Factors affecting prostate cancer detection through asymptomatic PSA testing in primary care in England: Evidence from the 2018 National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

Background Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) is used in primary care for prostate cancer detection, either for symptomatic assessment or asymptomatic testing following an informed decision. Aim To estimate the proportion of prostate cancer cases diagnosed following asymptomatic PSA testing, and patient and practice factors influencing this route. Design and setting 2018 English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) data were analysed, with linkage to the national cancer registry, practice-level Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF), and General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) data. All 2018 NCDA patients with a diagnosis of prostate cancer were included (n = 9,837). Method Patients with recorded biomarker testing and no recorded symptoms prior to diagnosis were classified as asymptomatic PSA detected prostate cancer. Patient (age, ethnicity, deprivation, co-morbidities) and GP practice (geographical location, area deprivation, list size, urgent suspected cancer referral rate, QOF outcomes, GPPS results) factors were analysed for association with asymptomatic PSA testing using mixed effects logistic regression models. Results 1,884 out of 9,837 (19%) prostate cancer cases were detected following asymptomatic PSA testing, 982 (52.1%) of whom were patients aged 50-69 years. Younger age, non-White ethnicity, lower deprivation, and lower co-morbidity count were associated with an increased likelihood of diagnosis following asymptomatic PSA testing. There was a 13-fold variation between practices in the odds of asymptomatic PSA-detected cases, without clear explanatory GP practice-level factors. Conclusion One in five patients with prostate cancer in England are diagnosed after asymptomatic PSA testing in primary care, with large variation in asymptomatic PSA detection between GP practices.

Variation in the use of primary care-led investigations prior to a cancer diagnosis: analysis of the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

INTRODUCTION: Use of investigations can help support the diagnostic process of patients with cancer in primary care, but the size of variation between patient group and between practices is unclear. METHODS: We analysed data on 53 252 patients from 1868 general practices included in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2018 using a sequence of logistic regression models to quantify and explain practice-level variation in investigation use, accounting for patient-level case-mix and practice characteristics. Four types of investigations were considered: any investigation, blood tests, imaging and endoscopy. RESULTS: Large variation in practice use was observed (OR for 97.5th to 2.5th centile being 4.02, 4.33 and 3.12, respectively for any investigation, blood test and imaging). After accounting for patient case-mix, the spread of practice variation increased further to 5.61, 6.30 and 3.60 denoting that patients with characteristics associated with higher use (ie, certain cancer sites) are over-represented among practices with lower than the national average use of such investigation. Practice characteristics explained very little of observed variation, except for rurality (rural practices having lower use of any investigation) and concentration of older age patients (practices with older patients being more likely to use all types of investigations). CONCLUSION: There is very large variation between practices in use of investigation in patients with cancer as part of the diagnostic process. It is conceivable that the diagnostic process can be improved if investigation use was to be increased in lower use practices, although it is also possible that there is overtesting in practices with very high use of investigations, and in fact both undertesting and overtesting may co-exist.

Predictors and consequences of different pathways to emergency diagnosis of cancer in England: Evidence from linked national audit and cancer registration data.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of cancer soon after emergency care use is associated with adverse prognosis. We aimed to more precisely explore different definitions of emergency diagnosis. METHODS: For 43,383 patients in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit and Routes to Diagnosis datasets, we defined two emergency care pathways: emergency referral (Type-A) and emergency hospital admission (Type-B). We examined patient and tumour factors associated with each pathway excluding the other, and in combination (Type-A+B), in particular their concordance and prognostic implications for short-term mortality. RESULTS: One in five patients (19 %) were diagnosed following emergency care use: 4 % through Type-A only, 7 % through Type-B only, and 8 % through Type-A+B. Higher co-morbidity, deprivation, advanced stage and certain cancer sites were associated with greater risk of emergency diagnosis. Concordance of emergency diagnosis pathway between Type-A and Type-B increased with age, co-morbidity and certain cancer sites. Patients with non-alarm symptoms were more likely to self-refer (Type-A) to an Emergency Department than patients with alarm symptoms. Associations with higher short-term mortality were strongest for Type-A+B. CONCLUSIONS: We profile different pathways to emergency diagnosis and identify opportunities to improve diagnostic processes for these patients.

