The CAPER studies: five case-control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients

A collection of multiregistry data on patients at high risk of lung cancer-a Danish retrospective cohort study of nearly 40,000 patients

Background

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer related deaths, and several countries are implementing screening programs. Risk models have been introduced to refine the LC screening criteria, but the use of real-world data for this task demands a robust data infrastructure and quality. In this retrospective cohort study, we aim to address the different relevant risk factors in terms of data sources, descriptive statistics, completeness and quality.

Methods

Data on comorbidity, prescription medication, smoking history, consultations, symptoms, familial predispositions, exposures, laboratory data among others were collected for all patients examined on a risk of LC over a 10-year period in the Region of Southern Denmark. Data were delivered from the regional data warehouse as well as the Danish Lung Cancer Registry. Associations between LC and non-LC groups were examined through Chi-squared test (categorical variables) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (continuous variables that were non-parametric). These associations were investigated on both the original datasets and the subset of patients with complete data.

Results

The number of examined individuals increased over the study period and more patients were diagnosed with LC in stage I-II, from 18% in 2009 to 31% in 2018. LC patients were more likely to be older, smoker, with a registered prescription of the included medication. They also exhibited differences in laboratory analysis indicating inflammation and hyponatremia. Weight loss, fatigue and pain were more prevalent in the LC group, while hemoptysis and fever were more common among the non-LC patients. Advanced-stage LC patients experienced a higher rate of symptoms compared to those in the low stages. Within the sub-cohort with complete dataset results, most observed trends persisted, although data on comorbidities were susceptibility to change.

Conclusions

This study provides key insights into LC risk assessment using a robust dataset of patients examined for suspected LC. A consistent positive trend in early-stage LC diagnosis was observed throughout the study period. LC patients exhibited distinct smoking behaviors, medication patterns, variations in lab results, and specific symptoms. These discoveries have the potential to enhance discrimination in machine learning-based prediction models, particularly those capable of handling complex distributions. Serving as a detailed account of real-world data collection and processing, the study establishes a foundation for future development of prediction models aimed at facilitating the early referral of LC patients.

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).

Early detection of colorectal cancer by leveraging Dutch primary care consultation notes with free text embeddings

We aimed to assess the added predictive performance that free-text Dutch consultation notes provide in detecting colorectal cancer in primary care, in comparison to currently used models. We developed, evaluated and compared three prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a large primary care database with 60,641 patients. The prediction model with both known predictive features and free-text data (with TabTxt AUROC: 0.823) performs statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) than the other two models with only tabular (as used nowadays) and text data, respectively (AUROC Tab: 0.767; Txt: 0.797). The specificity of the two models that use demographics and known CRC features (with specificity Tab: 0.321; TabTxt: 0.335) are higher than that of the model with only free-text (specificity Txt: 0.234). The Txt and, to a lesser degree, TabTxt model are well calibrated, while the Tab model shows slight underprediction at both tails. As expected with an outcome prevalence below 0.01, all models show much uncalibrated predictions in the extreme upper tail (top 1%). Free-text consultation notes show promising results to improve the predictive performance over established prediction models that only use structured features. Clinical future implications for our CRC use case include that such improvement may help lowering the number of referrals for suspected CRC to medical specialists.

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is increasingly used in UK primary care to triage patients presenting with symptoms and at different levels of colorectal cancer risk. Evidence is scarce on patients' views of using FIT in this context. We aimed to explore patients' care experience and acceptability of using FIT in primary care.

DESIGN

A qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and October 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed using framework analysis.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who presented in primary care with possible symptoms of colorectal cancer, and for whom a FIT was requested, were recruited to the FIT-East study. Participants were purposively sampled for this qualitative substudy based on age, gender and FIT result.

RESULTS

44 participants were interviewed with a mean age 61 years, and 25 (57%) being men: 8 (18%) received a positive FIT result. Three themes and seven subthemes were identified. Participants' familiarity with similar tests and perceived risk of cancer influenced test experience and acceptability. All participants were happy to do the FIT themselves and to recommend it to others. Most participants reported that the test was straightforward, although some considered it may be a challenge to others. However, test explanation by healthcare professionals was often limited. Furthermore, while some participants received their results quickly, many did not receive them at all with the common assumption that 'no news is good news'. For those with a negative result and persisting symptoms, there was uncertainty about any next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

While FIT is acceptable to patients, elements of communication with patients by the healthcare system show potential for improvement. We suggest possible ways to improve the FIT experience, particularly regarding communication about the test and its results.

Symptoms and signs of urogenital cancer in primary care

BACKGROUND

Urogenital cancers are common, accounting for approximately 20% of cancer incidence globally. Cancers belonging to the same organ system often present with similar symptoms, making initial management challenging. In this study, 511 cases of cancer were recorded after the date of consultation among 61,802 randomly selected patients presenting in primary care in six European countries: a subgroup analysis of urogenital cancers was carried out in order to study variation in symptom presentation.

METHODS

Initial data capture was by completion of standardised forms containing closed questions about symptoms recorded during the consultation. The general practitioner (GP) provided follow-up data after diagnosis, based on medical record data made after the consultation. GPs also provided free text comments about the diagnostic procedure for individual patients.

RESULTS

The most common symptoms were mainly associated with one or two specific types of cancer: 'Macroscopic haematuria' with bladder or renal cancer (combined sensitivity 28.3%), 'Increased urinary frequency' with bladder (sensitivity 13.3%) or prostatic (sensitivity 32.1%) cancer, or to uterine body (sensitivity 14.3%) cancer, 'Unexpected genital bleeding' with uterine cancer (cervix, sensitivity 20.0%, uterine body, sensitivity 71.4%). 'Distended abdomen, bloating' had sensitivity 62.5% (based on eight cases of ovarian cancer). In ovarian cancer, increased abdominal circumference and a palpable tumour also were important diagnostic elements. Specificity for 'Macroscopic haematuria' was 99.8% (99.7-99.8). PPV > 3% was noted for 'Macroscopic haematuria' and bladder or renal cancer combined, for bladder cancer in male patients. In males aged 55-74, PPV = 7.1% for 'Macroscopic haematuria' and bladder cancer. Abdominal pain was an infrequent symptom in urogenital cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Most types of urogenital cancer present with rather specific symptoms. If the GP considers ovarian cancer, increased abdominal circumference should be actively determined. Several cases were clarified through the GP's clinical examination, or laboratory investigations.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA)

INTRODUCTION

The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN22560297.

Underlying cancer risk among patients with fatigue and other vague symptoms: a population-based cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Presenting to primary care with fatigue is associated with slightly increased cancer risk, although it is unknown how this varies in the presence of other 'vague' symptoms.

AIM

To quantify cancer risk in patients with fatigue who present with other 'vague' symptoms in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms for cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort study of patients presenting in UK primary care with new-onset fatigue during 2007-2015, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data linked to national cancer registration data.

