Search

Objectives: Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening. Methods: Women in England aged 40–70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results. Results: Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk. Conclusions: Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We examined associations between different chronic morbidities and help-seeking for possible cancer symptoms. Methods Postal survey of individuals aged >50 years in England. Participants could report prior morbidities in respect of 12 pre-defined conditions. Among patients experiencing possible cancer symptoms we examined associations between specific morbidities and self-reported help-seeking (i.e. contacted versus not contacted a GP) for each alarm symptom using regression analyses. Results Among 2042 respondents (42% response rate), 936 (46%) recently experienced 1 of 14 possible cancer symptoms considered in our analysis. Of them, 80% reported one or more morbidities, most frequently hypertension/hypercholesterolemia (40%), osteomuscular (36%) and heart diseases (21%). After adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics, patients with hypertension/hypercholesterolemia were more likely to report help-seeking for possible cancer symptoms, such as unexplained cough (OR = 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–3.5), pain (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.0–4.5) and abdominal bloating (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.1–4.8). Urinary morbidity was associated with increased help-seeking for abdominal bloating (OR = 5.4; 95% CI 1.2–23.7) or rectal bleeding (OR = 5.8; 95% CI 1.4–23.8). In contrast, heart problems reduced help-seeking for change in bowel habits (OR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.2–1.0). Conclusions Comorbidities are common and may facilitate help-seeking for possible cancer symptoms, but associations vary for specific symptom-comorbidity pairs. The findings can contribute to the design of future cancer symptom awareness campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is broad agreement that cancer screening invitees should know the risks and benefits of testing before deciding whether to participate. In organised screening programmes, a primary method of relaying this information is via leaflets provided at the time of invitation. Little is known about why individuals do not engage with this information. This study assessed factors associated with reading information leaflets provided by the three cancer screening programmes in England.Methods: A cross-sectional survey asked screening-eligible members of the general population in England about the following predictor variables: uptake of previous screening invitations, demographic characteristics, and 'decision-making styles' (i.e. the extent to which participants tended to make decisions in a way that was avoidant, rational, intuitive, spontaneous, or dependent). The primary outcome measures were the amount of the leaflet that participants reported having read at their most recent invitation, for any of the three programmes for which they were eligible. Associations between these outcomes and predictor variables were assessed using binary or ordinal logistic regression.Results: After exclusions, data from 275, 309, and 556 participants were analysed in relation to the breast, cervical, and bowel screening programmes, respectively. Notable relationships included associations between regularity of screening uptake and reading (more of) the information leaflets for all programmes (e.g. odds ratio: 0.16 for participants who never/very rarely attended breast screening vs. those who always attended previously; p = .009). Higher rational decision-making scores were associated with reading more of the cervical and bowel screening leaflets (OR: 1.13, p < .0005 and OR: 1.11, p = .045, respectively). Information engagement was also higher for White British participants compared with other ethnic groups for breast (OR: 3.28, p = .008) and bowel (OR: 2.58, p = .015) information; an opposite relationship was observed for older participants (OR: 0.96, p = .048; OR: 0.92, p = .029).Conclusions: Interventions that increase screening uptake may also increase subsequent engagement with information. Future research could investigate how to improve engagement at initial invitations. There may also be scope to reduce barriers to accessing non-English information and alternative communication strategies may benefit participants who are less inclined to weigh up advantages and disadvantages as part of their decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Worrying about wasting GP time is frequently cited as a barrier to help-seeking for cancer symptoms.Aim: To explore the circumstances under which individuals feel that they are wasting GP time.Design and Setting: Community-based, qualitative interview studies that took place in London, the South East and the North West of England.Method: Interviewees (n = 62) were recruited from a sample (n = 2042) of adults aged ≥50 years, who completed a 'health survey' that included a list of cancer 'alarm' symptoms. Individuals who reported symptoms at baseline that were still present at the 3-month follow-up (n = 271), and who had also consented to be contacted (n = 215), constituted the pool of people invited for interview. Analyses focused on accounts of worrying about wasting GP time.Results: Participants were worried about wasting GP time when time constraints were visible, while dismissive interactions with their GP induced a worry of unnecessary help-seeking. Many felt that symptoms that were not persistent, worsening, or life-threatening did not warrant GP attention. Additionally, patients considered it time-wasting when they perceived attention from nurses or pharmacists to be sufficient, or when appointment structures (for example, 'one issue per visit') were not adhered to. Close relationships with GPs eased worries about time-wasting, while some patients saw GPs as fulfilling a service financed by taxpayers.Conclusion: Worrying about wasting GP time is a complex barrier to help-seeking. GP time and resource scarcity, symptom gravity, appointment etiquette, and previous GP interactions contribute to increasing worries. Friendly GP relationships, economic reasoning, and a focus on the GP's responsibilities as a medical professional reduce this worry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify opportunities for reducing emergency colon cancer diagnoses, we evaluated symptoms and benign diagnoses recorded before emergency presentations (EP). Methods: Cohort of 5,745 colon cancers diagnosed in England 2005–2010, with individually linked cancer registry and primary care data for the 5‐year pre‐diagnostic period. Results: Colon cancer was diagnosed following EP in 34% of women and 30% of men. Among emergency presenters, 20% of women and 15% of men (p = 0.002) had alarm symptoms (anaemia/rectal