Cancer detection in primary care

Achieving a timely diagnosis for teenagers and young adults with cancer: the ACE "too young to get cancer?" study

Background

Time to diagnosis (TTD) concerns teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer and may affect outcome.

Methods

Healthcare records from 105 TYA in a regional cancer service were assessed to document events from 1st symptom to treatment start. Detailed pathway construction was possible for 104 patients and allowed a multidisciplinary panel review of each pathway with assessment of good practice and lessons for the future.

Results

1st presentation was to primary care in 86, and 93% consulted in primary care before diagnosis. Routes to Diagnosis were 45% via urgent 2 Week Wait pathways and 38% as emergency referrals. Total Interval (time from 1st presentation to treatment start) was median 63 (range 1–559) days, varying within/between diagnoses. Patient interval (time from 1st symptom to 1st presentation) was longest for lymphoma, carcinoma and bone tumour (medians: 9, 12, 20 days). Overall, time in primary care was short (median 3, range 0–537 days) compared to secondary care (median 29, range 0–195 days) and longest for lymphoma, carcinoma, brain/CNS (medians: 10, 15, 16 days). Specialist Care interval (time from 1st specialist visit to treatment start) was longest for bone, brain/CNS, lymphoma, carcinoma (medians: 30, 33, 36, 48 days). 40% pathways were rated as showing good/best practice but 16% were less than satisfactory. Continued safety-netting/support was identified from primary care but analysis suggested opportunities for improvement in transition through secondary care.

Conclusions

Previous reports of prolonged TTD have focused on delay in referral from primary care but this study suggests that this might be reduced by optimising management in secondary care.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay.

AIM

To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively.

RESULTS

The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high.

CONCLUSION

GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

The impact of body vigilance on help-seeking for cancer 'alarm' symptoms: a community-based survey

Background

The act of detecting bodily changes is a pre-requisite for subsequent responses to symptoms, such as seeking medical help. This is the first study to explore associations between self-reported body vigilance and help-seeking in a community sample currently experiencing cancer ‘alarm’ symptoms.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, a ‘health survey’ was mailed through primary care practices to 4913 UK adults (age ≥50 years, no cancer diagnosis), asking about symptom experiences and medical help-seeking over the previous three months. Body vigilance, cancer worry and current illness were assessed with a small number of self-report items derived from existing measures.

Results

The response rate was 42% (N = 2042). Almost half the respondents (936/2042; 46%) experienced at least one cancer alarm symptom. Results from logistic regression analysis revealed that paying more attention to bodily changes was significantly associated with help-seeking for cancer symptoms (OR = 1.44; 1.06-1.97), after controlling for socio-demographics, current illness and cancer worry. Being more sensitive to bodily changes was not significantly associated with help-seeking.

Conclusions

Respondents who paid attention to their bodily changes were more likely to seek help for their symptoms. Although the use of a cross-sectional study design and the limited assessment of key variables preclude any firm conclusions, encouraging people to be body vigilant may contribute towards earlier cancer diagnosis. More needs to be understood about the impact this might have on cancer-related anxiety.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Northern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.

INTERVENTION

24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.

RESULTS

110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; Δ-2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; Δ-0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; Δ-1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

GP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Identifying patients with undetected gastro-oesophageal cancer in primary care: External validation of QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) for predicting the risk of undiagnosed gastro-oesophageal cancer in an independent UK cohort of patients from general practice records.

DESIGN

Open cohort study to validate QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) prediction model. Three hundred sixty-five practices from the United Kingdom contributing to The Health Improvement Network database. 2.1 million patients registered with a general practice surgery between 01 January 2000 and 30 June 2008, aged 30-84years (3.7 million person years) with 1766 gastro-oesophageal cancer cases. The outcome, gastro-oesophageal cancer was defined as incident diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal cancer during the 2years after study entry.

RESULTS

The results from this independent and external validation of QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) demonstrated good performance data on a large cohort of general practice patients. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) had very good discrimination with c-statistics of 0.93 and 0.94 for women and men respectively. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) was well calibrated across all tenths of risk and over all age ranges with predicted risks closely matching observed risks. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) explained 74.4% and 75.6% of the variation in men and women respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) is a useful tool to identify undiagnosed gastro-oesophageal cancer in primary care in the United Kingdom.