Use of the English urgent referral pathway for suspected cancer and mortality in patients with cancer: cohort study

Risk of cancer and serious disease in Danish patients with urgent referral for serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer in Funen 2014-2021

BACKGROUND

In 2011, as the first European country, Denmark introduced the non-organ-specific cancer patient pathway (CPP) for patients presenting with non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer (NSSC). The proportion of patients with cancer over time is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all patients with a NSSC-CPP investigational course in the province of Funen to the Diagnostic Centre in Svendborg from 2014 to 2021 was performed to evaluate the proportion of patients with cancer and serious disease over time.

RESULTS

A total of 6698 patients were referred to the NSSC-CPP of which 20.2% had cancer. While the crude referral rate increased from 114 per 100,000 people in 2014 and stabilised to around 214 in 2017-2021, the cancer detection rate of the total yearly new cancers in Funen diagnosed through the NSSC-CPP in DC Svendborg increased from 3 to 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

With now high and stable conversion and crude referral rates, the NSSC-CPP is one of the largest CPPs in Denmark as measured by the number of new cancer cases found. Similar urgent referral programmes in other countries might fill an unmet medical need for patients presenting with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer in general practice.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process

BACKGROUND

The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care.

METHODS

We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings.

RESULTS

We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients: How to improve the diagnostic pathway

Even in countries with national screening programmes for colorectal cancer, most cancers are identified after the patient has developed symptoms. The patients present these symptoms usually to primary care, or in some countries to specialist care. In either healthcare setting, the clinician has to consider cancer to be a possibility, then to perform triage investigations, followed by definitive investigation, usually by colonoscopy. This apparently simple pathway is not simple: most symptoms of colorectal cancer are more likely to represent benign disease than cancer, and each of these stages represents selection of patients into a higher-risk pool. This article summarises a symptom-based approach to selection and initial investigation of such patients in primary care. Some special groups need particular attention, including the younger patient, those with an inherited predisposition to cancer, and those with co-morbidities.

Fast vs. Regular Track for Lung and Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis-Time from Initial Finding to Final Diagnosis and Patient Survival

BACKGROUND

Health systems around the world have begun implementing unique tracks to expedite diagnosis and improve survival of patients with suspected cancers. This study aimed to compare characteristics and survival between patients diagnosed by way of fast and regular diagnostic tracks.

METHODS

A historical cohort study of patients (age ≥ 18) diagnosed with lung or pancreatic cancers between 09/2017 and 03/2020 on a fast diagnostic track and treated in a tertiary hospital versus a random sample of patients with the same cancer types who began treatment in the hospital over the same period of time after being diagnosed utilizing the regular track in the community.

RESULTS

The study included 336 patients (108 fast-track diagnostics, 228 regular track diagnostics). Advanced stages III-IV at diagnosis were more likely in the fast-track group (94.4% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.001). The median time from initial cancer suspicion to diagnosis was 21 days (IQR 14-37) for the fast-track vs. 31 days (IQR 18-51) for the regular track (p < 0.001). During the follow-up period, 56 patients from the fast-track and 131 patients from the regular track died. No significant difference was found in the median survival time between the fast and regular tracks, whether from the onset of symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment initiation.

CONCLUSION

Patients referred to the fast-track were more likely to be diagnosed at a further advanced stage of their cancer. The fast-track shortened the time until diagnosis and treatment but no difference was found in median survival between the tracks, perhaps due to late referral and high fatality rates.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data

OBJECTIVES

A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.

SETTING

Primary care in 10 jurisdictions.

PARTICIPANT

Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario).

CONCLUSIONS

Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

Unplanned cancer presentation in patients with psychiatric disorders: A nationwide register-based cohort study in Denmark

Unplanned presentation in the cancer pathway is more common in patients with psychiatric disorders than in patients without. More knowledge about the risk factors for unplanned presentation could help target interventions to ensure earlier diagnosis of cancer in patients with psychiatric disorders. This study aims to estimate the association between patient characteristics (social characteristics and coexisting physical morbidity) and cancer diagnosis following unplanned presentation among cancer patients with psychiatric disorders. We conducted a population-based register study including patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014-2018 and also registered with at least one psychiatric disorder in the included Danish registers (n = 26,005). We used logistic regression to assess patient characteristics associated with an unplanned presentation. Almost one in four symptomatic patients (23.6 %) with pre-existing psychiatric disorders presented unplanned in the cancer trajectory. Unplanned presentation was most common for severe psychiatric disorders, e.g. organic disorders and schizophrenia. Old age, male sex, living alone, low education, physical comorbidity, and non-attendance in primary care were associated with increased odds of unplanned presentation. In conclusion, several characteristics of patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorders were associated with unplanned presentation in the cancer trajectory; for some groups more than 40 % had an unplanned presentation. This information could be used to design targeted interventions for patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorders to ensure earlier diagnosis of cancer in this population.

