Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. Methods A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. Results Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. Conclusions Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.

The serum biomarker cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is widely used as an investigation for possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women presenting to primary care. However, its diagnostic performance in this setting is unknown. We evaluated the performance of CA125 in primary care for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancers. We studied women in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a CA125 test performed between 1 May 2011-31 December 2014. Ovarian and non-ovarian cancers diagnosed in the year following CA125 testing were identified from the cancer registry. Women were categorized by age: <50 years and ≥50 years. Conventional measures of test diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value, were calculated for the standard CA125 cut-off (≥35 U/ml). The probability of a woman having cancer at each CA125 level between 1-1,000 U/ml was estimated using logistic regression. Cancer probability was also estimated on the basis of CA125 level and age in years using logistic regression. We identified CA125 levels equating to a 3% estimated cancer probability: the \"risk threshold\" at which the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advocates urgent specialist cancer investigation. A total of 50,780 women underwent CA125 testing; 456 (0.9%) were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,321 (2.6%) with non-ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml, 3.4% aged <50 years and 15.2% aged ≥50 years had ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml who were aged ≥50 years and who did not have ovarian cancer, 20.4% were diagnosed with a non-ovarian cancer. A CA125 value of 53 U/ml equated to a 3% probability of ovarian cancer overall. This varied by age, with a value of 104 U/ml in 40-year-old women and 32 U/ml in 70-year-old women equating to a 3% probability. The main limitations of our study were that we were unable to determine why CA125 tests were performed and that our findings are based solely on UK primary care data, so caution is need in extrapolating them to other healthcare settings. CA125 is a useful test for ovarian cancer detection in primary care, particularly in women ≥50 years old. Clinicians should also consider non-ovarian cancers in women with high CA125 levels, especially if ovarian cancer has been excluded, in order to prevent diagnostic delay. Our results enable clinicians and patients to determine the estimated probability of ovarian cancer and all cancers at any CA125 level and age, which can be used to guide individual decisions on the need for further investigation or referral.

Key Points The diagnosis of cancer as an emergency is associated with a substantially worse prognosis; however, this represents an understudied problem, with evidence examining its frequency and aetiology limited to a few developed countries Most available evidence defines diagnosis of cancer as an emergency contextually instead of employing clinical criteria regarding presentation severity, and uses administrative data as opposed to reviews of medical records An emergency diagnosis of cancer often has a complex aetiology, involving tumour, patient and health-care related factors; evidence on the role of tumour and health-care related factors is particularly sparse Studying variations in the risk of emergency presentations by prior health-care use and related symptoms can elucidate how some emergency presentations could potentially be prevented Sociodemographic inequalities in the risks of emergency presentation underline the contribution of psychosocial factors and the potential for targeting of public health campaigns regarding cancer symptoms Optimising screening can help to reduce emergency presentations of patients with colorectal cancer Patients diagnosed with cancer through an emergency presentation have worse outcomes compared with those in whom cancer is diagnosed through other routes; therefore, reducing the number of patients presenting as an emergency with cancer will improve patients' outcomes. In this Review, the authors describe the available evidence in this area, and provide recommendations for future research, clinical practice and public health policy. Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Background One in three colon cancers are diagnosed as an emergency, which is associated with worse cancer outcomes. Chronic conditions (comorbidities) affect large proportions of adults and they might influence the risk of emergency presentations (EP). Methods We aimed to evaluate the effect of specific pre-existing comorbidities on the risk of colon cancer being diagnosed following an EP rather than through non-emergency routes. The cohort study included 5745 colon cancer patients diagnosed in England 2005–2010, with individually-linked cancer registry, primary and secondary care data. In addition to multivariable analyses we also used potential-outcomes methods. Results Colon cancer patients with comorbidities consulted their GP more frequently with cancer symptoms during the pre-diagnostic year, compared with non-comorbid cancer patients. EP occurred more frequently in patients with ‘serious’ or complex comorbidities (diabetes, cardiac and respiratory diseases) diagnosed/treated in hospital during the years pre-cancer diagnosis (43% EP in comorbid versus 27% in non-comorbid individuals; multivariable analysis Odds Ratio (OR), controlling for socio-demographic factors and symptoms: men OR = 2.40; 95% CI 2.0–2.9 and women OR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.6–2.4. Among women younger than 60, gynaecological (OR = 3.41; 95% CI 1.2–9.9) or recent onset gastro-intestinal conditions (OR = 2.84; 95% CI 1.1–7.7) increased the risk of EP. In contrast, primary care visits for hypertension monitoring decreased EPs for both genders. Conclusions Patients with comorbidities have a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer as an emergency, although they consult more frequently with cancer symptoms during the year pre-cancer diagnosis. This suggests that comorbidities may interfere with diagnostic reasoning or investigations due to ‘competing demands’ or because they provide ‘alternative explanations’. In contrast, the management of chronic risk factors such as hypertension may offer opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Interventions are needed to support the diagnostic process in comorbid patients. Appropriate guidelines and diagnostic services to support the evaluation of new or changing symptoms in comorbid patients may be useful.