METHOD

Patients presenting with fatigue without co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia were identified, who were further characterised as having co-occurrence of 19 other 'vague' potential cancer symptoms. Sex- and age-specific 9-month cancer risk for each fatigue-vague symptom cohort were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 285 382 patients presenting with new-onset fatigue, 84% (n = 239 846) did not have co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia. Of these, 38% (n = 90 828) presented with ≥1 of 19 vague symptoms for cancer. Cancer risk exceeded 3% in older males with fatigue combined with any of the vague symptoms studied. The age at which risk exceeded 3% was 59 years for fatigue-weight loss, 65 years for fatigue-abdominal pain, 67 years for fatigue-constipation, and 67 years for fatigue-other upper gastrointestinal symptoms. For females, risk exceeded 3% only in older patients with fatigue-weight loss (from 65 years), fatigue-abdominal pain (from 79 years), or fatigue-abdominal bloating (from 80 years).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of alarm symptoms or anaemia, fatigue combined with specific vague presenting symptoms, alongside patient age and sex, can guide clinical decisions about referral for suspected cancer.

BLOod Test Trend for cancEr Detection (BLOTTED): protocol for an observational and prediction model development study using English primary care electronic health record data

BACKGROUND

Simple blood tests can play an important role in identifying patients for cancer investigation. The current evidence base is limited almost entirely to tests used in isolation. However, recent evidence suggests combining multiple types of blood tests and investigating trends in blood test results over time could be more useful to select patients for further cancer investigation. Such trends could increase cancer yield and reduce unnecessary referrals. We aim to explore whether trends in blood test results are more useful than symptoms or single blood test results in selecting primary care patients for cancer investigation. We aim to develop clinical prediction models that incorporate trends in blood tests to identify the risk of cancer.

METHODS

Primary care electronic health record data from the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care database will be accessed and linked to cancer registrations and secondary care datasets. Using a cohort study design, we will describe patterns in blood testing (aim 1) and explore associations between covariates and trends in blood tests with cancer using mixed-effects, Cox, and dynamic models (aim 2). To build the predictive models for the risk of cancer, we will use dynamic risk modelling (such as multivariate joint modelling) and machine learning, incorporating simultaneous trends in multiple blood tests, together with other covariates (aim 3). Model performance will be assessed using various performance measures, including c-statistic and calibration plots.

DISCUSSION

These models will form decision rules to help general practitioners find patients who need a referral for further investigation of cancer. This could increase cancer yield, reduce unnecessary referrals, and give more patients the opportunity for treatment and improved outcomes.

Underlying reasons for post-mortem diagnosed lung cancer cases - A robust retrospective comparative study from Hungary (HULC study)

Objective

The Hungarian Undiagnosed Lung Cancer (HULC) study aimed to explore the potential reasons for missed LC (lung cancer) diagnosis by comparing healthcare and socio-economic data among patients with post-mortem diagnosed LC with those who were diagnosed with LC during their lives.

Methods

This nationwide, retrospective study used the databases of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO) and National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) to identify patients who died between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 and were diagnosed with lung cancer post-mortem (population A) or during their lifetime (population B). Patient characteristics, socio-economic factors, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data were compared between the diagnosed and undiagnosed patient population.

Results

During the study period, 8,435 patients were identified from the HCSO database with LC as the cause of death, of whom 1,203 (14.24%) had no LC-related ICD (International Classification of Diseases) code records in the NHIF database during their lives (post-mortem diagnosed LC population). Post-mortem diagnosed LC patients were significantly older than patients diagnosed while still alive (mean age 71.20 vs. 68.69 years, p<0.001), with a more pronounced age difference among female patients (difference: 4.57 years, p<0.001), and had significantly fewer GP (General Practitioner) and specialist visits, X-ray and CT scans within 7 to 24 months and 6 months before death, although the differences in GP and specialist visits within 7-24 months did not seem clinically relevant. Patients diagnosed with LC while still alive were more likely to be married (47.62% vs. 33.49%), had higher educational attainment, and had more children, than patients diagnosed with LC post-mortem.

Conclusions

Post-mortem diagnosed lung cancer accounts for 14.24% of total lung cancer mortality in Hungary. This study provides valuable insights into patient characteristics, socio-economic factors, and HCRU data potentially associated with a high risk of lung cancer misdiagnosis.

Prospective Observational Study on the Prevalence and Diagnostic Value of General Practitioners' Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Diseases

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have recognized the presence of gut feelings in their diagnostic process. However, little is known about the frequency or determinants of gut feelings or the diagnostic value of gut feelings for cancer and other serious diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of gut feelings in general practice, examine their determinants and impact on patient management, and measure their diagnostic value for cancer and other serious diseases.

DESIGN

This prospective observational study was performed using the Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 155 GPs and 1487 of their patients, from four Spanish provinces.

MAIN MEASURES

Sociodemographic data from patients and GPs; the reasoning style of GPs; the characteristics of the consultation; the presence and kind of gut feeling; the patient's subsequent contacts with the health system; and new cancer and serious disease diagnoses reported at 2 and 6 months post-consultation.

KEY RESULTS

GPs experienced a gut feeling during 97% of the consultations: a sense of reassurance in 75% of consultations and a sense of alarm in 22% of consultations. A sense of alarm was felt at higher frequency given an older patient, the presence of at least one cancer-associated symptom, or a non-urban setting. GPs took diagnostic action more frequently after a sense of alarm. After 2 months, the sense of alarm had a sensitivity of 59% for cancer and other serious diseases (95% CI 47-71), a specificity of 79% (95% CI 77-82), a positive predictive value of 12% (95% CI 9-16), and a negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI 86-98).

CONCLUSIONS

Gut feelings are consistently present in primary care medicine, and they play a substantial role in a GP's clinical reasoning and timely diagnosis of serious disease. The sense of alarm must be taken seriously and used to support diagnostic evaluation in patients with a new reason for encounter.

Machine Learning for Risk Prediction of Oesophago-Gastric Cancer in Primary Care: Comparison with Existing Risk-Assessment Tools

Simple Summary

Oesophago-gastric cancer is one of the commonest cancers worldwide, yet it can be particularly difficult to diagnose given that initial symptoms are often non-specific and routine screening is not available. Cancer risk-assessment tools, which calculate cancer risk based on symptoms and other risk factors present in the primary care record, can aid decisions on referrals for cancer investigations, facilitating earlier diagnosis. Diagnosing common cancers earlier could help improve survival rates. Using UK primary care electronic health record data, we compared five different machine learning techniques for probabilistic classification of cancer patients against a current widely used UK primary care cancer risk-assessment tool. The machine learning algorithms outperformed the current risk-assessment tool, with a higher overall accuracy and an ability to reasonably identify 11–25% more cancer patients. We conclude that machine-learning-based risk-assessment tools could help better identify suitable patients for further investigation and support earlier diagnosis.

Abstract

Oesophago-gastric cancer is difficult to diagnose in the early stages given its typical non-specific initial manifestation. We hypothesise that machine learning can improve upon the diagnostic performance of current primary care risk-assessment tools by using advanced analytical techniques to exploit the wealth of evidence available in the electronic health record. We used a primary care electronic health record dataset derived from the UK General Practice Research Database (7471 cases; 32,877 controls) and developed five probabilistic machine learning classifiers: Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Extreme Gradient Boosted Decision Trees. Features included basic demographics, symptoms, and lab test results. The Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Extreme Gradient Boosted Decision Tree models achieved the highest performance in terms of accuracy and AUROC (0.89 accuracy, 0.87 AUROC), outperforming a current UK oesophago-gastric cancer risk-assessment tool (ogRAT). Machine learning also identified more cancer patients than the ogRAT: 11.0% more with little to no effect on false positives, or up to 25.0% more with a slight increase in false positives (for Logistic Regression, results threshold-dependent). Feature contribution estimates and individual prediction explanations indicated clinical relevance. We conclude that machine learning could improve primary care cancer risk-assessment tools, potentially helping clinicians to identify additional cancer cases earlier. This could, in turn, improve survival outcomes.