A systematic review of interventions to recognise, refer and diagnose patients with lung cancer symptoms

Patients with lung cancer (LC) often experience delay between symptom onset and treatment. Primary healthcare professionals (HCPs) can help facilitate early diagnosis of LC through recognising early signs and symptoms and making appropriate referrals. This systematic review describes the effect of interventions aimed at helping HCPs recognise and refer individuals with symptoms suggestive of LC. Seven studies were synthesised narratively. Outcomes were categorised into: Diagnostic intervals; referral and diagnosis patterns; stage distribution at diagnosis; and time interval from diagnosis to treatment. Rapid access pathways and continuing medical education for general practitioners can help reduce LC diagnostic and treatment delay. Awareness campaigns and HCP education can help inform primary HCPs about referral pathways. However, campaigns did not significantly impact LC referral rates or reduce diagnostic intervals. Disease outcomes, such as LC stage at diagnosis, recurrence, and survival were seldom measured. Review findings highlight the need for longitudinal, powered, and controlled studies.

Time intervals in the care pathway to cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large retrospective study from a high-volume center

Despite extensive research on cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence on the impact on prediagnostic time intervals is lacking. To better understand how COVID-19 changed the pathway to diagnosis of cancer, we examined the length of intervals from symptom onset to diagnosis for 13 common cancer types with known clinical stage over 1-year nonpandemic period (March 2019 to March 2020; N = 844) and three biannual COVID periods (March 2020 to September 2021; N = 1172). We analyzed the patient interval (from first symptoms to presentation to a physician), the primary care/emergency department interval (from presentation with relevant symptoms to a primary care or emergency department physician to referral to a hospital-based diagnosis center) and the hospital interval (from referral to diagnosis). Compared to nonpandemic data, there were significant changes across COVID periods. The pandemic mostly impacted patient intervals for cancers diagnosed over the first 6 months after onset in March 2020. Overall median patient intervals were longest in the early COVID period (39 [IQR 22-64] days) and shortest in the nonpandemic period (20 [IQR 13-30] days; Kruskal-Wallis test [χ² ], P < .0001). Differences in clinical stage between periods were relevant, with cancers from the mid-period (September 2020 to March 2021) showing the most advanced stage. A shift to later stage was plausibly a result of delayed intervals in the early COVID period. Since intervals are eventually relevant to prognosis, our results provide a baseline against which the impact of improvement strategies to minimize the negative outcomes of COVID-19-associated cancer delays can be assessed and implemented.

Relationship between time from symptom's onset to diagnosis and prognosis in patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the relationship of the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with the time from symptom onset to diagnosis. The aim of this study is to investigate this association, with the assumption that this relationship was nonlinear and with adjustment for multiple confounders, such as tumor grade, symptoms, or admission to an emergency department.

METHODS

This multicenter study with prospective follow-up was performed in five regions of Spain from 2010 to 2012. Symptomatic cases of incident CRC from a previous study were examined. At the time of diagnosis, each patient was interviewed, and the associated hospital and clinical records were reviewed. During follow-up, the clinical records were reviewed again to assess survival. Cox survival analysis with a restricted cubic spline was used to model overall and CRC-specific survival, with adjustment for variables related to the patient, health service, and tumor.

RESULTS

A total of 795 patients had symptomatic CRC and 769 of them had complete data on diagnostic delay and survival. Univariate analysis indicated a lower HR for death in patients who had diagnostic intervals less than 4.2 months. However, after adjustment for variables related to the patient, tumor, and utilized health service, there was no relationship of the diagnostic delay with survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer, colon cancer alone, or rectal cancer alone. Cubic spline analysis indicated an inverse association of the diagnostic delay with 5-year survival. However, this association was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that the duration of diagnostic delay had no significant effect on the outcome of patients with CRC. We suggest that the most important determinant of the duration of diagnostic delay is the biological profile of the tumor. However, it remains the responsibility of community health centers and authorities to minimize diagnostic delays in patients with CRC and to implement initiatives that improve early diagnosis and provide better outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Inequalities in cancer screening, prevention and service engagement between UK ethnic minority groups

More people in the UK are living with cancer than ever before. With an increasingly ethnically diverse population, greater emphasis must be placed on understanding factors influencing cancer outcomes. This review seeks to explore UK-specific variations in engagement with cancer services in minority ethnic groups and describe successful interventions. The authors wish to highlight that, despite improvement to engagement and education strategies, inequalities still persist and work to improve cancer outcomes across our communities still needs to be prioritised. There are many reasons why cancer healthcare inequities exist for minority communities, reported on a spectrum ranging from cultural beliefs and awareness, through to racism. Strategies that successfully enhanced engagement included language support; culturally-sensitive reminders; community-based health workers and targeted outreach. Focusing on the diverse city of Leicester the authors describe how healthcare providers, researchers and community champions have worked collectively, delivering targeted community-based strategies to improve awareness and access to cancer services.