bleeding/change in bowel habit) 2–12 months pre‐diagnosis. Women with abdominal symptoms (change in bowel habit/constipation/diarrhoea) received a benign diagnosis (irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)/diverticular disease) more frequently than men in the year before EP: 12% vs. 6% among women and men (p = 0.002). EP was more likely in women (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.1–1.4), independently of socio‐demographic factors and symptoms. Benign diagnoses in the pre‐diagnostic year (OR = 2.01; 95% CI 1.2–3.3) and anaemia 2–5 years pre‐diagnosis (OR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.2–3.0) increased the risk of EP in women but not men. The risk was particularly high for women aged 40–59 with a recent benign diagnosis vs. none (OR = 4.41; 95% CI 1.3–14.9). Conclusions: Women have an increased risk of EP, in part due to less specific symptoms and their more frequent attribution to benign diagnoses. For women aged 40–59 years with new‐onset IBS/diverticular disease innovative diagnostic strategies are needed, which might include use of quantitative faecal haemoglobin testing (FIT) or other colorectal cancer investigations. One‐fifth of women had alarm symptoms before EP, offering opportunities for earlier diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., Competing Interests: We declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work. BDN receives institutional research funding from GRAIL Inc unrelated to this study, MB receives personal fees from GRAIL Inc for Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) membership unrelated to this study and BW received personal funding from the British Liver Trust in 2023 for an unrelated data consultancy project, otherwise there are no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright: © 2024 Rafiq et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Importance: Mental health morbidity (MHM) in patients presenting with possible cancer symptoms may be associated with prediagnostic care and time to cancer diagnosis., Objective: To compare the length of intervals to cancer diagnosis by preexisting MHM status in patients who presented with symptoms of as-yet-undiagnosed colon cancer and evaluate their risk of emergency cancer diagnosis., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using linked primary care data obtained from the population-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which includes primary care practices in England, linked to cancer registry and hospital data. Included participants were 3766 patients diagnosed with colon cancer between 2011 and 2015 presenting with cancer-relevant symptoms up to 24 months before their diagnosis. Data analysis was performed in January 2021 to April 2022., Exposures: Mental health conditions recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcohol addiction, anorexia, and bulimia., Main Outcomes and Measures: Fast-track (also termed 2-week wait) specialist referral for investigations, time to colonoscopy and cancer diagnosis, and risk of emergency cancer diagnosis., Results: Among 3766 patients with colon cancer (median [IQR] age, 75 [65-82] years; 1911 [50.7%] women ), 623 patients [16.5%] had preexisting MHM recorded in primary care the year before cancer diagnosis, including 562 patients (14.9%) with preexisting anxiety or depression (accounting for 90.2% of patients with preexisting MHM) and 61 patients (1.6%) with other MHM; 3143 patients (83.5%) did not have MHM. Patients with MHM had records of red-flag symptoms or signs (ie, rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, or anemia) in the 24 months before cancer diagnosis in a smaller proportion compared with patients without MHM (308 patients [49.4%] vs 1807 patients [57.5%]; P < .001). Even when red-flag symptoms were recorded, patients with MHM had lower odds of fast-track specialist referral (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94; P = .01). Among 2115 patients with red-flag symptoms or signs, 308 patients with MHM experienced a more than 2-fold longer median (IQR) time to cancer diagnosis (326 [75-552] days vs 133 [47-422] days) and higher odds of emergency diagnosis (90 patients [29.2%] vs 327 patients [18.1%]; adjusted OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23-2.24; P < .001) compared with 1807 patients without MHM., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that patients with MHM experienced large and prognostically consequential disparities in diagnostic care before a colon cancer diagnosis. These findings suggest that appropriate pathways and follow-up strategies after symptomatic presentation are needed for earlier cancer diagnoses and improved health outcomes in this large patient group.

Objectives: Communicating the concept of 'overdiagnosis' to lay individuals is challenging, partly because the term itself is confusing. This study tested whether alternative descriptive labels may be more appropriate., Design: Questionnaire preceded by a description of overdiagnosis., Setting: Home-based, computer-assisted face-to-face survey., Participants: 2111 adults aged 18-70 years in England recruited using random location sampling by a survey company. Data from 1888 participants were analysed after exclusions due to missing data., Interventions: Participants were given one of two pieces of text describing overdiagnosis, allocated at random, adapted from National Health Service breast and prostate cancer screening leaflets., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Main outcomes were which of several available terms (eg, 'overdetection') participants had previously encountered and which they endorsed as applicable labels for the concept described. Demographics and previous exposure to screening information were also measured. Main outcomes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Predictors of previously encountering at least one term, or endorsing at least one as making sense, were assessed using binary logistic regression., Results: 58.0% of participants had not encountered any suggested term; 44.0% did not endorse any as applicable labels. No term was notably familiar; the proportion of participants who had previously encountered each term ranged from 15.9% to 28.3%. Each term was only endorsed as applicable by a minority (range: 27.6% to 40.4%). Notable predictors of familiarity included education, age and ethnicity; participants were less likely to have encountered terms if they were older, not white British or had less education. Findings were similar for both pieces of information., Conclusions: Familiarity with suggested terms for overdiagnosis and levels of endorsement were low, and no clear alternative labels for the concept were identified, suggesting that changing terminology alone would do little to improve understanding, particularly for some population groups. Explicit descriptions may be more effective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)