Adequacy of clinical guideline recommendations for patients with low-risk cancer managed with monitoring: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. RESULTS: Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance. CONCLUSION: With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.

Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Objective: To identify and summarize the evidence about the extent of overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries, its drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO® and Global Index Medicus using a combination of MeSH terms and free text words around overuse of medications and overtreatment. We included studies in any language published before 25 October 2021 that reported on the extent of overuse, its drivers, consequences and solutions. Findings: We screened 3489 unique records and included 367 studies reporting on over 5.1 million prescriptions across 80 low- and middle-income countries - with studies from 58.6% (17/29) of all low-, 62.0% (31/50) of all lower-middle- and 60.0% (33/55) of all upper-middle-income countries. Of the included studies, 307 (83.7%) reported on the extent of overuse of medications, with estimates ranging from 7.3% to 98.2% (interquartile range: 30.2-64.5). Commonly overused classes included antimicrobials, psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors and antihypertensive drugs. Drivers included limited knowledge of harms of overuse, polypharmacy, poor regulation and financial influences. Consequences were patient harm and cost. Only 11.4% (42/367) of studies evaluated solutions, which included regulatory reforms, educational, deprescribing and audit-feedback initiatives. Conclusion: Growing evidence suggests overuse of medications is widespread within low- and middle-income countries, across multiple drug classes, with few data of solutions from randomized trials. Opportunities exist to build collaborations to rigorously develop and evaluate potential solutions to reduce overuse of medications.

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients. AIM: To explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed. DESIGN AND SETTING: Seventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff. METHOD: Staff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach. RESULTS: The first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.

Metabolomic Biomarkers in Blood Samples Identify Cancers in a Mixed Population of Patients with Nonspecific Symptoms.

PURPOSE: Early diagnosis of cancer is critical for improving patient outcomes, but cancers may be hard to diagnose if patients present with nonspecific signs and symptoms. We have previously shown that nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomics analysis can detect cancer in animal models and distinguish between differing metastatic disease burdens. Here, we hypothesized that biomarkers within the blood metabolome could identify cancers within a mixed population of patients referred from primary care with nonspecific symptoms, the so-called "low-risk, but not no-risk" patient group, as well as distinguishing between those with and without metastatic disease. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients (n = 304 comprising modeling, n = 192, and test, n = 92) were recruited from 2017 to 2018 from the Oxfordshire Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway, a multidisciplinary diagnostic center (MDC) referral pathway for patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms. Blood was collected and analyzed by NMR metabolomics. Orthogonal partial least squares discriminatory analysis (OPLS-DA) models separated patients, based upon diagnoses received from the MDC assessment, within 62 days of initial appointment. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve for identifying patients with solid tumors in the independent test set was 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-0.95]. Maximum sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI: 73-99) and 82% (95% CI: 75-87), respectively. We could also identify patients with metastatic disease in the cohort of patients with cancer with sensitivity and specificity of 94% (95% CI: 72-99) and 88% (95% CI: 53-98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For a mixed group of patients referred from primary care with nonspecific signs and symptoms, NMR-based metabolomics can assist their diagnosis, and may differentiate both those with malignancies and those with and without metastatic disease. See related commentary by Van Tine and Lyssiotis, p. 1477.

Building the case for the use of gut feelings in cancer referrals: perspectives of patients referred to a non-specific symptoms pathway.

BACKGROUND: Gut feelings may be useful when dealing with uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in primary care. Both patients and GPs experience this uncertainty but patients' views on gut feelings in the consultation have not been explored. AIM: To explore patients' perceptions of gut feelings in decision making, and to compare these perceptions with those of GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews with 21 patients in Oxfordshire, UK. METHOD: Patients whose referral to a cancer pathway was based on their GP's gut feeling were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2019 to January 2020, face to face or over the telephone. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach. RESULTS: Some patients described experiencing gut feelings about their own health but often their willingness to share this with their GP was dependent on an established doctor-patient relationship. Patients expressed similar perspectives on the use of gut feelings in consultations to those reported by GPs. Patients saw GPs' gut feelings as grounded in their experience and generalist expertise, and part of a process of evidence gathering. Patients suggested that GPs were justified in using gut feelings because of their role in arranging access to investigations, the difficult 'grey area' of presentations, and the time- and resource-limited nature of primary care. When GPs communicated that they had a gut feeling, some saw this as an indication that they were being taken seriously. CONCLUSION: Patients accepted that GPs use gut feelings to guide decision making. Future research on this topic should include more diverse samples and address the areas of concern shared by patients and GPs.

Cultivating Doctors' Gut Feeling: Experience, Temporality and Politics of Gut Feelings in Family Medicine.