Use of chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on international variation in chemotherapy use, despite it being a key treatment type for some patients with cancer. Here, we aimed to examine the presence and size of such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), eight Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring from within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in chemotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 893 461 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 111 569 (12·5%) did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 781 892 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in chemotherapy use for all studied cancers, with wide 95% PIs: 47·5 to 81·2 (pooled estimate 66·4%) for ovarian cancer, 34·9 to 59·8 (47·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 22·3 to 62·3 (40·8%) for rectal cancer, 25·7 to 55·5 (39·6%) for stomach cancer, 17·2 to 56·3 (34·1%) for pancreatic cancer, 17·9 to 49·0 (31·4%) for lung cancer, 18·6 to 43·8 (29·7%) for colon cancer, and 3·5 to 50·7 (16·1%) for liver cancer. For patients with stage 3 colon cancer, the interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with colon cancer (95% PI 38·5 to 78·4; 60·1%). Patients aged 85-99 years had 20-times lower odds of chemotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with very large interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio 0·05; 95% PI 0·01 to 0·19). There was large variation in median time to first chemotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation, particularly for rectal cancer (95% PI -15·5 to 193·9 days; pooled estimate 89·2 days). Patients aged 85-99 years had slightly shorter median time to first chemotherapy compared with those aged 65-74 years, consistently between jurisdictions (-3·7 days, 95% PI -7·6 to 0·1). INTERPRETATION: Large variation in use and time to chemotherapy initiation were observed between the participating jurisdictions, alongside large and variable age group differences in chemotherapy use. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, the underlying reasons for these patterns need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Use of radiotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on variation in radiotherapy use in different countries, although it is a key treatment modality for some patients with cancer. Here we aimed to examine such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), nine Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in radiotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data, or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 902 312 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 115 357 (12·8%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 786,955 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in radiotherapy use, with wide 95% PIs: 17·8 to 82·4 (pooled estimate 50·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 35·5 to 55·2 (45·2%) for rectal cancer, 28·6 to 54·0 (40·6%) for lung cancer, and 4·6 to 53·6 (19·0%) for stomach cancer. For patients with stage 2-3 rectal cancer, interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with rectal cancer (95% PI 37·0 to 84·6; pooled estimate 64·2%). Radiotherapy use was infrequent but variable in patients with pancreatic (95% PI 1·7 to 16·5%), liver (1·8 to 11·2%), colon (1·6 to 5·0%), and ovarian (0·8 to 7·6%) cancer. Patients aged 85-99 years had three-times lower odds of radiotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with substantial interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio [OR] 0·38; 95% PI 0·20-0·73). Women had slightly lower odds of radiotherapy use than men (OR 0·88, 95% PI 0·77-1·01). There was large variation in median time to first radiotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation (eg, oesophageal 95% PI 11·3 days to 112·8 days; pooled estimate 62·0 days; rectal 95% PI 34·7 days to 77·3 days; pooled estimate 56·0 days). Older patients had shorter median time to radiotherapy with appreciable interjurisdictional variation (-9·5 days in patients aged 85-99 years vs 65-74 years, 95% PI -26·4 to 7·4). INTERPRETATION: Large interjurisdictional variation in both use and time to radiotherapy initiation were observed, alongside large and variable age differences. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, underlying reasons for these differences need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions. METHODS: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group. RESULTS: There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. AIM: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. METHOD: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. RESULTS: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). CONCLUSION: In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Primary care blood tests before cancer diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in patients with cancer but how often they are used is unclear. AIM: To explore use of common blood tests before cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39 752 patients with cancer diagnosed in 2018. METHOD: Common blood test use (full blood count [FBC], urea and electrolytes [U&E], and liver function tests [LFTs]), variation by patient and symptom group, and associations with the primary care interval and the diagnostic interval were assessed. RESULTS: At least one common blood test was used in 41% (n = 16 427/39 752) of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Among tested patients, (n = 16 427), FBC was used in 95% (n = 15 540), U&E in 89% (n = 14 555), and LFTs in 76% (n = 12 414). Blood testing was less common in females (adjusted odds ratio versus males: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 0.98) and Black and minority ethnic patients (0.89, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.97 versus White), and more common in older patients (1.12, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.18 for ≥70 years versus 50-69 years). Test use varied greatly by cancer site (melanoma 2% [ n = 55/2297]; leukaemia 84% [ n = 552/661]). Fewer patients presenting with alarm symptoms alone were tested (24% [ n = 3341/13 778]) than those with non-alarm symptoms alone (50% [ n = 8223/16 487]). Median primary care interval and diagnostic interval were longer in tested than non-tested patients (primary care interval: 10 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 49 versus 32 days, respectively, P<0.001 for both), including among tested patients with alarm symptoms (primary care interval: 4 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 41 versus 22 days). CONCLUSION: Two-fifths of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer have primary care blood tests as part of their diagnostic process. Given variable test use, research is needed on the clinical context in which blood tests are ordered.