IntroductionPatients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Pilot Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Centres (MDCs) provide a referral route for such patients in England.ObjectivesThis work aimed to use linked primary care and cancer registration data to describe diagnostic pathways for patients similar to those being referred into MDCs and compare them to patients presenting with more specific symptoms.MethodsThis cross-sectional study linked primary care data from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) to national cancer registration and Route to Diagnosis records. Patient symptoms recorded in the NCDA were used to allocate patients to one of two groups - those presenting with symptoms mirroring referral criteria of MDCs (non-specific but concerning symptoms (NSCS)) and those with at least one site-specific alarm symptom (non-NSCS). Descriptive analyses compared the two groups and regression analysis by group investigated associations with long primary care intervals (PCIs).ResultsPatients with NSCS were more likely to be diagnosed at later stage (32% stage 4, compared with 21% in non-NSCS) and via an emergency presentation (34% vs 16%). These patients also had more multiple pre-referral general practitioner consultations (59% vs 43%) and primary care-led diagnostics (blood tests: 57% vs 35%). Patients with NSCS had higher odds of having longer PCIs (adjusted OR: 1.24 (1.11 to 1.36)). Patients with lung and urological cancers also had higher odds of longer PCIs overall and in both groups.ConclusionsDifferences in the diagnostic pathway show that patients with symptoms mirroring the MDC referral criteria could benefit from a new referral pathway.

Background We aimed to understand the time period of cancer diagnosis and the cancer types detected in primary care patients with unexpected weight loss (UWL) to inform cancer guidelines. Methods This retrospective matched cohort study used cancer registry linked electronic health records from the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink from between 2000 and 2014. Univariable and multivariable time-to-event analyses examined the association between UWL, and all cancers combined, cancer site and stage. Results In all, 63,973 patients had UWL recorded, of whom 1375 (2.2%) were diagnosed with cancer within 2 years (days-to-diagnosis: mean 181; median 80). Men with UWL (HR 3.28 (2.88–3.73)) and women (1.87 (1.68–2.08)) were more likely than comparators to be diagnosed with cancer within 3 months. The association was greatest in men aged ≥50 years and women ≥70 years. The commonest cancers were pancreas, cancer of unknown primary, gastro-oesophageal, lymphoma, hepatobiliary, lung, bowel and renal-tract. The majority were late-stage, but there was some evidence of association with stage II and stage III cancers. In the 3–24 months after presenting with UWL, cancer diagnosis was less likely than in comparators. Conclusion UWL recorded in primary care is associated with a broad range of cancer sites of early and late-stage.

The UK lags behind many European countries in terms of cancer survival. Initiatives to address this disparity have focused on barriers to presentation, symptom recognition, and referral for specialist investigation. Selection of patients for further investigation has come under particular scrutiny, although preferences for referral thresholds in the UK population have not been studied. We investigated preferences for diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers in primary-care attendees. In a vignette-based study, researchers recruited individuals aged at least 40 years attending 26 general practices in three areas of England between Dec 6, 2011, and Aug 1, 2012. Participants completed up to three of 12 vignettes (four for each of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers), which were randomly assigned. The vignettes outlined a set of symptoms, the risk that these symptoms might indicate cancer (1%, 2%, 5%, or 10%), the relevant testing process, probable treatment, possible alternative diagnoses, and prognosis if cancer were identified. Participants were asked whether they would opt for diagnostic testing on the basis of the information in the vignette. 3469 participants completed 6930 vignettes. 3052 individuals (88%) opted for investigation in their first vignette. We recorded no strong evidence that participants were more likely to opt for investigation with a 1% increase in risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·99–1·06; p=0·189), although the association between risk and opting for investigation was strong when colorectal cancer was analysed alone (1·08, 1·03–1·13; p=0·0001). In multivariable analysis, age had an effect in all three cancer models: participants aged 60–69 years were significantly more likely to opt for investigation than were those aged 40–59 years, and those aged 70 years or older were less likely. Other variables associated with increased likelihood of opting for investigation were shorter travel times to testing centre (colorectal and lung cancers), a family history of cancer (colorectal and lung cancers), and higher household income (colorectal and pancreatic cancers). Participants in our sample expressed a clear preference for diagnostic testing at all risk levels, and individuals want to be tested at risk levels well below those stipulated by UK guidelines. This willingness should be considered during design of cancer pathways, particularly in primary care. The public engagement with our study should encourage general practitioners to involve patients in referral decision making. The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