Who are the patients being offered the faecal immunochemical test in routine English general practice, and for what symptoms? A prospective descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with lower-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC) in English primary care in 2018. While there is growing evidence on its utility to triage patients in this setting, evidence is still limited on how official FIT guidance is being used, for which patients and for what symptoms. We aimed to investigate the use of FIT in primary care practice for lower-risk patients who did not immediately meet criteria for urgent referral.

DESIGN

A prospective, descriptive study of symptomatic patients offered a FIT in primary care between January and June 2020.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who were seen by their general practitioners (GPs) with symptoms of possible CRC for whom a FIT was requested. We excluded patients receiving a FIT for asymptomatic screening purposes, or patients deemed by GPs as lacking capacity for informed consent. Data were obtained via patient questionnaire, medical and laboratory records.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

FIT results (10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive result); patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms, symptom severity and symptom agreement between patient and GP (% and kappa statistics).

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 310 patients, median age 70 (IQR 61-77) years, 53% female and 23% FIT positive. Patients most commonly reported change in bowel habit (69%) and fatigue (57%), while GPs most commonly recorded abdominal pain (25%) and change in bowel habit (24%). Symptom agreement ranged from 44% (fatigue) to 80% (unexplained weight loss). Kappa agreement was universally low across symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Almost a quarter of this primary care cohort of symptomatic patients with FIT testing were found to be positive. However, there was low agreement between patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms. This may impact cancer risk assessment and optimal patient management in primary care.

Chronic Kidney Disease Prevalence in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Undergoing Surgery

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and mortal disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the relatively common comorbidity among cancer patients affecting the available therapy and outcomes. However, data on prevalence of CKD in patients with CRC undergoing surgery is limited. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of CKD in a cohort of 560 consecutive patients with CRC undergoing surgical treatment with curative intent. Neoadjuvant therapy in a form of radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy was administered before the surgery in 67 patients and in 86 patients, respectively. Results: CKD was reported in 10%, diabetes in 25%, and hypertension in 60%, while anemia was reported in 47%. The patients with CKD were more likely to be older and anemic with higher serum CRP, which reflects a general inflammatory state. Relative to patients without this therapy, patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy were older, had significantly lower eGFR and albumin, and higher creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase and INR, before the surgery. All CKD patients, except two, were older than 65 years of age. Conclusions: In order to ensure the best possible outcomes, CKD should be diagnosed and treated appropriately in oncology patients to prevent complications, so they may continue their therapy with the least interruption or discontinuation of treatment.

Can National Registries Contribute to Predict the Risk of Cancer? The Cancer Risk Assessment Model (CRAM)

Simple Summary

Early identification of individuals with an increased risk of cancer is an important challenge. Danish administrative registers may be useful in this respect because they cover the entire population and include comprehensive and consistently coded long-term data. We aimed to develop a predictive model based on Danish administrative registers to facilitate the automated identification of individuals at risk of any type of cancer. In addition to age, almost all the included factors contributed statistically significantly, but also only marginally, to the prediction models, which means that we have not overlooked obvious information available in the register. Future prediction studies should focus on specific cancer types where more precise risk estimations might be expected. It is our ultimate ambition that an effective model can be used at the point of care, integrated into electronic patient record systems to alert physicians of patients at a high risk of cancer.

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a predictive model based on Danish administrative registers to facilitate automated identification of individuals at risk of any type of cancer. Methods: A nationwide register-based cohort study covering all individuals in Denmark aged +20 years. The outcome was all-type cancer during 2017 excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. Diagnoses, medication, and contact with general practitioners in the exposure period (2007–2016) were considered for the predictive model. We applied backward selection to all variables by logistic regression to develop a risk model for cancer. We applied the models to the validation cohort, calculated the receiver operating characteristic curves, and estimated the corresponding areas under the curve (AUC). Results: The study population consisted of 4.2 million persons; 32,447 (0.76%) were diagnosed with cancer in 2017. We identified 39 predictive risk factors in women and 42 in men, with age above 30 as the strongest predictor for cancer. Testing the model for cancer risk showed modest accuracy, with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.81–0.82) for men and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.75) for women. Conclusion: We have developed and tested a model for identifying the individual risk of cancer through the use of administrative data. The models need to be further investigated before being applied to clinical practice.

Optimization of a Quality Improvement Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Qualitative Study

Background

The most common route to a diagnosis of cancer is through primary care. Delays in diagnosing cancer occur when an opportunity to make a timely diagnosis is missed and is evidenced by patients visiting the general practitioner (GP) on multiple occasions before referral to a specialist. Tools that minimize prolonged diagnostic intervals and reduce missed opportunities to investigate patients for cancer are therefore a priority.

Objective

This study aims to explore the usefulness and feasibility of a novel quality improvement (QI) tool in which algorithms flag abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer. This study allows for the optimization of the cancer recommendations before testing the efficacy in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods

GPs, practice nurses, practice managers, and consumers were recruited to participate in individual interviews or focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled as part of a pilot and feasibility study, in which primary care practices were receiving recommendations relating to the follow-up of abnormal test results for prostate-specific antigen, thrombocytosis, and iron-deficiency anemia. The Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was applied to the analysis using a thematic approach.

Results

A total of 17 interviews and 3 focus groups (n=18) were completed. Participant themes were mapped to CP-FIT across the constructs of context, recipient, and feedback variables. The key facilitators to use were alignment with workflow, recognized need, the perceived importance of the clinical topic, and the GPs’ perception that the recommendations were within their control. Barriers to use included competing priorities, usability and complexity of the recommendations, and knowledge of the clinical topic. There was consistency between consumer and practitioner perspectives, reporting language concerns associated with the word cancer, the need for more patient-facing resources, and time constraints of the consultation to address patients’ worries.

Conclusions

There was a recognized need for the QI tool to support the diagnosis of cancer in primary care, but barriers were identified that hindered the usability and actionability of the recommendations in practice. In response, the tool has been refined and is currently being evaluated as part of a randomized controlled trial. Successful and effective implementation of this QI tool could support the detection of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer in primary care and assist in preventing unnecessary delays.

Cancer risk in persons with new-onset anaemia: a population-based cohort study in Denmark

Background

The time interval from first symptom and sign until a cancer diagnosis significantly affects the prognosis. Therefore, recognising and acting on signs of cancer, such as anaemia, is essential. Evidence is sparse on the overall risk of cancer and the risk of specific cancer types in persons with new-onset anaemia detected in an unselected general practice population. We aimed to assess the risk of cancer in persons with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice, both overall and for selected cancer types.