Associations Between Physician Continuous Professional Development and Referral Patterns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Both overuse and underuse of clinician referrals can compromise high-value health care. The authors sought to systematically identify and synthesize published research examining associations between physician continuous professional development (CPD) and referral patterns.

METHOD

The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Database on April 23, 2020, for comparative studies evaluating CPD for practicing physicians and reporting physician referral outcomes. Two reviewers, working independently, screened all articles for inclusion. Two reviewers reviewed all included articles to extract information, including data on participants, educational interventions, study design, and outcomes (referral rate, intended direction of change, appropriateness of referral). Quantitative results were pooled using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 3,338 articles screened, 31 were included. These studies enrolled at least 14,458 physicians and reported 381,165 referral events. Among studies comparing CPD with no intervention, 17 studies with intent to increase referrals had a pooled risk ratio of 1.91 (95% confidence interval: 1.50, 2.44; P < .001), and 7 studies with intent to decrease referrals had a pooled risk ratio of 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.83; P < .001). Five studies did not indicate the intended direction of change. Subgroup analyses revealed similarly favorable effects for specific instructional approaches (including lectures, small groups, Internet-based instruction, and audit/feedback) and for activities of varying duration. Four studies reported head-to-head comparisons of alternate CPD approaches, revealing no clear superiority for any approach. Seven studies adjudicated the appropriateness of referral, and 9 studies counted referrals that were actually completed (versus merely requested).

CONCLUSIONS

Although between-study differences are large, CPD is associated with statistically significant changes in patient referral rates in the intended direction of impact. There are few head-to-head comparisons of alternate CPD interventions using referrals as outcomes.

Associations between general practice characteristics and chest X-ray rate: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line test for lung cancer in many settings. Previous research has suggested that higher utilisation of CXR is associated with improved outcomes.

AIM

To explore the associations between characteristics of general practices and frequency of investigation with CXR.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study of English general practices.

METHOD

A database was constructed of English general practices containing number of CXRs requested and data on practices for 2018, including patient and staff demographics, smoking prevalence, deprivation, and patient satisfaction indicators. Mixed-effects Poisson modelling was used to account for variation because of chance and to estimate the amount of remaining variation that could be attributed to practice and population characteristics.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in GP CXR rates (median 34 per 1000 patients, interquartile range 26-43). Only 18% of between-practice variance in CXR rate was accounted for by recorded characteristics. Higher practice scores for continuity and communication skills, and higher proportions of smokers, Asian and mixed ethnic groups, and patients aged >65 years were associated with increased CXR rates. Higher patient satisfaction scores for access and greater proportions of male patients and patients of Black ethnicity were associated with lower CXR rates.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation was found in CXR rates beyond that expected by chance, which could not be accounted for by practices' recorded characteristics. As other research has indicated that increasing CXR rates can lead to earlier detection, supporting practices that currently investigate infrequently could be an effective strategy to improve lung cancer outcomes.

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

Background

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

Aim

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

Design and setting

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Natriuretic peptide level at heart failure diagnosis and risk of hospitalisation and death in England 2004-2018

Objective

Heart failure (HF) is a malignant condition requiring urgent treatment. Guidelines recommend natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in primary care to prioritise referral for specialist diagnostic assessment. We aimed to assess association of baseline NP with hospitalisation and mortality in people with newly diagnosed HF.

Methods

Population-based cohort study of 40 007 patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England with a new HF diagnosis (48% men, mean age 78.5 years). We used linked primary and secondary care data between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2018 to report one-year hospitalisation and 1-year, 5-year and 10-year mortality by NP level.

Results

22 085 (55%) participants were hospitalised in the year following diagnosis. Adjusted odds of HF-related hospitalisation in those with a high NP (NT-proBNP >2000 pg/mL) were twofold greater (OR 2.26 95% CI 1.98 to 2.59) than a moderate NP (NT-proBNP 400–2000 pg/mL). All-cause mortality rates in the high NP group were 27%, 62% and 82% at 1, 5 and 10 years, compared with 19%, 50% and 77%, respectively, in the moderate NP group and, in a competing risks model, risk of HF-related death was 50% higher at each timepoint. Median time between NP test and HF diagnosis was 101 days (IQR 19–581).

Conclusions

High baseline NP is associated with increased HF-related hospitalisation and poor survival. While healthcare systems remain under pressure from the impact of COVID-19, research to test novel strategies to prevent hospitalisation and improve outcomes—such as a mandatory two-week HF diagnosis pathway—is urgently needed.

The impact of socio-demographic factors on the survival of cancer patients in Zimbabwe

We provide a survival analysis of cancer patients in Zimbabwe. Our results show that young cancer patients have lower but not significant hazard rate compared to old cancer patients. Male cancer patients have lower but not significant hazard rate compared to female cancer patients. Race and marital status are significant risk factors for cancer patients in Zimbabwe.