The diagnostic assessment of abdominal symptoms in primary care presents a challenge. Evidence is needed about the positive predictive values (PPVs) of abdominal symptoms for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the United Kingdom (2000-2017), we estimated the PPVs for diagnosis of (i) cancer (overall and for different cancer sites); (ii) IBD; and (iii) either cancer or IBD in the year post-consultation with each of 6 abdominal symptoms: dysphagia (n = 86,193 patients), abdominal bloating/distension (n = 100,856), change in bowel habit (n = 106,715), rectal bleeding (n = 235,094), dyspepsia (n = 517,326), and abdominal pain (n = 890,490). The median age ranged from 54 (abdominal pain) to 63 years (dysphagia and change in bowel habit); the ratio of women/men ranged from 50%:50% (rectal bleeding) to 73%:27% (abdominal bloating/distension). Across all studied symptoms, the risk of diagnosis of cancer and the risk of diagnosis of IBD were of similar magnitude, particularly in women, and younger men. Estimated PPVs were greatest for change in bowel habit in men (4.64% cancer and 2.82% IBD) and for rectal bleeding in women (2.39% cancer and 2.57% IBD) and lowest for dyspepsia (for cancer: 1.41% men and 1.03% women; for IBD: 0.89% men and 1.00% women). Considering PPVs for specific cancers, change in bowel habit and rectal bleeding had the highest PPVs for colon and rectal cancer; dysphagia for esophageal cancer; and abdominal bloating/distension (in women) for ovarian cancer. The highest PPVs of abdominal pain (either sex) and abdominal bloating/distension (men only) were for non-abdominal cancer sites. For the composite outcome of diagnosis of either cancer or IBD, PPVs of rectal bleeding exceeded the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended specialist referral threshold of 3% in all age-sex strata, as did PPVs of abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, and dyspepsia, in those aged 60 years and over. Study limitations include reliance on accuracy and completeness of coding of symptoms and disease outcomes. Based on evidence from more than 1.9 million patients presenting in primary care, the findings provide estimated PPVs that could be used to guide specialist referral decisions, considering the PPVs of common abdominal symptoms for cancer alongside that for IBD and their composite outcome (cancer or IBD), taking into account the variable PPVs of different abdominal symptoms for different cancers sites. Jointly assessing the risk of cancer or IBD can better support decision-making and prompt diagnosis of both conditions, optimising specialist referrals or investigations, particularly in women.

Unexpected weight loss (UWL) is a presenting feature of cancer in primary care. Existing research proposes simple combinations of clinical features (risk factors, symptoms, signs, and blood test data) that, when present, warrant cancer investigation. More complex combinations may modify cancer risk to sufficiently rule-out the need for investigation. We aimed to identify which clinical features can be used together to stratify patients with UWL based on their risk of cancer. We used data from 63,973 adults (age: mean 59 years, standard deviation 21 years; 42% male) to predict cancer in patients with UWL recorded in a large representative United Kingdom primary care electronic health record between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012. We derived 3 clinical prediction models using logistic regression and backwards stepwise covariate selection: Sm, symptoms-only model; STm, symptoms and tests model; Tm, tests-only model. Fifty imputations replaced missing data. Estimates of discrimination and calibration were derived using 10-fold internal cross-validation. Simple clinical risk scores are presented for models with the greatest clinical utility in decision curve analysis. The STm and Tm showed improved discrimination (area under the curve [greater than or equal to] 0.91), calibration, and greater clinical utility than the Sm. The Tm was simplest including age-group, sex, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, haemoglobin, platelets, and total white cell count. A Tm score of 5 balanced ruling-in (sensitivity 84.0%, positive likelihood ratio 5.36) and ruling-out (specificity 84.3%, negative likelihood ratio 0.19) further cancer investigation. A Tm score of 1 prioritised ruling-out (sensitivity 97.5%). At this threshold, 35 people presenting with UWL in primary care would be referred for investigation for each person with cancer referred, and 1,730 people would be spared referral for each person with cancer not referred. Study limitations include using a retrospective routinely collected dataset, a reliance on coding to identify UWL, and missing data for some predictors. Our findings suggest that combinations of simple blood test abnormalities could be used to identify patients with UWL who warrant referral for investigation, while people with combinations of normal results could be exempted from referral.