International variation in adherence to referral guidelines for suspected cancer: a secondary analysis of survey data

Evaluating the Time Interval Between Symptoms Onset, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Intervention in Lung Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study in Southern Iran

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Delay in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is thought to be a major cause of its poor outcomes. We evaluated the delays within the presentation to the initiation of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions amongst lung cancer patients in Southern Iran.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2019 to March 2021. The data collected through interview included socio-demographic, medical and clinical findings, and the time intervals needed to visit physician, refer to specialist, request diagnostic procedures, reach diagnosis of lung cancer, and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients (58 males and 31 females) with a mean age of 61.01 ± 12.25 years were included. The median time of symptom presentation and first physician visit interval was 25 days. Sixty-five days were spent for requesting, performing, and evaluating the diagnostic procedures. The median interval between diagnosis and initiation of treatment was 16 days. Totally, it took an average of 122 days from the presentation to the definite diagnosis of lung cancer. Patient-, diagnosis-, and treatment-related delays were not significantly correlated with any of the demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical (disease stage, symptom) variables, as well as the diagnosis tool and the first physician who visited the patient (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant delay but relatively similar to other countries in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients in Southern Iran. The largest portion of delay could be attributed to the raising clinical suspicion in the physicians, referral for diagnostic assessments, and the diagnosis process.

Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study

BACKGROUND

UK cancer mortality is worse than in many other high-income countries, partly because of diagnostic delays in primary care.

AIM

To understand beliefs and behaviours of GPs, and systems of general practice teams, to inform the Think Cancer! intervention development.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An embedded qualitative study guided by behaviour change models (COM-B [Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour] and theoretical domains framework [TDF]) in primary care in Wales, UK.

METHOD

Twenty qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs were undertaken and four face-to-face focus groups held with practice teams. Framework analysis was used and results were mapped to multiple, overlapping components of COM-B and TDF.

RESULTS

Three themes illustrate complex, multilevel referral considerations facing GPs and practice teams; external influences and constraints; and the role of practice systems and culture. Tensions emerged between individual considerations of GPs (Capability and Motivation) and context-dependent external pressures (Opportunity). Detecting cancer was guided not only by external requirements, but also by motivational factors GPs described as part of their cancer diagnostics process. External influences on the diagnosis process often resulted from the primary-secondary care interface and social pressures. GPs adapted their behaviour to deal with this disconnect. Positive practice culture and supportive practice-based systems ameliorated these tensions and complexity.

CONCLUSION

By exploring individual GP behaviours together with practice systems and culture we contribute new understanding about how cancer diagnosis operates in primary care and how delays can be improved. We highlight commonly overlooked dynamics and tensions that are experienced by GPs as a tension between individual decision making (Capability and Motivation) and external considerations, such as pressures in secondary care (Opportunity).

Predictive value of abnormal blood tests for detecting cancer in primary care patients with nonspecific abdominal symptoms: A population-based cohort study of 477,870 patients in England

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.

Pre-diagnostic prescription patterns in bladder and renal cancer: a longitudinal linked data study

BACKGROUND

Understanding pre-diagnostic prescribing activity could reveal windows during which more timely cancer investigation and detection may occur.

AIM

To examine prescription patterns for common urological clinical features prior to renal and bladder cancer diagnoses.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic primary care and cancer registry data on patients with bladder and renal cancer, who received their diagnosis between April 2012 and December 2015 in England.

METHOD

Primary care prescriptions up to 2 years pre- diagnosis were analysed for five groups of clinical features (irritative urological symptoms, obstructive symptoms, urinary tract infections [UTIs], genital infections, and atrophic vaginitis). Poisson regressions estimating the inflection point from which the rate of prescriptions increased from baseline were used to identify the start of diagnostic windows during which cancer could be detected.

RESULTS

A total of 48 094 prescriptions for 5322 patients were analysed. Inflection points for an increase in UTI prescriptions were identified 9 months pre- diagnosis for renal (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3 to 12.7) and bladder (95% CI = 7.4 to 10.6) cancers. For bladder cancer, the change in UTI antibiotic prescription rates occurred 4 months earlier in females (11 months pre- diagnosis, 95% CI = 9.7 to 12.3) than in males (7 months pre-diagnosis, 95% CI = 5.4 to 8.6). For other clinical features, no inflection points were identified and, as such, no diagnostic windows could be defined.

CONCLUSION

Prescription rates for UTIs increased 9 months before bladder and renal cancer diagnoses, indicating that there is potential to expedite diagnosis of these cancers in patients presenting with features of UTI. The greatest opportunity for more timely diagnosis may be in females with bladder cancer, who experienced the earliest increase in UTI prescription rate.