Primary care physicians' views of standardised care pathways in cancer care: A Swedish qualitative study on implementation experiences

OBJECTIVE

Primary care physicians (PCPs) recently started using standardised care pathways (PCPs) to refer patients to specialists for diagnostics in Sweden. The aim of the current study is therefore to examine PCPs views of implementing standardised care pathways (SCPs) in cancer care.

METHOD

In total, 27 semi-structured interviews (17 individual and 10 group interviews) were conducted within 24 primary care units, including 61 physicians representing the public and private sectors. Interviews were conducted during 2017 and 2018. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Eight themes, including both perceived opportunities and challenges with the SCPs, were identified in the analysis. Most PCPs valued the SCPs, citing that they expedited the referral system and decreased patient waiting time. However, the guidelines were not completely clear leaving PCPs to wonder what constituted an SCP referral, who should initiate the referral, and how PCPs should communicate and collaborate with specialists.

CONCLUSION

SCPs were a welcomed organisational change by PCPs, where PCPs thought that the SCPs could help in providing better patient care to potential cancer patients. However, updated guidelines and clarifications within the SCPs are warranted to have increased services for both the patients and medical personnel.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

Barriers to colonoscopy in remote northern Canada: an analysis of cancellations

Background: Colonoscopy is a critical diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that is challenging to access in northern Canada. In part, this is due to frequent cancellations. We sought to understand the trends and reasons for colonoscopy cancellations in the Northwest Territories (NWT).

Methods: A retrospective review of colonoscopy cancellations January, 2018 to May, 2019 was conducted at Stanton Territorial Hospital, NWT. Cancellation details and rationale were captured from the endoscopy cancellation logs. Thematic analysis was used to group cancellation reasons. Descriptive statistics were generated, and trends were analysed using run chart.

Results: Of the scheduled colonoscopies, 368(28%) were cancelled during the 16 month period, and cancellations occurred, on average, 27 days after booking. Cancellation reasons were grouped into 15 themes, encompassing personal, social, geographic and health system factors. The most frequently cited theme was work/other commitments (69 respondents; 24%). Cancellations due to travel and accommodation issues occurred more frequently in the winter.

Conclusion: Over one in four booked colonoscopies were cancelled and the reasons for cancellations were complex. Initiatives focusing on communication and support for patients with personal or occupational obligations could dramatically reduce cancellations. Ongoing collaborative efforts are needed to inform and optimise access to colonoscopy in this region.

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.

Association between use of urgent suspected cancer referral and mortality and stage at diagnosis: a 5-year national cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is considerable variation between GP practices in England in their use of urgent referral pathways for suspected cancer.

AIM

To determine the association between practice use of urgent referral and cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer patient mortality, for all cancers and the most common types of cancer (colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate).

DESIGN AND SETTING

National cohort study of 1.4 million patients diagnosed with cancer in England between 2011 and 2015.

METHOD

The cohort was stratified according to quintiles of urgent referral metrics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to quantify risk of death, and logistic regression to calculate odds of late-stage (III/IV) versus early-stage (I/II) cancers in relation to referral quintiles and cancer type.

RESULTS

Cancer patients from the highest referring practices had a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 0.97), with similar patterns for individual cancers: colorectal (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.93 to 0.97); lung (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.94 to 0.97); breast (HR = 0.96; CI = 0.93 to 0.99); and prostate (HR = 0.88; CI = 0.85 to 0.91). Similarly, for cancer patients from these practices, there were lower odds of late-stage diagnosis for individual cancer types, except for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Higher practice use of referrals for suspected cancer is associated with lower mortality for the four most common types of cancer. A significant proportion of the observed mortality reduction is likely due to earlier stage at diagnosis, except for colorectal cancer. This adds to evidence supporting the lowering of referral thresholds and consequent increased use of urgent referral for suspected cancer.

Rapid cancer diagnosis for patients with vague symptoms: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

A pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week.

AIM

To explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Hospital, Wales.

METHOD

Discrete-event simulation modelled a cohort of 1000 patients from referral to radiological diagnosis based on routine RDC and hospital data. Control patients were those referred to a USC pathway but then downgraded. Published sources provided estimates of patient quality of life (QoL) and pre-diagnosis anxiety. The model calculates time to diagnosis, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and estimates the probability of the RDC being a cost-effective strategy.

RESULTS

The RDC reduces mean time to diagnosis from 84.2 days in usual care to 5.9 days if a diagnosis is made at clinic, or 40.8 days if further investigations are booked during RDC. RDC provision is the superior strategy (that is, less costly and more effective) compared with standard clinical practice when run near or at full capacity. However, it is not cost-effective if capacity utilisation drops below 80%.

CONCLUSION

An RDC for patients presenting with vague or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer in primary care reduces time to diagnosis and provides excellent value for money if run at ≥80% capacity.

Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines

Background

Women with ovarian cancer can present with a variety of symptoms and signs, and an increasing range of tests are available for their investigation. A number of international guidelines provide advice for the initial assessment of possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. We systematically identified and reviewed the consistency and quality of these documents.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, guideline-specific databases and professional organisation websites were searched in March 2018 for relevant clinical guidelines, consensus statements and clinical pathways, produced by professional or governmental bodies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised documents using the Appraisal for Guidelines and Research Evaluation 2 (AGREEII) tool.

Results

Eighteen documents from 11 countries in six languages met selection criteria. Methodological quality varied with two guidance documents achieving an AGREEII score ≥ 50% in all six domains and 10 documents scoring ≥50% for “Rigour of development” (range: 7–96%). All guidance documents provided advice on possible symptoms of ovarian cancer, although the number of symptoms included in documents ranged from four to 14 with only one symptom (bloating/abdominal distension/increased abdominal size) appearing in all documents. Fourteen documents provided advice on physical examinations but varied in both the examinations they recommended and the physical signs they included. Fifteen documents provided recommendations on initial investigations. Transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound and the serum biomarker CA125 were the most widely advocated initial tests. Five distinct testing strategies were identified based on the number of tests and the order of testing advocated: ‘single test’, ‘dual testing’, ‘sequential testing’, ‘multiple testing options’ and ‘no testing’.

Conclusions

Recommendations on the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women vary considerably between international guidance documents. This variation could contribute to differences in the way symptomatic women are assessed and investigated between countries. Greater research is needed to evaluate the assessment and testing approaches advocated by different guidelines and their impact on ovarian cancer detection.

Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study

BACKGROUND

Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors.

RESULTS

The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

Availability and use of cancer decision-support tools: a cross-sectional survey of UK primary care

Background

Decision-support tools quantify the risk of undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic patients, and may help GPs when making referrals.

Aim

To quantify the availability and use of cancer decision-support tools (QCancer^® and risk assessment tools) and to explore the association between tool availability and 2-week-wait (2WW) referrals for suspected cancer.

Design and setting

A cross-sectional postal survey in UK primary care.

Methods

Out of 975 UK randomly selected general practices, 4600 GPs and registrars were invited to participate. Outcome measures included the proportions of UK general practices where cancer decision-support tools are available and at least one GP uses the tool. Weighted least-squares linear regression with robust errors tested the association between tool availability and number of 2WW referrals, adjusting for practice size, sex, age, and Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Results

In total, 476 GPs in 227 practices responded (response rates: practitioner, 10.3%; practice, 23.3%). At the practice level, 83/227 (36.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.3 to 43.1) practices had at least one GP or registrar with access to cancer decision-support tools. Tools were available and likely to be used in 38/227 (16.7%, 95% CI = 12.1 to 22.2) practices. In subgroup analyses of 172 English practices, there was no difference in mean 2WW referral rate between practices with tools and those without (mean adjusted difference in referrals per 100 000: 3.1, 95% CI = −5.5 to 11.7).

Conclusion

This is the first survey of cancer decision-support tool availability and use. It suggests that the tools are an underused resource in the UK. Given the cost of cancer investigation, a randomised controlled trial of such clinical decision-support aids would be appropriate.

Diagnostic spectrum and time intervals in Sweden's first diagnostic center for patients with nonspecific symptoms of cancer

BACKGROUND

Fast-track referral is an increasingly used method for diagnostic evaluation of patients suspected of having cancer. This approach is challenging and not used as often for patients with only nonspecific symptoms. In order to expedite the diagnostics for these patients, we established Sweden's first Diagnostic Center (DC) focusing on outcomes related to diagnoses and diagnostic time intervals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was designed as a prospective cohort study. Patients aged ≥18 years who presented in primary care with nonspecific symptoms of a serious disease were eligible for referral to the DC after having completed an initial investigation. Acceptable diagnostic time intervals were defined to be a maximum of 15 days in primary care and 22 days at the DC. Diagnostic outcome, length of diagnostic time intervals and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 290 patients were included in the study. Cancer was diagnosed in 22.1%, other diseases in 64.1%, and no diagnosis was identified in 13.8% of these patients. Patients diagnosed with cancer were older, had shorter patient interval (time from first symptom to help-seeking), shorter DC-interval (time from referral decision in primary care to diagnosis) and showed a greater number of symptoms compared to patients with no diagnosis. The median primary care interval was 21 days and the median DC interval was 11 days. Few symptoms, no diagnosis, female sex, longer patient interval, and incomplete investigations were associated with prolonged diagnostic time intervals. Patient satisfaction was high; 86% of patients reported a positive degree of satisfaction with the diagnostic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the DC concept is feasible with a diagnosis reached in 86.2% of the patients in addition to favorable diagnostic time intervals at the DC and a high degree of patient satisfaction.

