Search

Background: The benefits from expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are uncertain. We aimed to analyse the relationship between stage of colorectal cancer (CRC) and the primary and specialist care components of the diagnostic interval.Methods: We identified seven independent data sets from population-based studies in Scotland, England, Canada, Denmark and Spain during 1997-2010 with a total of 11 720 newly diagnosed CRC patients, who had initially presented with symptoms to a primary care physician. Data were extracted from patient records, registries, audits and questionnaires, respectively. Data sets were required to hold information on dates in the diagnostic interval (defined as the time from the first presentation of symptoms in primary care until the date of diagnosis), symptoms at first presentation in primary care, route of referral, gender, age and histologically confirmed stage. We carried out reanalysis of all individual data sets and, using the same method, analysed a pooled individual patient data set.Results: The association between intervals and stage was similar in the individual and combined data set. There was a statistically significant convex (∩-shaped) association between primary care interval and diagnosis of advanced (i.e., distant or regional) rather than localised CRC (P=0.004), with odds beginning to increase from the first day on and peaking at 90 days. For specialist care, we saw an opposite and statistically significant concave (∪-shaped) association, with a trough at 60 days, between the interval and diagnosis of advanced CRC (P<0.001).Conclusions: This study provides evidence that longer diagnostic intervals are associated with more advanced CRC. Furthermore, the study cannot define a specific 'safe' waiting time as the length of the primary care interval appears to have negative impact from day one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence on the safety of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) in women with cancer. Therefore, we systematically examined HRT use and cancer-specific mortality in women with 17 site-specific cancers., Methods: Women newly diagnosed with 17 site-specific cancers from 1998 to 2019, were identified from general practitioner (GP) records, hospital diagnoses or cancer registries in Scotland, Wales and England. Breast cancer patients were excluded because HRT is contraindicated in breast cancer patients. The primary outcome was time to cancer-specific mortality. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for cancer-specific mortality by systemic HRT use., Results: The combined cancer cohorts contained 182,589 women across 17 cancer sites. Overall 7% of patients used systemic HRT after their cancer diagnosis. There was no evidence that HRT users, compared with non-users, had higher cancer-specific mortality at any cancer site. In particular, no increase was observed in common cancers including lung (adjusted HR = 0.98 95% CI 0.90, 1.07), colorectal (adjusted HR = 0.79 95% CI 0.70, 0.90), and melanoma (adjusted HR = 0.77 95% CI 0.58, 1.02)., Conclusions: We observed no evidence of increased cancer-specific mortality in women with a range of cancers (excluding breast) receiving HRT., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Identification of people who have or are at risk of frailty enables targeted interventions, and the use of tools that screen for frailty using electronic records (which we term as validated electronic frailty measures (VEFMs)) within primary care is incentivised by NHS England. We carried out a systematic review to establish the sensitivity and specificity of available primary care VEFMs when compared to a reference standard in-person assessment., Methods: Medline, Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINHAL and Embase searches identified studies comparing a primary care VEFM with in-person assessment. Studies were quality assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies revised tool. Sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or were calculated and pooled using StatsDirect., Results: There were 2,245 titles screened, with 10 studies included. These described three different index tests: electronic frailty index (eFI), claims-based frailty index (cFI) and polypharmacy. Frailty Phenotype was the reference standard in each study. One study of 60 patients examined the eFI, reporting a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.98) and a specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.89). Two studies of 7,679 patients examined cFI, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.74) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.53, 0.98). Seven studies of 34,328 patients examined a polypharmacy as a screening tool (defined as more than or equal to five medications) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.72) and a specificity of 0.66 (0.58, 0.73)., Conclusions: eFI is the best-performing VEFM; however, based on our analysis of an average UK GP practice, it would return a high number of false-positive results. In conclusion, existing electronic frailty tools may not be appropriate for primary care-based population screening., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To characterize cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care and draw comparisons with cancer diagnostic activity in England., Method: A national audit of cancer diagnosis was conducted in Scottish and English general practices. Participating GPs collected diagnostic pathway data on patients diagnosed in 2014 from medical records. Data were supplemented by linkage to national cancer registries. Analysis explored and compared patient characteristics, diagnostic intervals, and routes to diagnosis., Results: 7.7% of all Scottish general practices in 2017 provided data on 2,014 cancer diagnoses. 