The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations.

RESULTS

Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications.

CONCLUSION

Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent.

HIGHLIGHTS

Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor.Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms.Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers.Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer.Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Improving the diagnostic process for patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer: a mixed-methods study to identify potential missed diagnostic opportunities

BACKGROUND

Patients with bladder and kidney cancer may experience diagnostic delays.

AIM

To identify patterns of suboptimal care and contributors of potential missed diagnostic opportunities (MDOs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, mixed-methods study recruiting participants from nine general practices in Eastern England between June 2018 and October 2019.

METHOD

Patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer were identified using eligibility criteria based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for suspected cancer. Primary care records were reviewed at recruitment and at 1 year for data on symptoms, tests, referrals, and diagnosis. Referral predictors were examined using logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients to explore their experiences of the diagnostic process, and these were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 940) were mostly female (n = 657, 69.9%), with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 64-77 years). In total, 268 (28.5%) received a referral and 465 (48.5%) had a final diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). There were 33 (3.5%) patients who were diagnosed with cancer, including prostate (n = 17), bladder (n = 7), and upper urothelial tract (n = 1) cancers. Among referred patients, those who had a final diagnosis of UTI had the longest time to referral (median 81.5 days). Only one-third of patients with recurrent UTIs were referred despite meeting NICE referral guidelines. Qualitative findings revealed barriers during the diagnostic process, including inadequate clinical examination, female patients given repeated antibiotics without clinical reviews, and suboptimal communication of test results to patients.

CONCLUSION

Older females with UTIs might be at increased risk of MDOs for cancer. Targeting barriers during the initial diagnostic assessment and follow-up might improve quality of diagnosis.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites.

FINDINGS

6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer.

INTERPRETATION

This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms.

FUNDING

GRAIL Bio UK.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

"There's Not Enough Bodies to Do the Demand": An Exploration of Key Stakeholder Views on the Role of Health Service Capacity in Shaping Cancer Outcomes in 7 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Countries

BACKGROUND

Differences in cancer survival are shaped by differences in health system capacity in workforce and infrastructure. Part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), this study explored stakeholders' perceptions of the role of health system capacity necessary for cancer care in influencing cancer survival in 7 high-income countries.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 79 key informants from national, regional, and local tiers of health systems, professional bodies, patient associations, and academic experts in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Data collection was guided by a conceptual model linking characteristics of health systems and cancer survival along the cancer patient journey, from recognition of symptoms at pre-diagnostic stages through to survivorship or death. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

We identified 3 themes as important in shaping cancer outcomes: primary care and access to diagnostic evaluation, specialist care and access to treatment, and workforce pertaining to diagnostic and treatment phases. Improved infrastructure for diagnosis and treatment had improved cancer outcomes in all jurisdictions. However, this was seen as insufficient if staffing was inadequate. Consolidation of services and greater surgical specialisation was important in some jurisdictions if accompanied by a reconfiguration of services, in particular the creation of specialist multidisciplinary teams, along with supporting capacity in the wider health system. Staff shortages were commonly cited as reasons why some jurisdictions lagged behind others.

CONCLUSION

Continued improvement in cancer outcomes will require sustained investment in plans to deliver and maintain the workforce engaged in cancer care and in the infrastructure on which they depend. However, strategic plans must recognise that systems for cancer care do not work in isolation from the rest of the health system and a whole systems approach is essential if we are to improve outcomes for an ageing, increasingly multimorbid population.

Building the case for the use of gut feelings in cancer referrals: perspectives of patients referred to a non-specific symptoms pathway

BACKGROUND

Gut feelings may be useful when dealing with uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in primary care. Both patients and GPs experience this uncertainty but patients' views on gut feelings in the consultation have not been explored.

AIM

To explore patients' perceptions of gut feelings in decision making, and to compare these perceptions with those of GPs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative interviews with 21 patients in Oxfordshire, UK.

METHOD

Patients whose referral to a cancer pathway was based on their GP's gut feeling were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2019 to January 2020, face to face or over the telephone. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

Some patients described experiencing gut feelings about their own health but often their willingness to share this with their GP was dependent on an established doctor-patient relationship. Patients expressed similar perspectives on the use of gut feelings in consultations to those reported by GPs. Patients saw GPs' gut feelings as grounded in their experience and generalist expertise, and part of a process of evidence gathering. Patients suggested that GPs were justified in using gut feelings because of their role in arranging access to investigations, the difficult 'grey area' of presentations, and the time- and resource-limited nature of primary care. When GPs communicated that they had a gut feeling, some saw this as an indication that they were being taken seriously.