For the past decade, within family medicine there has been a focus on cultivating doctors gut feelings as 'a way of knowing' in cancer diagnostics. In this paper, building on interviews with family doctors in Oxford shire, UK we explore the embodied and temporal dimensions of clinical reasoning and how the cultivation of doctors' gut feelings is related to hierarchies of medical knowledge, professional training, and doctors' fears of litigation. Also, we suggest that the introduction of gut feeling in clinical practice is an attempt to develop a theory of clinical reasoning that fits the biopolitics of our contemporary. The turn towards predictive medicine and the values introduced by accelerated diagnostic regimes, we conclude, introduce a need for situated and embodied modes of reading bodies. We contribute theoretically by framing our analysis within a sensorial anthropology approach.

GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The use of gut feelings to guide clinical decision making in primary care has been frequently described but is not considered a legitimate reason for cancer referral. AIM: To explore the role that gut feeling plays in clinical decision making in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study with 19 GPs in Oxfordshire, UK. METHOD: GPs who had referred patients to a cancer pathway based on a gut feeling as a referral criterion were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted between November 2019 and January 2020, and transcripts were analysed using the one sheet of paper method. RESULTS: Gut feeling was seen as an essential part of decision making that facilitated appropriate and timely care. GPs distanced their gut feelings from descriptions that could be seen as unscientific, describing successful use as reliant on experience and clinical knowledge. This was especially true for patients who fell within a 'grey area' where clinical guidelines did not match the GP's assessment of cancer risk, either because the guidance inadequately represented or did not include the patient's presentation. GPs sought to legitimise their gut feelings by gathering objective clinical evidence, careful examination of referral procedures, and consultation with colleagues. CONCLUSION: GPs described their gut feelings as important to decision making in primary care and a necessary addition to clinical guidance. The steps taken to legitimise their gut feelings matched that expected in good clinical practice.

Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence for the role of GPs' gut feelings in cancer diagnosis raises questions about their origin and role in clinical practice. AIM: To explore the origins of GPs' gut feelings for cancer, their use, and their diagnostic utility. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of international research on GPs' gut feelings in primary care. METHOD: Six databases were searched from inception to July 2019, and internet searches were conducted. A segregated method was used to analyse, then combine, quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Twelve articles and four online resources were included that described varied conceptualisations of gut feelings. Gut feelings were often initially associated with patients being unwell, rather than with a suspicion of cancer, and were commonly experienced in response to symptoms and non-verbal cues. The pooled odds of a cancer diagnosis were four times higher when gut feelings were recorded (OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 7.94); they became more predictive of cancer as clinical experience and familiarity with the patient increased. Despite being included in some clinical guidelines, GPs had varying experiences of acting on gut feelings as some specialists questioned their diagnostic value. Consequently, some GPs ignored or omitted gut feelings from referral letters, or chose investigations that did not require specialist approval. CONCLUSION: GPs' gut feelings for cancer were conceptualised as a rapid summing up of multiple verbal and non-verbal patient cues in the context of the GPs' clinical knowledge and experience. Triggers of gut feelings not included in referral guidance deserve further investigation as predictors of cancer. Non-verbal cues that trigger gut feelings appear to be reliant on continuity of care and clinical experience; they tend to remain poorly recorded and are, therefore, inaccessible to researchers.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. AIM: To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. RESULTS: The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. CONCLUSION: GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

The impact of body vigilance on help-seeking for cancer 'alarm' symptoms: a community-based survey.

BACKGROUND: The act of detecting bodily changes is a pre-requisite for subsequent responses to symptoms, such as seeking medical help. This is the first study to explore associations between self-reported body vigilance and help-seeking in a community sample currently experiencing cancer 'alarm' symptoms. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, a 'health survey' was mailed through primary care practices to 4913 UK adults (age ≥50 years, no cancer diagnosis), asking about symptom experiences and medical help-seeking over the previous three months. Body vigilance, cancer worry and current illness were assessed with a small number of self-report items derived from existing measures. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% (N = 2042). Almost half the respondents (936/2042; 46%) experienced at least one cancer alarm symptom. Results from logistic regression analysis revealed that paying more attention to bodily changes was significantly associated with help-seeking for cancer symptoms (OR = 1.44; 1.06-1.97), after controlling for socio-demographics, current illness and cancer worry. Being more sensitive to bodily changes was not significantly associated with help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents who paid attention to their bodily changes were more likely to seek help for their symptoms. Although the use of a cross-sectional study design and the limited assessment of key variables preclude any firm conclusions, encouraging people to be body vigilant may contribute towards earlier cancer diagnosis. More needs to be understood about the impact this might have on cancer-related anxiety.

Worrying about wasting GP time as a barrier to help-seeking: a community-based, qualitative study.

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.