Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractObjectiveTo examine the validity and findings of studies that examine the accuracy of algorithm based smartphone applications (“apps”) to assess risk of skin cancer in suspicious skin lesions.DesignSystematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CPCI, Zetoc, Science Citation Index, and online trial registers (from database inception to 10 April 2019).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies of any design that evaluated algorithm based smartphone apps to assess images of skin lesions suspicious for skin cancer. Reference standards included histological diagnosis or follow-up, and expert recommendation for further investigation or intervention. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed validity using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were reported for each app.ResultsNine studies that evaluated six different identifiable smartphone apps were included. Six verified results by using histology or follow-up (n=725 lesions), and three verified results by using expert recommendations (n=407 lesions). Studies were small and of poor methodological quality, with selective recruitment, high rates of unevaluable images, and differential verification. Lesion selection and image acquisition were performed by clinicians rather than smartphone users. Two CE (Conformit Europenne) marked apps are available for download. No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app. SkinVision was evaluated in three studies (n=267, 66 malignant or premalignant lesions) and achieved a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval 63% to 92%) and a specificity of 78% (67% to 87%) for the detection of malignant or premalignant lesions. Accuracy of the SkinVision app verified against expert recommendations was poor (three studies).ConclusionsCurrent algorithm based smartphone apps cannot be relied on to detect all cases of melanoma or other skin cancers. Test performance is likely to be poorer than reported here when used in clinically relevant populations and by the intended users of the apps. The current regulatory process for awarding the CE marking for algorithm based apps does not provide adequate protection to the public.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016033595.

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.

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.

Purpose Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction allows systematic identification of individuals at highest and lowest risk. We extend the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk model to incorporate the effects of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and other risk factors (RFs). Methods BOADICEA incorporates the effects of truncating variants in BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , CHEK2 , and ATM ; a PRS based on 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) explaining 20% of BC polygenic variance; a residual polygenic component accounting for other genetic/familial effects; known lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive RFs; and mammographic density, while allowing for missing information. Results Among all factors considered, the predicted UK BC risk distribution is widest for the PRS, followed by mammographic density. The highest BC risk stratification is achieved when all genetic and lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive/anthropomorphic factors are considered jointly. With all factors, the predicted lifetime risks for women in the UK population vary from 2.8% for the 1st percentile to 30.6% for the 99th percentile, with 14.7% of women predicted to have a lifetime risk of ≥17–<30% (moderate risk according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guidelines) and 1.1% a lifetime risk of ≥30% (high risk). Conclusion This comprehensive model should enable high levels of BC risk stratification in the general population and women with family history, and facilitate individualized, informed decision-making on prevention therapies and screening.