Risk factors and prognostic implications of diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation): an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Greater understanding of international cancer survival differences is needed. We aimed to identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries. METHODS: Using a federated analysis model, in this cross-sectional population-based study, we analysed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK), including patients with primary diagnosis of invasive oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer during study periods from Jan 1, 2012, to Dec 31, 2017. Data were collected on cancer site, age group, sex, year of diagnosis, and stage at diagnosis. Emergency presentation was defined as diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission. Using logistic regression, we examined variables associated with emergency presentation and associations between emergency presentation and short-term mortality. We meta-analysed estimates across jurisdictions and explored jurisdiction-level associations between cancer survival and the percentage of patients diagnosed as emergencies. FINDINGS: In 857 068 patients across 14 jurisdictions, considering all of the eight cancer sites together, the percentage of diagnoses through emergency presentation ranged from 24·0% (9165 of 38 212 patients) to 42·5% (12 238 of 28 794 patients). There was consistently large variation in the percentage of emergency presentations by cancer site across jurisdictions. Pancreatic cancer diagnoses had the highest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (46·1% [30 972 of 67 173 patients]), with the jurisdictional range being 34·1% (1083 of 3172 patients) to 60·4% (1317 of 2182 patients). Rectal cancer had the lowest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (12·1% [10 051 of 83 325 patients]), with a jurisdictional range of 9·1% (403 of 4438 patients) to 19·8% (643 of 3247 patients). Across the jurisdictions, older age (ie, 75-84 years and 85 years or older, compared with younger patients) and advanced stage at diagnosis compared with non-advanced stage were consistently associated with increased emergency presentation risk, with the percentage of emergency presentations being highest in the oldest age group (85 years or older) for 110 (98%) of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, and in the most advanced (distant spread) stage category for 98 (97%) of 101 jurisdiction-cancer site strata with available information. Across the jurisdictions, and despite heterogeneity in association size (I2=93%), emergency presenters consistently had substantially greater risk of 12-month mortality than non-emergency presenters (odds ratio >1·9 for 112 [100%] of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, with the minimum lower bound of the related 95% CIs being 1·26). There were negative associations between jurisdiction-level percentage of emergency presentations and jurisdiction-level 1-year survival for colon, stomach, lung, liver, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer, with a 10% increase in percentage of emergency presentations in a jurisdiction being associated with a decrease in 1-year net survival of between 2·5% (95% CI 0·28-4·7) and 7·0% (1·2-13·0). INTERPRETATION: Internationally, notable proportions of patients with cancer are diagnosed through emergency presentation. Specific types of cancer, older age, and advanced stage at diagnosis are consistently associated with an increased risk of emergency presentation, which strongly predicts worse prognosis and probably contributes to international differences in cancer survival. Monitoring emergency presentations, and identifying and acting on contributing behavioural and health-care factors, is a global priority for cancer control. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; the Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

