08/2015-31/12/2017, n = 1017) design, or event-study cohorts (2006-2017 vs 2015) to estimate change in diagnostic interval attributable to official implementation of the revised guidelines. A semiparametric varying-coefficient model analysed the difference in diagnostic interval between the NICE groups over time. After model estimation, primary and broader treatment effects of guideline content and implementation were measured. The event-study difference-in-differences and the semiparametric varying-coefficient methods showed that shorter diagnostic intervals were attributable to official implementation of the revised guidelines. This impact was only detectable by pre-to-post difference-in-differences when the pre/post periods were selected according to the estimation results from the varying-coefficient model. Formal tests of the parametric models, which are special cases of the semiparametric model, suggest that they are misspecified. We conclude that the semiparametric method is well suited to explore the time-varying impacts of guidelines codifying progressive change.