Methods

This observational population-based cohort study used individually linked electronic data from laboratory information systems and nationwide healthcare registries in Denmark. We included persons aged 40–90 years without a prior history of cancer and with new-onset anaemia (no anaemia during the previous 15 months) detected in general practice in 2014–2018. We measured the incidence proportion and standardised incidence ratios of a new cancer diagnosis (all cancers except for non-melanoma skin cancers) during 12 months follow-up.

Results

A total of 48,925 persons (median [interquartile interval] age, 69 [55–78] years; 55.5% men) were included in the study. In total, 7.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.6 to 8.2) of men and 5.2% (CI: 4.9 to 5.5) of women were diagnosed with cancer during 12 months. Across selected anaemia types, the highest cancer incidence proportion was seen in women with ‘anaemia of inflammation’ (15.3%, CI: 13.1 to 17.5) (ferritin > 100 ng/mL and increased C-reactive protein (CRP)) and in men with ‘combined inflammatory iron deficiency anaemia’ (19.3%, CI: 14.5 to 24.1) (ferritin < 100 ng/mL and increased CRP). For these two anaemia types, the cancer incidence across cancer types was 10- to 30-fold higher compared to the general population.

Conclusions

Persons with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice have a high cancer risk; and markedly high for ‘combined inflammatory iron deficiency anaemia’ and ‘anaemia of inflammation’. Anaemia is a sign of cancer that calls for increased awareness and action. There is a need for research on how to improve the initial pathway for new-onset anaemia in general practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09912-7.

Risk of cancer following primary care presentation with fatigue: a population-based cohort study of a quarter of a million patients

BACKGROUND

The management of adults presenting with fatigue presents a diagnostic challenge, particularly regarding possible underlying cancer.

METHODS

Using electronic health records, we examined cancer risk in patients presenting to primary care with new-onset fatigue in England during 2007-2013, compared to general population estimates. We examined variation by age, sex, deprivation, and time following presentation.

FINDINGS

Of 250,606 patients presenting with fatigue, 12-month cancer risk exceeded 3% in men aged 65 and over and women aged 80 and over, and 6% in men aged 80 and over. Nearly half (47%) of cancers were diagnosed within 3 months from first fatigue presentation. Site-specific cancer risk was higher than the general population for most cancers studied, with greatest relative increases for leukaemia, pancreatic and brain cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients, new-onset fatigue is associated with cancer risk exceeding current thresholds for urgent specialist referral. Future research should consider how risk is modified by the presence or absence of other signs and symptoms. Excess cancer risk wanes rapidly after 3 months, which could inform the duration of a 'safety-netting' period. Fatigue presentation is not strongly predictive of any single cancer, although certain cancers are over-represented; this knowledge can help prioritise diagnostic strategies.

Recognizing sinonasal cancer in primary care: a matched case-control study using electronic records

BACKGROUND

Cancers of the nasopharynx, nasal cavity, and accessory sinuses ("sinonasal") are rare in England, with around 750 patients diagnosed annually. There are no specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) referral guidelines for these cancers and no primary care research published.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and quantify clinical features of sinonasal cancer in UK primary care patients.

METHODS

This matched case-control study used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data. Patients were aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of sinonasal cancer between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 and had consulted their GP in the year before diagnosis. Clinical features of sinonasal cancer were analysed using conditional logistic regression. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for single and combined features were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 155 cases and 697 controls were studied. Nine symptoms and one abnormal investigation were significantly associated with the cancer: nasal mass; odds ratio, 95 (95% confidence interval 7.0, 1315, P = 0.001); head and neck lumps, 68 (12, 387, P < 0.001); epistaxis, 17 (3.9, 70, P < 0.001); rhinorrhoea, 14 (4.6, 44, P < 0.001); visual disturbance, 12 (2.2, 67, P = 0.004); sinusitis, 7.3 (2.2, 25, P = 0.001); sore throat, 6.0 (2.0, 18, P = 0.001); otalgia, 5.4 (1.6, 18, P = 0.007); headache, 3.6 (1.4, 9.5, P = 0.01); raised white cell count, 8.5 (2.8, 27, P < 0.001). Combined PPVs for epistaxis/rhinorrhoea, epistaxis/sinusitis, and rhinorrhoea/sinusitis were 0.62%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first primary care study identifying epistaxis, sinusitis, and rhinorrhoea as part of the clinical prodrome of sinonasal cancer. Although no PPVs meet the 3% NICE referral threshold, these results may help clinicians identify who warrants safety-netting and possible specialist referral, potentially reducing the number of advanced-stage diagnoses of sinonasal cancer.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies.

DESIGN

Multicentre comparative accuracy trial.

SETTING

Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51).

LIMITATIONS

The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider.

FUTURE WORK

Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Multivariable models for advanced colorectal neoplasms in screen-eligible individuals at low-to-moderate risk of colorectal cancer: towards improving colonoscopy prioritization

Background

Advanced colorectal neoplasms (ACNs), including colorectal cancers (CRC) and high-risk adenomas (HRA), are detected in less than 20% of persons aged 50 years or older who undergo colonoscopy. We sought to derive personalized predictive models of risk of harbouring ACNs to improve colonoscopy wait times for high-risk patients and allocation of colonoscopy resources.

Methods

We characterized colonoscopy indications, neoplasia risk factors and colonoscopy findings through chart review for consecutive individuals aged 50 years or older who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at The Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Canada) between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2012 for non-life threatening indications. We linked patients to population-level health administrative datasets to ascertain additional historical predictor variables and derive multivariable logistic regression models for risk of harboring ACNs at colonoscopy. We assessed model discriminatory capacity and calibration and the ability of the models to improve colonoscopy specificity while maintaining excellent sensitivity for ACN capture.

Results

We modelled 17 candidate predictors in 11,724 individuals who met eligibility criteria. The final CRC model comprised 8 variables and had a c-statistic value of 0.957 and a goodness-of-fit p-value of 0.527. Application of the models to our cohort permitted 100% sensitivity for identifying persons with CRC and > 90% sensitivity for identifying persons with HRA, while improving colonoscopy specificity for ACNs by 23.8%.

Conclusions

Our multivariable models show excellent discriminatory capacity for persons with ACNs and could significantly increase colonoscopy specificity without overly sacrificing sensitivity. If validated, these models could allow more efficient allocation of colonoscopy resources, potentially reducing wait times for those at higher risk while deferring unnecessary colonoscopies in low-risk individuals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01965-5.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (QCancer) in primary care: a qualitative study

Aim:

We aimed to explore service users’ and primary care practitioners’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (RAT), QCancer, in general practice consultations.

Background:

Cancer RATs, including QCancer, are designed to estimate the chances of previously undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic individuals. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer RATs in primary care consultations.

Methods:

We used a qualitative design, conducting semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups with a convenience sample of service users and primary care practitioners.

Findings:

In all, 36 participants (19 service users, 17 practitioners) living in Lincolnshire, were included in the interviews and focus groups. Before asking for their views, participants were introduced to QCancer and shown an example of how it estimated cancer risk. Participants identified barriers to implementing the tool namely: additional consultation time; unnecessary worry; potential for over-referral; practitioner scepticism; need for training on use of the tool; need for evidence of effectiveness; and need to integrate the tool in general practice systems. Participants also identified facilitators to implementing the tool as: supporting decision-making; modifying health behaviours; improving speed of referral; and personalising care.