71.5% of cases presented to GPs and 37.4% were referred using the "Urgent-Suspected Cancer" route. The median primary care interval was 5 days (IQR 0-23 days) and median diagnostic interval was 30 days (IQR 13-68). Both varied by cancer-site. Diagnostic intervals were longer in the most remote patients and those with more comorbidities. Scottish and English samples corresponded closely in key characteristics., Conclusions: Most people diagnosed with cancer in Scotland present to a GP first. Most are referred and diagnosed quickly, with variations by cancer-site. Intervals were longest for the most remote patients. GPs in Scotland and England appear to perform equally but, in view of growing differences between health systems, future comparative audits may be informative., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Excessive lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation increases gastro-oesophageal acid reflux, an oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk factor. Medications that relax this sphincter (benzodiazepines, calcium channel blockers, nitrates, β2 agonists and xanthines) could promote cancer. These medications were investigated in two independent datasets. In the Scottish Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIU) database, a nested case-control study of oesophageal cancer was performed using GP prescription records. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for medication use and oesophageal cancer. In UK Biobank, a cohort study was conducted using self-reported medication use. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for medication use and oesophageal cancer, and by tumour subtype. Overall, 1,979 oesophageal cancer patients were matched to 9,543 controls in PCCIU, and 355 of 475,768 participants developed oesophageal cancer in UK Biobank. None of the medications investigated were significantly associated with oesophageal cancer risk apart from β2 agonists, which were associated with increased oesophageal cancer risk in PCCIU (adjusted OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12, 1.70) but not in UK Biobank (adjusted HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.70, 2.08). Medications that relax the lower oesophageal sphincter were not associated with oesophageal cancer, apart from β2 agonists. This increased cancer risk in β2 agonist users merits further investigation., (© 2018 UICC.)

Introduction: Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK. Incidence rates have quadrupled over the last 30 years and continue to rise, especially among younger people. As routine screening of the general population is not currently recommended in the UK, a focus on secondary prevention through early detection and prompt treatment in individuals at increased risk of melanoma could make an important contribution to improve melanoma outcomes. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II, multisite, randomised controlled trial, in the primary care setting, for patients at increased risk of melanoma. A skin self-monitoring (SSM) smartphone 'App' was used to improve symptom appraisal and encourage help seeking in primary care, thereby promoting early presentation with skin changes suspicious of melanoma., Methods and Analysis: We aim to recruit 200 participants from general practice waiting rooms in the East of England. Eligible patients are those identified at higher melanoma risk (using a real-time risk assessment tool), without a personal history of melanoma, aged 18 to 75 years. Participants will be invited to a primary care nurse consultation, and randomised to the intervention group (standard written advice on skin cancer detection and sun protection, loading of an SSM 'App' onto the participant's smartphone and instructions on use including self-monitoring reminders) or control group (standard written advice alone). The primary outcomes are consultation rates for changes to a pigmented skin lesion, and the patient interval (time from first noticing a skin change to consultation). Secondary outcomes include patient sun protection behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and measures of trial feasibility and acceptability., Ethics and Dissemination: NHS ethical approval has been obtained from Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire research ethics committee (REC reference 16/EE/0248). The findings from the MelaTools SSM Trial will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: ISCTRN16061621., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Publicly available data show variation in GPs' use of urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral pathways. We investigated whether this could be due to small numbers of cancer cases and random case-mix, rather than due to true variation in performance., Methods: We analysed individual GP practice USC referral detection rates (proportion of the practice's cancer cases that are detected via USC) and conversion rates (proportion of the practice's USC referrals that prove to be cancer) in routinely collected data from GP practices in all of England (over 4 years) and northeast Scotland (over 7 years). We explored the effect of pooling data. We then modelled the effects of adding random case-mix to practice variation., Results: Correlations between practice detection rate and conversion rate became less positive when data were aggregated over several years. Adding random case-mix to between-practice variation indicated that the median proportion of poorly performing practices correctly identified after 25 cancer cases were examined was 20% (IQR 17 to 24) and after 100 cases was 44% (IQR 40 to 47)., Conclusions: Much apparent variation in GPs' use of suspected cancer referral pathways can be attributed to random case-mix. The methods currently used to assess the quality of GP-suspected cancer referral performance, and to compare individual practices, are misleading. These should no longer be used, and more appropriate and robust methods should be developed.