CONCLUSION

Patients accepted that GPs use gut feelings to guide decision making. Future research on this topic should include more diverse samples and address the areas of concern shared by patients and GPs.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

BACKGROUND

Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation.

DISCUSSION

This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Time from presentation to pre-diagnostic chest X-ray in patients with symptomatic lung cancer: a cohort study using electronic patient records from English primary care

BACKGROUND

National guidelines in England recommend prompt chest X-ray (within 14 days) in patients presenting in general practice with unexplained symptoms of possible lung cancer, including persistent cough, shortness of breath, or weight loss.

AIM

To examine time to chest X-ray in symptomatic patients in English general practice before lung cancer diagnosis, and explore demographical variation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected general practice, cancer registry, and imaging data from England.

METHOD

Patients with lung cancer who presented symptomatically in general practice in the year pre-diagnosis and who had a pre-diagnostic chest X-ray were included. Time from presentation to chest X-ray (presentation-test interval) was determined and intervals classified based on national guideline recommendations as concordant (≤14 days) or non-concordant (>14 days). Variation in intervals was examined by age, sex, smoking status, and deprivation.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 2102 patients with lung cancer, the median presentation-test interval was 49 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-172) days. Of these, 727 (35%) patients had presentation-test intervals of ≤14 days (median 1 [IQR 0-6] day) and 1375 (65%) had presentation-test intervals of >14 days (median 128 [IQR 52-231] days). Intervals were longer among patients who smoke (equivalent to 63% longer than non-smokers; P<0.001), older patients (equivalent to 7% longer for every 10 years from age 27; P = 0.013), and females (equivalent to 12% longer than males; P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

In symptomatic primary care patients who underwent chest X-ray before lung cancer diagnosis, only 35% were tested within the timeframe recommended by national guidelines. Patients who smoke, older patients, and females experienced longer intervals. These findings could help guide initiatives aimed at improving timely lung cancer diagnosis.

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

OBJECTIVE

Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer.

DESIGN

Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary).

RESULTS

With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%.

CONCLUSION

There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

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.

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.

General practitioners' awareness of the recommendations for faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancers: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

In July 2017, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a diagnostic guidance (DG30) recommending the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for symptomatic patients who do not meet the urgent referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed general practitioners' (GP) awareness of DG30 in primary care 6 months after its publication.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey of GPs hosted by an English panel of Primary health care professionals.

PARTICIPANTS

In December 2017, 1024 GPs registered on an online panel (M3) based in England took part in an online survey.

OUTCOMES AND VARIABLES

We investigated a number of factors including previous experience of using FIT and guaiac faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), the number of urgent referrals for CRC that GPs have made in the last year and their sociodemographic and professional characteristics that could be associated with their self-reported awareness of the FIT diagnostic guidance.

RESULTS

Of the 1024 GPs who completed the survey, 432 (42.2%) were aware of the current recommendation but only 102 (10%) had used it to guide their referrals. Awareness was lowest in North West England compared with London (30.5% vs 44.9%; adjusted OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92). Awareness of the FIT guidance was positively associated with test usage after the NICE update (adjusted OR: 13.00, 95% CI 6.87 to 24.61) and having specialist training (adjusted OR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.08). The number of urgent referrals, the previous use of FOBt, GPs' age and gender, work experience and practice size (both in terms of the number of GPs or patients at the practice) were not associated with awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of GPs in this survey recognised the current guidance on the use of FIT. Self-reported awareness was not systematically related to demographic of professional characteristics.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

OBJECTIVE

International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia).

DESIGN

Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary).

RESULTS

The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results.

CONCLUSION

ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN AND SETTING

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer

Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment (“GP–LCS interval”), and diagnosis to treatment (“treatment interval”). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care.

We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP–LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions.

Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP–LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay.

Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care.

Delays to lung cancer care occur, especially in secondary care; variation in timeframe guidelines needs addressinghttp://ow.ly/hZt730kvKAb

Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data

BACKGROUND

It is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained.

AIM

To explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.

METHOD

The authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

PCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%, P = 0.04) and non-attender follow-up (78% versus 93%, P<0.01) compared with non-UK PCPs. PCPs have developed bespoke, inconsistent solutions to follow-up. In cases of greatest concern, 'double safety netting' is described, where both patient and PCP retain responsibility.

CONCLUSION

The degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted.

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.