Conclusions:

The barriers and facilitators identified should be considered when seeking to implement QCancer in primary care. In addition, further evidence is needed that the use of this tool improves diagnosis rates without an unacceptable increase in harm from unnecessary investigation.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Prevalence of self-reported abdominal symptoms among 50-74-years-old men and women eligible for colorectal cancer screening -a cross-sectional study

Background

Screening is defined as the identification of unrecognized disease in an apparently healthy population. Symptomatic individuals are recommended to contact a physician instead of participating in screening. However, in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening this approach may be problematic as abdominal symptoms are nonspecific. This study aimed at identifying the prevalence of self-reported abdominal symptoms among screening-eligible men and women aged 50–74 years.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey study included 11,537 individuals aged 50–74 years invited for CRC screening from 9 to 23 September 2019. Descriptive statistics of responders experiencing alarm symptoms of CRC, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS) and the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) were derived. The association between abdominal symptoms and demographic and socioeconomic variables were estimated by prevalence ratio (PR) using a Poisson regression model with robust variance.

Results

A total of 5488 respondents were included. The respondents were more likely women, of older age, Danish, cohabiting and had higher education and income level compared to non-respondents.

Abdominal pain more than once a week was experienced by 12.0% of the respondents. Of these, 70.8% had been experiencing this symptom for >1 month. Fresh blood in the stool was experienced by 0.7% and of these 82.1% for >1 month. About one third of those experiencing alarm symptoms more than once a week for >1 month had not consulted a doctor. A total of 64.1% of the respondents had no LARS, 21.7% had minor LARS and 14.2% had major LARS. The median PAC-SYM score was 0.33 (Interquartile range (IQR): 0.17;0.75), the median abdominal score was 0.50 (IQR: 0.00;1.00), median rectal score 0.00 (IQR:0.00;0.33) and median stool score 0.40 (IQR: 0.00;0.80). Men and those aged 65–74 reported less symptoms than women and those aged 50–64 years, respectively.

Conclusions

This study illustrated that abdominal symptoms were frequent among screening-eligible men and women. This should be taken into account when implementing and improving CRC screening strategies. A concerning high number of the respondents experiencing alarm symptoms had not consulted a doctor. This calls for attention to abdominal symptoms in general and how those with abdominal symptoms should participate in CRC screening.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08657-z.

Alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's cancer suspicion and the association with the interval between first symptom presentation and referral: a cross-sectional study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in the diagnosis of cancer. It is crucial to identify factors influencing the decision to refer for suspected cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's suspicion of cancer in the first clinical encounter and the association with the time interval from the first symptom presentation until the first referral to specialist care, i.e. the primary care interval (PCI).

METHOD

The study was performed as a cross-sectional study using survey data on patients diagnosed with incident cancer in 2010 or 2016 and their GPs in Denmark. We defined four alignment groups: 1) patient worry and GP suspicion, 2)  GP suspicion only, 3) patient worry only, and 4) none of the two. A long PCI was defined as an interval longer than the 75th percentile.

RESULTS

Among the 3333 included patients, both patient worry and GP suspicion was seen in 39.5%, only GP suspicion was seen in 28.2%, only patient worry was seen in 13.6%, and neither patient worry nor GP suspicion was seen in 18.2%. The highest likelihood of long PCI was observed in group 4 (group 4 vs. group 1: PPR 3.99 (95% CI 3.34-4.75)), mostly pronounced for easy-to-diagnose cancer types.

CONCLUSION

Misalignment between the patient's worry and the GP's suspicion was common at the first cancer-related encounter. Importance should be given to the patient interview, due to a potential delayed GP referral among patients diagnosed with "easy-to-diagnose" cancer types presenting with unspecific symptoms.

Ten-year assessment of a cancer fast-track programme to connect primary care with oncology: reducing time from initial symptoms to diagnosis and treatment initiation

Background

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality worldwide. Integrating different levels of care by implementing screening programmes, extending diagnostic tools and applying therapeutic advances may increase survival. We implemented a cancer fast-track programme (CFP) to shorten the time between suspected cancer symptoms, diagnosis and therapy initiation.

Patients and methods

Descriptive data were collected from the 10 years since the CFP was implemented (2009-2019) at the Clinico-Malvarrosa Health Department in Valencia, Spain. General practitioners (GPs), an oncology coordinator and 11 specialists designed guidelines for GP patient referral to the CFP, including criteria for breast, digestive, gynaecological, lung, urological, dermatological, head and neck, and soft tissue cancers. Patients with enlarged lymph nodes and constitutional symptoms were also considered. On identifying patients with suspected cancer, GPs sent a case proposal to the oncology coordinator. If criteria were met, an appointment was quickly made with the patient. We analysed the timeline of each stage of the process.

Results

A total of 4493 suspected cancer cases were submitted to the CFP, of whom 4019 were seen by the corresponding specialist. Cancer was confirmed in 1098 (27.3%) patients: breast cancer in 33%, urological cancers in 22%, gastrointestinal cancer in 19% and lung cancer in 15%. The median time from submission to cancer testing was 11 days, and diagnosis was reached in a median of 19 days. Treatment was started at a median of 34 days from diagnosis.

Conclusions

The findings of this study show that the interval from GP patient referral to specialist testing, cancer diagnosis and start of therapy can be reduced. Implementation of the CFP enabled most patients to begin curative intended treatment, and required only minimal resources in our setting.

•

Our CFP easily connects GPs and hospital specialists.

•

Our CFP shortens assessment time in patients with suspected cancer, adding to quality care.

•

Our CFP decreases emotional stress in patients without cancer.

Patient and GP experiences of pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: a qualitative study

Background

More people are surviving a first primary cancer and experiencing a second, different cancer. However, little is known about the diagnostic journeys of patients with second primary cancer (SPC). This study explores the views of patients and general practitioners (GPs) on their experiences of pathways to diagnosis of SPC, including the influence of a previous diagnosis of cancer on symptom appraisal, help-seeking and referral decisions.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with patients with a SPC diagnosis and case-linked GP interviews in a Scottish primary care setting. In-depth face to face or telephone interviews were conducted, underpinned by a social constructionist approach. Interviews were transcribed and Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis undertaken. Three analysts from the research team read transcripts and developed the coding framework using QSR NVivo version 10, with input from a fourth researcher. Themes were developed from refined codes and interpreted in the context of existing literature and theory.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 23 patients (aged 43–84 years) with a SPC diagnosis, and 7 GPs. Five patient themes were identified: Awareness of SPC, symptom appraisal and help-seeking, pathways to diagnosis, navigating the healthcare system, and impact of SPC. GPs interviews identified: experience and knowledge of SPC and referrals and decision-making.

Conclusions

Insights into the pathway to diagnosis of SPC highlights the need for increased awareness of and vigilance for SPC among patients and healthcare providers (HCPs), and emotional support to manage the psychosocial burden.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08238-0.

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging—many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future.