Surgical breast cancer patient pathway: Experiences of patients and relatives and their unmet needs

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Breast cancer is the most common cancer disease in women worldwide. In Denmark, the law prescribes cancer patient pathways (CPPs) in general and thus also for breast cancer. Although results from patient satisfaction surveys show overall satisfaction with the pathway, a call for improvement has been voiced for some areas. The aim of this study was to explore patients' and relatives' experiences with the surgical breast CPP and to identify any unmet needs.

METHOD

This study was based on focus groups with patients who had surgery for breast cancer, and their relatives. The settings were two Danish surgical breast cancer clinics.

FINDINGS

Overall, patients and relatives found the structure of the surgical breast CPP satisfactory. The time in the surgical department was short, and most patients found it difficult to cope with the situation. Empathy and a supportive relationship between patients, relatives and health-care professionals were of great importance. Five key points were identified in which some of the participants had unmet needs. Suggestions for change were related to information, communication, choice of treatment, flexibility in the pathway and easy access to the clinic after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although patients and relatives found the CPP for breast cancer satisfactory and well planned, suggestions for change were made relating to unmet needs with respect to five key points in the pathway. Implementing findings from this study in clinical practice requires co-operation between health-care professionals and support from the leaders of the organization.

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol

BACKGROUND

GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms.

AIM

This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes.

DESIGN & SETTING

Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales.

METHOD

Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial.

RESULTS

The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners' referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Cancer survival and stage of disease at diagnosis and treatment vary widely across Europe. These differences may be partly due to variations in access to investigations and specialists. However, evidence to explain how different national health systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs') referral decisions is lacking.This study analyses health system factors potentially influencing PCPs' referral decision-making when consulting with patients who may have cancer, and how these vary between European countries.

DESIGN

Based on a content-validity consensus, a list of 45 items relating to a PCP's decisions to refer patients with potential cancer symptoms for further investigation was reduced to 20 items. An online questionnaire with the 20 items was answered by PCPs on a five-point Likert scale, indicating how much each item affected their own decision-making in patients that could have cancer. An exploratory factor analysis identified the factors underlying PCPs' referral decision-making.

SETTING

A primary care study; 25 participating centres in 20 European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

1830 PCPs completed the survey. The median response rate for participating centres was 20.7%.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The factors derived from items related to PCPs' referral decision-making. Mean factor scores were produced for each country, allowing comparisons.

RESULTS

Factor analysis identified five underlying factors: PCPs' ability to refer; degree of direct patient access to secondary care; PCPs' perceptions of being under pressure; expectations of PCPs' role; and extent to which PCPs believe that quality comes before cost in their health systems. These accounted for 47.4% of the observed variance between individual responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Five healthcare system factors influencing PCPs' referral decision-making in 20 European countries were identified. The factors varied considerably between European countries. Knowledge of these factors could assist development of health service policies to produce better cancer outcomes, and inform future research to compare national cancer diagnostic pathways and outcomes.

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals

Early diagnosis of symptomatic gynecological cancer is likely to improve patient outcomes, including survival. The primary care practitioner has a key role to play in this-they must recognize the symptoms and signs of gynecological cancer and make prompt evidence-based decisions regarding further investigation and referral. However, this is often difficult as many of the symptoms of gynecological cancers are nonspecific and are more likely to be caused by benign rather than malignant disease. As primary care is generally the first point of patient contact, those working in this setting usually encounter cancer patients at an earlier, and possibly less symptomatic, stage than practitioners in secondary care. Despite these challenges, research has improved our understanding of the symptoms patients present to primary care with, and a range of tests and referral pathways now exist in the UK and other countries to aid early diagnosis. Primary care practitioners can also play a key role in gynecological cancer prevention. A significant proportion of gynecological cancer is preventable either through lifestyle changes such as weight loss, or, for cervical cancer, vaccination and/or engagement with screening programs. Primary care provides an excellent opportunity to discuss cancer risk with patients and to promote risk reduction strategies and lifestyle change. In this article, the first in a series discussing cancer detection in primary care, we concentrate on gynecological cancer and focus on the three most common forms that a primary care practitioner is likely to encounter: ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer. We outline key risk factors, briefly discuss prevention and screening strategies, and offer practical guidance on the recognition of symptoms and signs and the investigation and referral of women with suspected cancer. While this article is written from a UK primary care perspective, much of what is discussed will be of relevance to those working in other healthcare systems.

Pathways to Lung Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Patients and General Practitioners about Diagnostic and Pretreatment Intervals

RATIONALE

Pathways to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment are complex. International evidence shows significant variations in pathways. Qualitative research investigating pathways to lung cancer diagnosis rarely considers both patient and general practitioner views simultaneously.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the lung cancer diagnostic pathway, focusing on the perspective of patients and general practitioners about diagnostic and pretreatment intervals.