The clinical database and implementation of treatment guidelines by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group in 2007-2016

BACKGROUND

Since 40 years, Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) has provided comprehensive guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This population-based analysis aimed to describe the plurality of modifications introduced over the past 10 years in the national Danish guidelines for the management of early breast cancer. By use of the clinical DBCG database we analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of guideline revisions in Denmark.

METHODS

From the DBCG guidelines we extracted modifications introduced in 2007-2016 and selected examples regarding surgery, radiotherapy (RT) and systemic treatment. We assessed introduction of modifications from release on the DBCG webpage to change in clinical practice using the DBCG clinical database.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period data from 48,772 patients newly diagnosed with malignant breast tumors were entered into DBCG's clinical database and 42,197 of these patients were diagnosed with an invasive carcinoma following breast conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. More than twenty modifications were introduced in the guidelines. Implementations, based on prospectively collected data, varied widely; exemplified with around one quarter of the patients not treated according to a specific guideline within one year from the introduction, to an almost immediate full implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifications of the DBCG guidelines were generally well implemented, but the time to full implementation varied from less than one year up to around five years. Our data is registry based and does not allow a closer analysis of the causes for delay in implementation of guideline modifications.

Patients' initial steps to cancer diagnosis in Denmark, England and Sweden: what can a qualitative, cross-country comparison of narrative interviews tell us about potentially modifiable factors?

OBJECTIVES

To illuminate patterns observed in International Cancer Benchmarking Programme studies by extending understanding of the various influences on presentation and referral with cancer symptoms.

DESIGN

Cross-country comparison of Denmark, England and Sweden with qualitative analysis of in-depth interview accounts of the prediagnostic process in lung or bowel cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

155 women and men, aged between 35 and 86 years old, diagnosed with lung or bowel cancer in 6 months before interview.

SETTING

Participants recruited through primary and secondary care, social media and word of mouth. Interviews collected by social scientists or nurse researchers during 2015, mainly in participants' homes.

RESULTS

Participants reported difficulties in interpreting diffuse bodily sensations and symptoms and deciding when to consult. There were examples of swift referrals by primary care professionals in all three countries. In all countries, participants described difficulty deciding if and when to consult, highlighting concerns about access to general practitioner appointments and overstretched primary care services, although this appears less prominent in the Swedish data. It was not unusual for there to be more than one consultation before referral and we noted two distinct patterns of repeated consultation: (1) situations where the participant left the primary care consultation with a plan of action about what should happen next; (2) participants were unclear about under which conditions to return to the doctors. This second pattern sometimes extended over many weeks during which patients described uncertainty, and sometimes frustration, about if and when they should return and whether there were any other feasible investigations. The latter pattern appeared more evident in the interviews in England and Denmark than Sweden.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that if clear action plans, as part of safety netting, were routinely used in primary care consultations then uncertainty, false reassurance and the inefficiency and distress of multiple consultations could be reduced.

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.

How the probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates: a European survey using vignettes

OBJECTIVE

European cancer survival rates vary widely. System factors, including whether or not primary care physicians (PCPs) are gatekeepers, may account for some of these differences. This study explores where patients who may have cancer are likely to present for medical care in different European countries, and how probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates.

DESIGN

Seventy-eight PCPs in a range of European countries assessed four vignettes representing patients who might have cancer, and consensus groups agreed how likely those patients were to present to different clinicians in their own countries. These data were compared with national cancer survival rates.

SETTING

A total of 14 countries.

SUBJECTS

Consensus groups of PCPs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Probability of initial presentation to a PCP for four clinical vignettes.

RESULTS

There was no significant correlation between overall national 1-year relative cancer survival rates and the probability of initial presentation to a PCP (r  = -0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.08). Within that there was large variation depending on the type of cancer, with a significantly poorer lung cancer survival in countries where patients were more likely to initially consult a PCP (lung r = -0.57, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.12; ovary: r = -0.13, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; breast r = 0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.58; bowel: r = 0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

There were wide variations in the degree of gatekeeping between countries, with no simple binary model as to whether or not a country has a "PCP-as-gatekeeper" system. While there was case-by-case variation, there was no overall evidence of a link between a higher probability of initial consultation with a PCP and poorer cancer survival. KEY POINTS European cancer survival rates vary widely, and health system factors may account for some of these differences. The data from 14 European countries show a wide variation in the probability of initial presentation to a PCP. The degree to which PCPs act as gatekeepers varies considerably from country to country. There is no overall evidence of a link between a higher probability of initial presentation to a PCP and poorer cancer survival.