National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis

Predictors and consequences of different pathways to emergency diagnosis of cancer in England: Evidence from linked national audit and cancer registration data

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of cancer soon after emergency care use is associated with adverse prognosis. We aimed to more precisely explore different definitions of emergency diagnosis.

METHODS

For 43,383 patients in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit and Routes to Diagnosis datasets, we defined two emergency care pathways: emergency referral (Type-A) and emergency hospital admission (Type-B). We examined patient and tumour factors associated with each pathway excluding the other, and in combination (Type-A+B), in particular their concordance and prognostic implications for short-term mortality.

RESULTS

One in five patients (19 %) were diagnosed following emergency care use: 4 % through Type-A only, 7 % through Type-B only, and 8 % through Type-A+B. Higher co-morbidity, deprivation, advanced stage and certain cancer sites were associated with greater risk of emergency diagnosis. Concordance of emergency diagnosis pathway between Type-A and Type-B increased with age, co-morbidity and certain cancer sites. Patients with non-alarm symptoms were more likely to self-refer (Type-A) to an Emergency Department than patients with alarm symptoms. Associations with higher short-term mortality were strongest for Type-A+B.

CONCLUSIONS

We profile different pathways to emergency diagnosis and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic processes for these patients.

Time to Diagnosis and Presenting Symptoms of Patients Diagnosed With Cancer Through Emergency and Nonemergency Routes: A Large Retrospective Study From a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

The symptoms with which a patient with cancer presents and the route taken to diagnosis (emergency v nonemergency) may affect the speed with which the diagnosis of cancer is made, thereby affecting outcomes. We examined time to diagnosis by symptom for cancers diagnosed through emergency and nonemergency routes (NERs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with 10 solid cancers at Hospital Clínic of Barcelona between March 2013 and June 2023. Cancers were diagnosed through emergency presentation and admission (inpatient emergency route [IER]), emergency presentation and outpatient referral (outpatient emergency route [OER]), and primary care presentation and outpatient referral (NER). We assessed the effect of diagnostic routes on intervals to diagnosis for 19 cancer symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 5,174 and 1,607 patients were diagnosed with cancer through emergency routes and NERs, respectively. Over 85% of patients presenting with alarm (localizing) symptoms such as hematuria through emergency routes were diagnosed with the expected cancer, whereas those with nonlocalizing symptoms such as abdominal pain had a more heterogeneous cancer-site composition. Median intervals were shorter for alarm than nonlocalizing symptoms and tended to be shorter in IERs than OERs. However, for most symptoms, intervals in both routes were invariably shorter than in the NER. For example, diagnostic intervals for hematuria and abdominal pain were 3 and 5 days shorter in IERs than OERs, but they were 5-8 and 17-22 days shorter than in the NER, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients with alarm symptoms, intervals were shorter than for those with nonlocalizing symptoms and, for most symptoms, intervals were shorter when patients were evaluated by emergency routes rather than NERs.

Cancer diagnosis after emergency presentations in people with mental health and substance use conditions: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cancer survival and mortality outcomes for people with mental health and substance use conditions (MHSUC) are worse than for people without MHSUC, which may be partly explained by poorer access to timely and appropriate healthcare, from screening and diagnosis through to treatment and follow-up. Access and quality of healthcare can be evaluated by comparing the proportion of people who receive a cancer diagnosis following an acute or emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation) across different population groups: those diagnosed with cancer following an emergency presentation have lower survival.

METHODS

National mental health service use datasets (2002-2018) were linked to national cancer registry and hospitalisation data (2006-2018), to create a study population of people aged 15 years and older with one of four cancer diagnoses: lung, prostate, breast and colorectal. The exposure group included people with a history of mental health/addiction service contact within the five years before cancer diagnosis, with a subgroup of people with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or psychotic disorders. Marginal standardised rates were used to compare emergency presentations (hospital admission within 30 days of cancer diagnosis) in the exposure and comparison groups, adjusted for age, gender (for lung and colorectal cancers), ethnicity, area deprivation and stage at diagnosis.

RESULTS

For all four cancers, the rates of emergency presentation in the fully adjusted models were significantly higher in people with a history of mental health/addiction service use than people without (lung cancer, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.13, 1.24; prostate cancer RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.44, 1.93; breast cancer RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14, 1.69; colorectal cancer 1.31, 95% CI 1.22, 1.39). Rates were substantially higher in those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychotic disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing pathways for earlier detection and diagnosis of cancers in people with MHSUC could reduce the rates of emergency presentation, with improved cancer survival outcomes. All health services, including cancer screening programmes, primary and secondary care, have a responsibility to ensure equitable access to healthcare for people with MHSUC.

The presenting symptom signatures of incident cancer: evidence from the English 2018 National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

BACKGROUND

Understanding relationships between presenting symptoms and subsequently diagnosed cancers can inform symptom awareness campaigns and investigation strategies.

METHODS

We used English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2018 data for 55,122 newly diagnosed patients, and examined the relative frequency of presenting symptoms by cancer site, and of cancer sites by presenting symptom.

RESULTS

Among 38 cancer sites (16 cancer groups), three classes were apparent: cancers with a dominant single presenting symptom (e.g. melanoma); cancers with diverse presenting symptoms (e.g. pancreatic); and cancers that are often asymptomatically detected (e.g. chronic lymphocytic leukaemia). Among 83 symptoms (13 symptom groups), two classes were apparent: symptoms chiefly relating to cancers of the same body system (e.g. certain respiratory symptoms mostly relating to respiratory cancers); and symptoms with a diverse cancer site case-mix (e.g. fatigue). The cancer site case-mix of certain symptoms varied by sex.

CONCLUSION

We detailed associations between presenting symptoms and cancer sites in a large, representative population-based sample of cancer patients. The findings can guide choice of symptoms for inclusion in awareness campaigns, and diagnostic investigation strategies post-presentation when cancer is suspected. They can inform the updating of clinical practice recommendations for specialist referral encompassing a broader range of cancer sites per symptom.

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

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

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.

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data

BACKGROUND

Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions.

METHODS

English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group.

RESULTS

There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.