METHODS

This qualitative study of patients with lung cancer and general practitioners in Australia used qualitative interviews or a focus group in which participants responded to a semistructured questionnaire designed to explore experiences of the diagnostic pathway. The Model of Pathways to Treatment (the Model) was used as a framework for analysis, with data organized into (1) events, (2) processes, and (3) contributing factors for variations in diagnostic and pretreatment intervals.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (19 patients with lung cancer and 11 general practitioners) took part. Nine themes were identified during analysis. For the diagnostic interval, these were: (1) taking patient concerns seriously, (2) a sense of urgency, (3) advocacy that is doctor-driven or self-motivated, and (4) referral: "knowing who to refer to." For the pretreatment interval, themes were: (5) uncertainty, (6) psychosocial support for the patient and family before treatment, and (7) communication among the multidisciplinary team and general practitioners. Two cross-cutting themes were: (8) coordination of care and "handing over" the patient, and (9) general practitioner knowledge about lung cancer. Events were perceived as complex, with diagnosis often being revealed over time, rather than as a single event. Contributing factors at patient, system, and disease levels are described for both intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and general practitioners expressed similar themes across the diagnostic and pretreatment intervals. Significant improvements could be made to health systems to facilitate better patient and general practitioner experiences of the diagnostic pathway. This novel presentation of patient and general practitioner perspectives indicates that systemic interventions have a role in timely and appropriate referrals to specialist care and coordination of investigations. Systemic interventions may alleviate concerns about urgency of diagnostic workup, communication, and coordination of care as patients transition from primary to specialist care.

Geographical variations in the use of cancer treatments are associated with survival of lung cancer patients

Introduction

Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England.

Methods

We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis.

Results

Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%–17% for surgical resection, 4%–13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%–35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity.

Conclusion

The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates.

Reimagining the diagnostic pathway for gastrointestinal cancer

A crisis is looming for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers, one grounded only partly in the steady increase in their overall incidence. Public demand for diagnostic tests to be undertaken early and at lower levels of risk is reflected in early diagnosis being a widely held policy objective for reasons of both clinical outcome and patient experience. In the UK, urgent referrals for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer have increased by 78% in the past 6 years, with parallel increases in endoscopy and imaging activity. Such growth in demand is unsustainable with current models of care. If gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis is to be affordable, the roles of professionals and their interactions with each other will need to be reframed while retaining public confidence in the process. In this Perspective, we consider how the relationship between medical specialists and generalists could be redefined to make better use of the skills of each while delivering optimal clinical outcomes and a good patient experience.

Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England

BACKGROUND

The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investigated the extent to which this indicator reflects underlying organisational differences rather than differences in stage completeness and chance variation.

METHODS

We used population-based data on patients diagnosed with one of ten cancer sites in 2013 (bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, prostate, renal, NHL, and melanoma). We assessed the degree of bias in CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) indicators introduced by missing-is-late and complete-case specifications compared with an imputed 'gold standard'. We estimated the Spearman-Brown (organisation-level) reliability of the complete-case specification. We assessed probable misclassification rates against current pay-for-performance targets.

RESULTS

Under the missing-is-late approach, bias in estimated CCG percentage of tumours diagnosed at an early stage ranged from -2 to -30 percentage points, while bias under the complete-case approach ranged from -2 to +7 percentage points. Using an annual reporting period, indicators based on the least biased complete-case approach would have poor reliability, misclassifying 27/209 (13%) CCGs against a pay-for-performance target in current use; only half (53%) of CCGs apparently exceeding the target would be correctly classified in terms of their underlying performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Current public reporting schemes for cancer stage at diagnosis in England should use a complete-case specification (i.e. the number of staged cases forming the denominator) and be based on three-year reporting periods. Early stage indicators for the studied geographies should not be used in pay-for-performance schemes.

Variation in 'fast-track' referrals for suspected cancer by patient characteristic and cancer diagnosis: evidence from 670 000 patients with cancers of 35 different sites

BACKGROUND

In England, 'fast-track' (also known as 'two-week wait') general practitioner referrals for suspected cancer in symptomatic patients are used to shorten diagnostic intervals and are supported by clinical guidelines. However, the use of the fast-track pathway may vary for different patient groups.

METHODS

We examined data from 669 220 patients with 35 cancers diagnosed in 2006-2010 following either fast-track or 'routine' primary-to-secondary care referrals using 'Routes to Diagnosis' data. We estimated the proportion of fast-track referrals by sociodemographic characteristic and cancer site and used logistic regression to estimate respective crude and adjusted odds ratios. We additionally explored whether sociodemographic associations varied by cancer.

RESULTS

There were large variations in the odds of fast-track referral by cancer (P<0.001). Patients with testicular and breast cancer were most likely to have been diagnosed after a fast-track referral (adjusted odds ratios 2.73 and 2.35, respectively, using rectal cancer as reference); whereas patients with brain cancer and leukaemias least likely (adjusted odds ratios 0.05 and 0.09, respectively, for brain cancer and acute myeloid leukaemia). There were sex, age and deprivation differences in the odds of fast-track referral (P<0.013) that varied in their size and direction for patients with different cancers (P<0.001). For example, fast-track referrals were least likely in younger women with endometrial cancer and in older men with testicular cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track referrals are less likely for cancers characterised by nonspecific presenting symptoms and patients belonging to low cancer incidence demographic groups. Interventions beyond clinical guidelines for 'alarm' symptoms are needed to improve diagnostic timeliness.