Estimating lung cancer risk from chest X-ray and symptoms: a prospective cohort study

Background

Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line investigation for lung cancer in many countries but previous research has suggested that the disease is not detected by CXR in approximately 20% of patients. The risk of lung cancer, with particular symptoms, following a negative CXR is not known.

Aim

To establish the sensitivity and specificity of CXR requested by patients who are symptomatic; determine the positive predictive values (PPVs) of each presenting symptom of lung cancer following a negative CXR; and determine whether symptoms associated with lung cancer are different in those who had a positive CXR result compared with those who had a negative CXR result.

Design and setting

A prospective cohort study was conducted in Leeds, UK, based on routinely collected data from a service that allowed patients with symptoms of lung cancer to request CXR.

Method

Symptom data were combined with a diagnostic category (positive or negative) for each CXR, and the sensitivity and specificity of CXR for lung cancer were calculated. The PPV of lung cancer associated with each symptom or combination of symptoms was estimated for those patients with a negative CXR.

Results

In total, 114 (1.3%) of 8996 patients who requested a CXR were diagnosed with lung cancer within 1 year. Sensitivity was 75.4% and specificity was 90.2%. The PPV of all symptoms for a diagnosis of lung cancer within 1 year of CXR was <1% for all individual symptoms except for haemoptysis, which had a PPV of 2.9%. PPVs for a diagnosis of lung cancer within 2 years of CXR was <1.5% for all single symptoms except for haemoptysis, which had a PPV of 3.9%.

Conclusion

CXR has limited sensitivity; however, in a population with a low prevalence of lung cancer, its high specificity and negative predictive value means that lung cancer is very unlikely to be present following a negative result. Findings also support guidance that unexplained haemoptysis warrants urgent referral, regardless of CXR result.

Electronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Feasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated.

INTERVENTION

Practices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months.

OUTCOMES

Patient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter.

RESULTS

From control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN125595588.

Abdominal investigations in the year preceding a diagnosis of abdominal cancer: A register-based cohort study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

More than 11,500 abdominal cancers are yearly diagnosed in Denmark. Nevertheless, little is known about which investigations the patients undergo before a diagnosis of abdominal cancer. We aimed to investigate the frequency and timing of selected diagnostic investigations during the year preceding an abdominal cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide registry-based cohort study of patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with a first-time abdominal cancer in 2014-2018. We included the following cancer types: oesophageal, gastric, colon, rectal, liver, gall bladder/biliary tract, pancreatic, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and bladder cancer. Investigations of interest were transvaginal ultrasound, abdominal ultrasound, colonoscopy, gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, cystoscopy, hysteroscopy, abdominal computed tomography and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging. Generalised linear models were used to calculate incidence rate ratios to enable comparison of monthly rates of investigations.

RESULTS

All types of investigations were performed, with varying frequency, across the 11 abdominal cancer types in the year preceding the diagnosis. Increased use of investigations revealed that the timing of the onset differed for the different abdominal cancers, with increases seen 2-6 months before the diagnosis. Abdominal ultrasound, colonoscopy and computed tomography were the investigations with the earliest increase.

CONCLUSION

In the year before a diagnosis of an abdominal cancer, some patients appear to undergo investigations typically used to detect another cancer type. This indicates that a window of opportunity exists to diagnose some abdominal cancers at an earlier time point. Future studies should explore an alternative clinical pathway to promote earlier diagnosis of abdominal cancers.

Are Regulations Safe? Reflections From Developing a Digital Cancer Decision-Support Tool

PURPOSE

Informatics solutions to early diagnosis of cancer in primary care are increasingly prevalent, but it is not clear whether existing and planned standards and regulations sufficiently address patients' safety nor whether these standards are fit for purpose. We use a patient safety perspective to reflect on the development of a computerized cancer risk assessment tool embedded within a UK primary care electronic health record system.

METHODS

We developed a computerized version of the CAncer Prevention in ExetER studies risk assessment tool, in compliance with the European Union's Medical Device Regulations. The process of building this tool afforded an opportunity to reflect on clinical concerns and whether current regulations for medical devices are fit for purpose. We identified concerns for patient safety and developed nine practical recommendations to mitigate these concerns.

RESULTS

We noted that medical device regulations (1) were initially created for hardware devices rather than software, (2) offer one-shot approval rather than supporting iterative innovation and learning, (3) are biased toward loss-transfer approaches that attempt to manage the fallout of harm instead of mitigating hazards becoming harmful, and (4) are biased toward known hazards, despite unknown hazards being an expected consequence of health care as a complex adaptive system. Our nine recommendations focus on embedding less-reductionist and stronger system perspectives into regulations and standards.

CONCLUSION

Our intention is to share our experience to support research-led collaborative development of health informatics solutions in cancer. We argue that regulations in the European Union do not sufficiently address the complexity of healthcare information systems with consequences for patient safety. Future standards and regulations should continue to follow a system-based approach to risk, safety, and accident avoidance.

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Detecting upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in primary care is challenging, as cancer symptoms are common, often non-specific, and most patients presenting with these symptoms will not have cancer. Substantial investment has been made to develop biomarkers for cancer detection, but few have reached routine clinical practice. We aimed to identify novel biomarkers for upper GI cancers which have been sufficiently validated to be ready for evaluation in low-prevalence populations.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and Web of Science for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020165005). Reference lists of included studies were assessed. Studies had to report on second measures of diagnostic performance (beyond discovery phase) for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect pancreatic, oesophageal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with less than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Heterogeneity prevented pooling of outcomes.

Results

We identified 149 eligible studies, involving 22,264 cancer cases and 49,474 controls. A total of 431 biomarkers were identified (183 microRNAs and other RNAs, 79 autoantibodies and other immunological markers, 119 other proteins, 36 metabolic markers, 6 circulating tumour DNA and 8 other). Over half (n = 231) were reported in pancreatic cancer studies. Only 35 biomarkers had been investigated in at least two studies, with reported outcomes for that individual marker for the same tumour type. Apolipoproteins (apoAII-AT and apoAII-ATQ), and pepsinogens (PGI and PGII) were the most promising biomarkers for pancreatic and gastric cancer, respectively.

Conclusion

Most novel biomarkers for the early detection of upper GI cancers are still at an early stage of matureness. Further evidence is needed on biomarker performance in low-prevalence populations, in addition to implementation and health economic studies, before extensive adoption into clinical practice can be recommended.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01571-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study

SETTING

Participants with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) have a high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. They are therefore recommended follow-up by colonoscopy. However, more than ten percent of positively screened persons do not adhere to this advice.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate FIT-positive individuals' motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice in the Dutch CRC screening program.

SUBJECTS

Non-adherent FIT-positive participants of the Dutch CRC screening program.

DESIGN

We conducted semi structured in-depth interviews with 17 persons who did not undergo colonoscopy within 6 months after a positive FIT. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face and data were analysed thematically with open coding and constant comparison.

RESULTS

All participants had multifactorial motives for non-adherence. A preference for more personalised care was described with the following themes: aversion against the design of the screening program, expectations of personalised care, emotions associated with experiences of impersonal care and a desire for counselling where options other than colonoscopy could be discussed. Furthermore, intrinsic motives were: having a perception of low risk for CRC (described by all participants), aversion and fear of colonoscopy, distrust, reluctant attitude to the treatment of cancer and cancer fatalism. Extrinsic motives were: having other health issues or priorities, practical barriers, advice from a general practitioner (GP) and financial reasons.