There is a growing focus on the development of multi-factorial cancer risk prediction algorithms alongside tools that operationalise them for clinical use. BOADICEA is a breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and other risk factors. A new user-friendly Web-based tool (CanRisk.org) has been developed to apply BOADICEA. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool among two healthcare professional groups to inform further development, evaluation and implementation. A multi-methods approach was used. Clinicians from primary care and specialist genetics clinics in England, France and Germany were invited to use the CanRisk prototype with two test cases (either face-to-face with a simulated patient or via a written vignette). Their views about the tool were examined via a semi-structured interview or equivalent open-ended questionnaire. Qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis and organised around Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Seventy-five clinicians participated, 21 from primary care and 54 from specialist genetics clinics. Participants were from England (n = 37), France (n = 23) and Germany (n = 15). The prototype CanRisk tool was generally acceptable to most participants due to its intuitive design. Primary care clinicians were concerned about the amount of time needed to complete, interpret and communicate risk information. Clinicians from both settings were apprehensive about the impact of the CanRisk tool on their consultations and lack of opportunities to interpret risk scores before sharing them with their patients. The findings highlight the challenges associated with developing a complex tool for use in different clinical settings; they also helped refine the tool. This prototype may not have been versatile enough for clinical use in both primary care and specialist genetics clinics where the needs of clinicians are different, emphasising the importance of understanding the clinical context when developing cancer risk assessment tools.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Brain tumours affect 7 per 100,000 people in the UK, glioma being most prevalent, with only 12% five-year survival rates and devastating impacts. Primary care triage tools could facilitate earlier detection of glioma. One option for triage is cognitive function testing. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if cognitive function tests can discriminate between patients with glioma and healthy controls, and their potential suitability for primary care use. Studies were included that conducted cognitive function tests with adult patients with glioma, prior to treatment, compared to healthy controls. Two independent researchers performed screening and data extraction. The primary outcome explored test discrimination between people with glioma and healthy controls. Seventeen studies were identified. Findings indicated multiple cognitive function and language function have potential discriminatory capacity between patients with glioma and healthy controls. Over half of cognitive function tests measuring multiple cognitive functions (59%, n = 17) and language function (54%, n = 30) found significant differences between patients with glioma and healthy controls with medium or large effect size. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment has short test duration, high feasibility and acceptability, suggesting potential primary care suitability. Further acceptability and feasibility studies are needed for other potential tests. Acknowledging high heterogeneity of included studies, this review suggests tests of multiple cognitive functions or language could support primary care practitioners with decision-making for urgent neuroimaging referral. However, interpretations should be treated with caution and the applicability to primary care requires further exploration. Prospero registration number: CRD42023408671.

Emerging sample biomarker tests promise to improve early cancer detection, but also stand to influence socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of asymptomatic screening and symptomatic referrals. To explore how and why different attributes of early cancer detection tests influence experiences and participation across test modalities and contexts among individuals at risk of socioeconomic disadvantage. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 30 individuals (aged ≥50 years) at risk of socioeconomic disadvantage explored how and why different attributes of early cancer detection tests affected their experiences and participation across test modalities and contexts. Vignette test scenarios and a think-aloud protocol were used to facilitate interviewees' deliberation between a range of test attributes. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Select attributes of early cancer detection tests prevented equitable access due to conflicts with lived experiences such as caring responsibilities, reduced mobility, concerns about being stigmatised, and not being physically or psychologically able to undergo procedures. Participants perceived more invasive forms of testing conducted by a doctor in a hospital to indicate greater risk of a cancer diagnosis, and higher perceived risk of cancer was associated with preferences for attributes perceived to deliver an accurate or quick result. Participants varied in what they considered a 'cancer test' and some did not want to test due to the perceived or experienced burden of waiting for or receiving a cancer result. Emerging sample tests to support early cancer detection could address existing barriers to uptake by offering greater convenience. Inequitable uptake may persist if individuals do not perceive there to be a sufficient reason to test, are not confident to take part or doubt the ability of sample tests to accurately detect signs of cancer.

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.

CanRisk is a risk assessment tool that implements the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk model. The BOADICEA model is recommended for use by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in English, Welsh, and Northern Irish secondary/tertiary care to identify women who may be at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer. BOADICEA combines information on cancer family history, demographic, lifestyle, hormonal risk factors and mammographic density with polygenic scores (PGS). Offering risk assessment using CanRisk in general practice has the potential to identify more women at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer and improve their management and the appropriateness of referrals to secondary/tertiary care. In this feasibility study we plan to invite women aged 40-49 years from 5-8 practices across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in England, UK to complete a breast cancer risk assessment using CanRisk via a newly developed public-facing version of the CanRisk tool and provide saliva samples for PGS. The study team will provide a risk report back to both the participants and their GP, with those women at above-population level risk advised to make an appointment with their GP to be referred to the clinical genetics service and subsequently managed in line with current NICE guidelines. This study will provide evidence on (1) whether offering cancer risk assessment including PGS in general practice is feasible and acceptable to women and healthcare professionals; (2) whether this approach can identify women at above-population level risk of breast cancer who would otherwise not have been identified and so not had access to risk-reducing options; and (3) the costs associated with implementing proactive multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in women under 50 within general practice. This study is listed on the ISRCTN registry. The registration number is ISRCTN17376192.