Associations between diagnostic activity and measures of patient experience in primary care: a cross-sectional ecological study of English general practices

BACKGROUND

Lower use of endoscopies and urgent referrals for suspected cancer has been linked to poorer outcomes for patients with cancer; it is important to examine potential predictors of variable use.

AIM

To examine the associations between general practice measures of patient experience and practice use of endoscopies or urgent referrals for suspected cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional ecological analysis in English general practices.

METHOD

Data were taken from the GP Patient Survey and the Cancer Services Public Health Profiles. After adjustment for practice population characteristics, practice-level associations were examined between the use of endoscopy and urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and the ability to book an appointment (used as proxy for ease of access), the ability to see a preferred doctor (used as proxy for relational continuity), and doctor/nurse communication skills.

RESULTS

Taking into account practice scores for the ability to book an appointment, practices rated higher for the proxy measure of relational continuity used urgent referrals and endoscopies less often (for example, 30% lower urgent referral and 15% lower gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). In contrast, practices rated higher for doctor communication skills used urgent referrals and endoscopies more often (for example, 26% higher urgent referral and 17% higher gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). Patients with cancer in practices that were rated higher for doctor communication skills were less likely to be diagnosed as emergencies (1.7% lower between practices in the 90th than in the 10th centile).

CONCLUSION

Practices where patients rated doctor communication highly were more likely to investigate and refer patients urgently but, in contrast, practices where patients could see their preferred doctor more readily were less likely to do so. This article discusses the possible implications of these findings for clinical practice.

Variation and statistical reliability of publicly reported primary care diagnostic activity indicators for cancer: a cross-sectional ecological study of routine data

OBJECTIVES

Recent public reporting initiatives in England highlight general practice variation in indicators of diagnostic activity related to cancer. We aimed to quantify the size and sources of variation and the reliability of practice-level estimates of such indicators, to better inform how this information is interpreted and used for quality improvement purposes.

DESIGN

Ecological cross-sectional study.

SETTING

English primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

All general practices in England with at least 1000 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sixteen diagnostic activity indicators from the Cancer Services Public Health Profiles.

RESULTS

Mixed-effects logistic and Poisson regression showed that substantial proportions of the observed variance in practice scores reflected chance, variably so for different indicators (between 7% and 85%). However, after accounting for the role of chance, there remained substantial variation between practices (typically up to twofold variation between the 75th and 25th centiles of practice scores, and up to fourfold variation between the 90th and 10th centiles). The age and sex profile of practice populations explained some of this variation, by different amounts across indicators. Generally, the reliability of diagnostic process indicators relating to broader populations of patients most of whom do not have cancer (eg, rate of endoscopic investigations, or urgent referrals for suspected cancer (also known as 'two week wait referrals')) was high (≥0.80) or very high (≥0.90). In contrast, the reliability of diagnostic outcome indicators relating to incident cancer cases (eg, per cent of all cancer cases detected after an emergency presentation) ranged from 0.24 to 0.54, which is well below recommended thresholds (≥0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of indicators of diagnostic activity in individual general practices should principally focus on process indicators which have adequate or high reliability and not outcome indicators which are unreliable at practice level.

Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral, and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey nested within a feasibility study using information technology to flag-up patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer

Background

Patients with symptoms of possible colorectal cancer are not always referred for investigation.

Aim

To ascertain barriers and facilitators to GP referral of patients meeting the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for suspected colorectal cancer.

Design & setting

Qualitative study in the context of a feasibility study using information technology in GP practices to flag-up patients meeting urgent referral criteria for colorectal cancer.

Method

Semi-structured interview with 18 GPs and 12 practice managers, focusing on early detection of colorectal cancer, issues in the use of information technology to identify patients and GP referral of these patients for further investigation were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed according to emergent themes.

Results

There were two main themes: wide variation in willingness to refer and uncertainty about whether to refer; and barriers to referral. Three key messages emerged: there was a desire to avoid over-referral, lack of knowledge of guidelines, and the use of individually-derived decision rules for further investigation or referral of symptoms. Some GPs were unaware that iron deficiency anaemia or persistent diarrhoea are urgent referral criteria. Alternatives to urgent referral included undertaking no investigations, trials of iron therapy, use of faecal occult blood tests (FOBt) and non-urgent referral. In minority ethnic groups (South Asians) anaemia was often accepted as normal.

Concerns about over-referral were linked to financial pressures and perceived criticism by healthcare commissioners, and a reluctance to scare patients by discussing suspected cancer.

Conclusion

GPs’ lack of awareness of referral guidelines and concerns about over-referral are barriers to early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.