CONCLUSION

Personalised screening counselling might have helped to improve the interviewees' experiences with the screening program as well as their knowledge on CRC and CRC screening. Future studies should explore whether personalised screening counselling also has potential to increase adherence rates. Key points Participants with a positive FIT in two-step colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are at high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Non-adherence after an unfavourable screening result happens in all CRC programs worldwide with the consequence that many of the participants do not undergo colonoscopy for the definitive assessment of the presence of colorectal cancer. Little qualitative research has been done to study the reasons why individuals participate in the first step of the screening but not in the second step. We found a preference for more personalised care, which was not reported in previous literature on this subject. Furthermore, intrinsic factors, such as a low risk perception and distrust, and extrinsic factors, such as the presence of other health issues and GP advice, may also play a role in non-adherence. A person-centred approach in the form of a screening counselling session may be beneficial for this group of CRC screening participants.

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

BACKGROUND

UK primary-care referral guidance describes the signs, symptoms, and test results ("features") of undiagnosed cancer. Guidance revision in 2015 liberalised investigation by introducing more low-risk features. We studied adults with cancer whose features were in the 2005 guidance ("Old-NICE") or were introduced in the revision ("New-NICE"). We compared time to diagnosis between the groups, and its trend over 2006-2017.

METHODS

Clinical Practice Research Datalink records were analysed for adults with incident myeloma, breast, bladder, colorectal, lung, oesophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, stomach or uterine cancers in 1/1/2006-31/12/2017. Cancer-specific features in the year before diagnosis were used to create New-NICE and Old-NICE groups. Diagnostic interval was time between the index feature and diagnosis. Semiparametric varying-coefficient analyses compared diagnostic intervals between New-NICE and Old-NICE groups over 1/1/2006-31/12/2017.

RESULTS

Over all cancers (N = 83,935), median (interquartile range) Old-NICE diagnostic interval rose over 2006-2017, from 51 (20-132) to 64 (30-148) days, with increases in breast (15 vs 25 days), lung (103 vs 135 days), ovarian (65·5 vs 100 days), prostate (80 vs 93 days) and stomach (72·5 vs 102 days) cancers. Median New-NICE values were consistently longer (99, 40-212 in 2006 vs 103, 42-236 days in 2017) than Old-NICE values over all cancers. After guidance revision, New-NICE diagnostic intervals became shorter than Old-NICE values for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improvements for colorectal cancer, scope remains to reduce diagnostic intervals for most cancers. Liberalised investigation requires protecting and enhancing cancer-diagnostic services to avoid their becoming a rate-limiting step in the diagnostic pathway.

Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners (GP) diagnose colorectal cancer. It is unclear how well they perform and whether they lead to increased or quicker diagnoses and ultimately impact on patient quality of life and/or survival. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development, validation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of cancer diagnostic tools for colorectal cancer in primary care.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Medline and Web of Science were searched in May 2017 (updated October 2019). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts. Studies were included if they reported the development, validation or accuracy of a prediction model, or assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools based on prediction models to aid GP decision-making for symptomatic patients presenting with features potentially indicative of colorectal cancer. Data extraction and risk of bias were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand one hundred thirteen records were screened and 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-studies reported on the development, validation and/or accuracy of 13 prediction models: eight for colorectal cancer, five for cancer areas/types that include colorectal cancer. The Qcancer models were generally the best performing. Three impact studies met the inclusion criteria. Two (an RCT and a pre-post study) assessed tools based on the RAT prediction model. The third study looked at the impact of GP practices having access to RAT or Qcancer. Although the pre-post study reported a positive impact of the tools on outcomes, the results of the RCT and cross-sectional survey found no evidence that use of, or access to, the tools was associated with better outcomes. No study evaluated cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Many prediction models have been developed but none have been fully validated. Evidence demonstrating improved patient outcome of introducing the tools is the main deficiency and is essential given the imperfect classification achieved by all tools. This need is emphasised by the equivocal results of the small number of impact studies done so far.

Primary care practitioners' diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: an exploratory vignette study in 20 European countries

OBJECTIVES

Cancer survival rates vary widely between European countries, with differences in timeliness of diagnosis thought to be one key reason. There is little evidence on the way in which different healthcare systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs) referral decisions in patients who could have cancer.This study aimed to explore PCPs' diagnostic actions (whether or not they perform a key diagnostic test and/or refer to a specialist) in patients with symptoms that could be due to cancer and how they vary across European countries.

DESIGN

A primary care survey. PCPs were given vignettes describing patients with symptoms that could indicate cancer and asked how they would manage these patients. The likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action (a diagnostic test and/or referral) in the different participating countries was analysed. Comparisons between the likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action and physician characteristics were calculated.

SETTING

Centres in 20 European countries with widely varying cancer survival rates.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2086 PCPs answered the survey question, with a median of 72 PCPs per country.

RESULTS

PCPs' likelihood of immediate diagnostic action at the first consultation varied from 50% to 82% between countries. PCPs who were more experienced were more likely to take immediate diagnostic action than their peers.

CONCLUSION

When given vignettes of patients with a low but significant possibility of cancer, more than half of PCPs across Europe would take diagnostic action, most often by ordering diagnostic tests. However, there are substantial between-country variations.

Effect of pre-existing conditions on bladder cancer stage at diagnosis: a cohort study using electronic primary care records in the UK

Background

Pre-existing concurrent medical conditions (multimorbidity) complicate cancer diagnosis when they provide plausible diagnostic alternatives for cancer symptoms.

Aim

To investigate associations in bladder cancer between: first, pre-existing condition count and advanced-stage diagnosis; and, second, comorbidities that share symptoms with bladder cancer and advanced-stage diagnosis.

Design and setting

This observational UK cohort study was set in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with Public Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service linkage.

Method

Included participants were aged ≥40 years with an incident diagnosis of bladder cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015, and primary care records of attendance for haematuria, dysuria, or abdominal mass in the year before diagnosis. Stage at diagnosis (stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4) was the outcome variable. Putative explanatory variables using logistic regression were examined, including patient-level count of pre-existing conditions and ‘alternative-explanations’, indicating whether pre-existing condition(s) were plausible diagnostic alternatives for the index cancer symptom.

Results

In total, 1468 patients (76.4% male) were studied, of which 399 (35.6%) males and 217 (62.5%) females had alternative explanations for their index cancer symptom, the most common being urinary tract infection with haematuria. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 2.18; P = 0.001). Alternative explanations were strongly associated with advanced-stage diagnosis in both sexes (aOR 1.69; 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.39; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Alternative explanations were associated with advanced-stage diagnosis of bladder cancer. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, but the effect was not driven entirely by alternative explanations.

