Search

Background: Cancer incidence increases with age, so some clinical guidelines include patient age as one of the criteria used to decide whether a patient should be referred through the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway. Little is known about how strictly GPs adhere to these age criteria and what factors might influence their referral decisions for younger patients. Aim: To understand GPs' clinical decision making for younger patients with concerning symptoms who do not meet the age criteria for USC referral. Design and setting: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with GPs working in surgeries across England. Method: Participants (n = 23) were asked to recall consultations with younger patients with cancer symptoms, describe factors influencing their clinical decisions, and discuss their overall attitude to age thresholds in cancer referral guidelines. A thematic analysis guided by the Framework approach was used to identify recurring themes. Results: GPs' decision making regarding younger patients was influenced by several factors, including personal experiences, patients' views and behaviour, level of clinical concern, and ability to bypass system constraints. GPs weighted potential benefits and harms of a referral outside guidelines both on the patient and the health system. If clinical concern was high, GPs used their knowledge of local systems to ensure patients were investigated promptly even when not meeting the age criteria. Conclusion: While most GPs interpret age criteria flexibly and follow their own judgement and experience when making clinical decisions regarding younger patients, system constraints may be a barrier to timely investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Dentists and other members of the dental team could raise awareness by talking about oral cancer during routine dental check‐ups. A communication guide has been developed to facilitate this. However, it has been suggested that discussions about oral cancer may raise patients' anxiety and this has been documented by dentists as a barrier to having these conversations. The current research aimed to investigate implementation of the communication guide and its impact on the dental patient. Methods: A consecutive‐case sample of adult dental patients attending primary dental care for a routine NHS check‐up at one dental practice were invited to take part in the study via letter prior to their appointment. Consultations of participating patients (n = 77) were audio‐recorded. Before and after their appointment, patients were asked to rate their current anxiety via the six‐item version of Spielberger's State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory. Audio recordings of each consultation were reviewed by two raters to determine the extent to which the dentist covered the topics recommended in the communication guide. Results: The dentist informed all patients that they were being checked for oral cancer, spoke about signs and symptoms, and discussed risk factors. However, they rarely recommended where help should be sought or addressed barriers to seeking help. Discussions took an average of 95 s. The extent to which oral cancer was discussed did not correlate with patients' post‐appointment anxiety. Patients made positive or neutral responses to the discussions. The few questions that were asked were easily addressed. Conclusions: As findings are based on one dentist working at one practice, generalization of these results should be cautious. The study indicated that using an evidence‐based guide to talk about oral cancer did not appear to raise patients' anxiety in this practice population. This could help to increase awareness of oral cancer in the endeavour to facilitate early cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Oral cancer is increasing in incidence in the UK and indeed worldwide. Delay in diagnosis is common; up to half of patients are diagnosed with advanced lesions. Thus it is essential to develop methods to aid early detection. This study aimed to assess dental patients’ experiences and awareness of oral cancer and screening within general dental practice. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 184 English-speaking adults, with no previous history of oral cancer was conducted. The questionnaire collected data on participant’s knowledge of oral cancer, experience of ‘screening’, attitudes and feelings towards having a screening, anticipated help-seeking behaviours, health-related behaviours (particularly risk factors) and sociodemographics. Results Twenty percent of respondents had never heard of oral cancer; 77% knew little or nothing about it and 72% did not know that their Dentist routinely screens for oral cancer. Overall, attitudes to screening were positive. Ninety two percent of respondents would like their Dentist to tell them if they were being screened for signs of oral cancer and 97% would like help from their Dentists to reduce their risk. Conclusion Patients seem generally unaware of oral cancer screening by their dentist but are happy to take part in screening, would like to be informed, and welcome the support of their Dentist to reduce their risk of developing oral cancer.

Background: It is strongly recommended to extract teeth with poor prognosis in head and neck cancer (HaNC) patients prior starting treatment with radiotherapy to avoid need for extraction post-radiotherapy and prevent development of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). Dental extraction means that patients are often left with insufficient teeth leading to psychological problems and reducing their quality of life post-radiotherapy. Some clinicians do not advocate the use of dentures in HaNC patients claiming that dentures might lead to soft tissue irritation followed by ORN when constructed on irradiated jaws.Aims: This systematic review aimed to investigate the existing evidence regarding the impact of denture use on the development of ORN in HaNC patients post-radiotherapy.Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Three database systems were used: Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO. PROSPERO was searched for ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews. The https://ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for ongoing or recently completed trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess quality of studies being reviewed.Results: Only three retrospective case-control studies were included. Numbers of participants included in the three studies are limited with incomparable types of mucosal dentures. None of the studies described the method of measurement of the exposure (denture use) in a standard, validated and reliable way.Conclusion: The three included studies suggested no link between denture use and development of ORN. However, very little evidence exists and the robustness of the studies is questionable. Well-powered studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This viewpoint paper considers the authors' perspectives on the potential role of smartphones, wearables, and other technologies in the diagnosis of cancer. We believe that these technologies could be valuable additions in the pursuit of early cancer diagnosis, as they offer solutions to the timely detection of signals or symptoms and monitoring of subtle changes in behavior that may otherwise be missed. In addition to signal detection, technologies could assist symptom interpretation and guide and facilitate access to health care. This paper aims to provide an overview of the scientific rationale as to why these technologies could be valuable for early cancer detection, as well as outline the next steps for research and development to drive investigation into the potential for smartphones and wearables in this context and optimize implementation. We draw attention to potential barriers to successful implementation, including the difficulty of the development of signals and sensors with sufficient utility and accuracy through robust research with the target group. There are regulatory challenges; the potential for innovations to exacerbate inequalities; and questions surrounding acceptability, uptake, and correct use by the intended target group and health care practitioners. Finally, there is potential for unintended consequences on individuals and health care services including unnecessary anxiety, increased symptom burden, overinvestigation, and inappropriate use of health care resources., (©Suzanne E Scott, Matthew J Thompson. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 20.05.2024.)