Search

Abstract Background Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals’ perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals’ perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. Methods In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements. Results Professionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test. Conclusions Most professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced public communication, and country-specific regulations.

Abstract 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 .

Abstract Background Danish cancer patients have lower survival rates than patients in many other western countries. Half of the patients present with non-alarm symptoms and thus have a long diagnostic pathway. Consequently, an urgent referral pathway for patients with non-specific serious symptoms was implemented throughout Denmark in 2011–2012. As part of the diagnostic workup, a panel of blood tests are performed for all patients referred by their general practitioner (GP) to the urgent referral pathway. In this study, we analysed the probability of being diagnosed with cancer in GP-referred patients with abnormal blood test results. Method We performed a cohort study that included all patients aged 18 years or older referred by their GP to Silkeborg Regional Hospital for analysis of a panel of blood tests. All patients were followed for 3 months for a cancer diagnosis in the Danish Cancer Registry. The likelihood ratio and post-test probability of subsequently finding cancer were calculated in relation to abnormal blood test results. Results Among the 1499 patients included in the study, 12.2% were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. The probability of cancer increased with the number of abnormal blood tests. Patients with specific combinations of two abnormal blood tests had a 23–62% probability of cancer. Only a few single abnormal blood tests were linked with a high post-test probability of cancer, and most abnormalities were not specific to cancer. Conclusions A number of specific abnormal blood tests and combinations of abnormal blood tests markedly increased the probability of cancer being diagnosed. Still, abnormal blood test results should be interpreted cautiously as most are non-specific to cancer. Thus, results from the blood test panel may strengthen the suspicion of cancer, but blood tests cannot be used as a stand-alone tool to rule out cancer.