Disentangling the Relationship between Physician and Organizational Performance: A Signal Detection Approach

Background. In previous research, we employed a signal detection approach to measure the performance of general practitioners (GPs) when deciding about urgent referral for suspected lung cancer. We also explored associations between provider and organizational performance. We found that GPs from practices with higher referral positive predictive value (PPV; chance of referrals identifying cancer) were more reluctant to refer than those from practices with lower PPV. Here, we test the generalizability of our findings to a different cancer. Methods. A total of 252 GPs responded to 48 vignettes describing patients with possible colorectal cancer. For each vignette, respondents decided whether urgent referral to a specialist was needed. They then completed the 8-item Stress from Uncertainty scale. We measured GPs' discrimination (d') and response bias (criterion; c) and their associations with organizational performance and GP demographics. We also measured correlations of d' and c between the 2 studies for the 165 GPs who participated in both. Results. As in the lung study, organizational PPV was associated with response bias: in practices with higher PPV, GPs had higher criterion (b = 0.05 [0.03 to 0.07]; P < 0.001), that is, they were less inclined to refer. As in the lung study, female GPs were more inclined to refer than males (b = -0.17 [-0.30 to -0.105]; P = 0.005). In a mediation model, stress from uncertainty did not explain the gender difference. Only response bias correlated between the 2 studies (r = 0.39, P < 0.001). Conclusions. This study confirms our previous findings regarding the relationship between provider and organizational performance and strengthens the finding of gender differences in referral decision making. It also provides evidence that response bias is a relatively stable feature of GP referral decision making.

Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Delays in referral for patients with colorectal cancer may occur if the presenting symptom is falsely attributed to a benign condition.

AIM

To investigate whether delays in referral from primary care are associated with a later stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse prognosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A national retrospective cohort study in England including adult patients with colorectal cancer identified from the cancer registry with linkage to Clinical Practice Research Datalink, who had been referred following presentation to their GP with a 'red flag' or 'non-specific' symptom.

METHOD

The hazard ratios (HR) of death were calculated for delays in referral of between 2 weeks and 3 months, and >3 months, compared with referrals within 2 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 4527 (63.5%) patients with colon cancer and 2603 (36.5%) patients with rectal cancer were included in the study. The percentage of patients presenting with red-flag symptoms who experienced a delay of >3 months before referral was 16.9% of those with colon cancer and 13.5% of those with rectal cancer, compared with 35.7% of patients with colon cancer and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer who presented with non-specific symptoms. Patients referred after 3 months with red-flag symptoms demonstrated a significantly worse prognosis than patients who were referred within 2 weeks (colon cancer: HR 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 1.81; rectal cancer: HR 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.60). This association was not seen for patients presenting with non-specific symptoms. Delays in referral were associated with a significantly higher proportion of late-stage cancers.

CONCLUSION

The first presentation to the GP provides a referral opportunity to identify the underlying cancer, which, if missed, is associated with a later stage in diagnosis and worse survival.

Symptoms in the general Norwegian adult population - prevalence and associated factors

BACKGROUND

Patients´ own perceptions and evaluations of symptoms, functioning and other health-related factors, i.e. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs), are important elements for providing good patient care. Symptoms are subjective and best elicited by the patient orally or by using PRO measures (PROMs), be it on paper, or as electronic assessment tools. Reference values on frequently used PROMs facilitate the interpretation of scores for use in clinics and research settings, by comparing patient data with relevant samples from the general population. Study objectives were to (1) present reference values for the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) (2) examine the occurrence and intensity of symptoms assessed by the MDASI in a general Norwegian adult population sample, and (3) examine factors associated with higher symptom burden defined as the sum score of all symptoms, and factors associated with symptoms` interference on functions.

METHODS

In 2015, MDASI was sent by mail as part of a larger survey, to a representative sample of the general Norwegian adult population (N = 6165). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire. Depression was self-reported on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Linear multivariable regression analysis was used to examine for factors associated with MDASI sum score and factors associated with symptoms' interference on functions.

RESULTS

The response rate was 36%. More women (54%) than men (46%) responded. Mean age was 55 years (SD 14). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue (59.7%), drowsiness (56.2%) and pain (56.1%). Fatigue, pain and disturbed sleep had the highest mean scores. The presence of one or more comorbidities, increasing PHQ-9 score and lower level of education were associated with higher MDASI sum score (p < 0.001). The MDASI sum score and the PHQ-9 score were positively associated with all interference items (p < 0.001) except for walking (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first Norwegian reference values for MDASI. The presence of one or more comorbidities, higher level of depressive symptoms and lower level of education were significantly associated with higher MDASI sum score. These covariates must be controlled for when using the reference values.

GPs' perspectives of the patient encounter - in the context of standardized cancer patient pathways

Objective: We aim to explore how GPs assign meanings and act upon patients' symptoms in primary care encounters in the context of standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs).Design, setting and subjects: Thirteen individual interviews were conducted with GPs, at primary healthcare centers (n = 4) in one county in northern Sweden. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory method. The results were then linked to symbolic interactionism.Main outcome measures: GPs' perspectives about assigning meanings to patients' presented symptoms and perception about CPPs.Results: In the encounter, GPs engaged in two simultaneous interactions, one with patients' symptoms - and the other with CPPs. The core category Disentangling patients' care trajectory consists of three categories, interpreted as GPs' strategies developed to assign meaning to symptoms. These strategies are carried out not in a straightforward manner but rather in a conflicting way, illuminating the complexity of GPs' daily work.Conclusions: Interacting with patients is vital for assigning meaning to presented symptoms. However, nowadays GPs are not only required to interact with patients, they are also required to interact with CPPs. These standardized routines might create pressure and demands on GPs, especially for those experiencing a lack of information about CPPs. Beside of carrying out the challenging patient/person-centered dialogues and interpreting presented symptoms, GPs also need to link the interpreted symptoms to CPPs. Therefore, it is essential that GPs are given opportunities at their workplaces to continuously be informed and be supported in order to practice CPPs and thereby optimize trajectories for patients undergoing cancer diagnostics.Key points Current awareness: • GPs deliberation about patients' trajectories is a complex process, often dealing with vague symptoms. How CPPs influence this process within the encounter has not been studied. Main statements:  • GPs in our study were involved in two simultaneous interactions, one with patients' symptoms in the encounter - and the other with CPPs within the healthcare organization. • Symbolic interactionism helped capture how GPs deliberated about conflicting and paradoxical aspects of the encounter, in terms of balancing two contradictory ways of action that GPs face when providing patient/person-centered care and linking to CPPs. • Based on our results, primary care needs support from healthcare organizations to build capacity about CPPs and how to use them.

New horizons in iron deficiency anaemia in older adults

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is common in older adults and associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Differentiating iron deficiency from other causes of anaemia is important to ensure appropriate investigations and treatment. It is possible to make the diagnosis reliably using simple blood tests. Clinical evaluation and assessment are required to help determine the underlying cause and to initiate appropriate investigations. IDA in men and post-menopausal females is most commonly due to occult gastrointestinal blood loss until proven otherwise, although there is a spectrum of underlying causative pathologies. Investigation decisions should take account of the wishes of the patient and their competing comorbidities, individualising the approach. Management involves supplementation using oral or intravenous (IV) iron then consideration of treatment of the underlying cause of deficiency. Future research areas are outlined including the role of Hepcidin and serum soluble transferrin receptor measurement, quantitative faecal immunochemical testing, alternative dosing regimens and the potential role of IV iron preparations.