Morbidity and measures of the diagnostic process in primary care for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding how pre-existing conditions (morbidities) may influence the primary care investigation and management of individuals subsequently diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We identified morbidities using information from both primary and secondary care records among 11,716 patients included in the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) 2014. We examined variation in 5 measures of the diagnostic process (the primary care interval, diagnostic interval, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care-led investigations, and referral type) by both primary care- and hospital records-derived measures of morbidity. RESULTS: Morbidity prevalence recorded before cancer diagnosis was almost threefold greater using the primary care (75%) vs secondary care-derived measure (28%). After adjustment, there was limited variation in the primary care interval and the number of pre-referral consultations by either definition of morbidity. Patients with more severe morbidities were less likely to have had a primary care-led investigation before cancer diagnosis compared with those without any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.60-0.86] for Charlson score 3+ vs 0; joint P < 0.001). Patients with multiple primary care-recorded conditions or a Charlson score of 3+ were more likely to have diagnostic intervals exceeding 60 days (aOR: 1.26 [1.10-1.45] and 1.19 [>1.00-1.41], respectively), and more likely to receive an emergency referral (aOR: 1.60 [1.26-2.02] and 1.61 [1.26-2.06], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among cancer cases with up to 2 morbidities, there was no evidence of differences in diagnostic processes and intervals in primary care but higher morbidity burden was associated with longer time to diagnosis and higher likelihood of emergency referral.

Individuals with pre-existing long-term conditions (morbidities) may have a different pathways leading to their cancer diagnosis compared with those without such conditions but detailed evidence is limited. We aimed to investigate how morbidities were associated with a range of measures of the diagnostic process in primary care. We examined morbidity in 2 ways, using information from a primary care audit and hospital records. We found that three-quarters of patients were living with 1 or more conditions according to primary care-based information, while the prevalence was almost threefold lower when estimated using hospital records. There was little difference in the time from first primary care appointment to specialist referral and the number of appointments before specialist referral by morbidity, particularly when comparing patients with 1 or 2 conditions vs those without. However, patients with multiple conditions or more serious diseases experienced lower likelihood of investigation, greater likelihood of being sent to the hospital as an emergency, and longer time to diagnosis. We did not find evidence of substantial differences in primary care-based diagnostic processes by morbidity. However, once an initial referral has been made, multiple or more severe conditions appear to influence the time taken to reach a diagnosis.

The prevalence of chronic conditions in patients diagnosed with one of 29 common and rarer cancers: A cross-sectional study using primary care data.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing chronic conditions (morbidities) influence the diagnosis and management of cancer. The prevalence of specific morbidities in patients diagnosed with common and rarer cancers is inadequately described. METHODS: Using data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014, we studied 11 pre-existing morbidities recorded as yes/no items by participating general practitioners based on information included in primary care records. We examined the number and type of morbidities across socio-demographic and cancer site strata, and subsequently estimated observed and age/sex standardised prevalence of each morbidity by cancer. RESULTS: Over three-quarters (77 %; 11,429/14,774) of non-screen-detected patients had at least one chronic condition before diagnosis, while nearly half (47 %) had two or more. Hypertension (39 %) and physical disability (2%) were the most and least common conditions. Male, older and more socio-economically deprived patients were more likely to have at least one morbidity (p < 0.001 for all between variable group comparisons). For most morbidities, the standardised prevalence was similar across different cancers with a few exceptions, including respiratory disease prevalence being greatest among lung cancer patients and diabetes prevalence being greatest among liver, pancreatic, and endometrial cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most cancer patients have at least one morbidity, while almost one in two have two or more. The findings highlight the need to take certain morbidity- and cancer-site combinations into account when examining associations between morbidity and cancer outcomes.

Impact of geography on Scottish cancer diagnoses in primary care: Results from a national cancer diagnosis audit.

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis of global research found cancer patients living in rural locations are 5% less likely to survive than their urban counterparts, a survival disadvantage that has never been satisfactorily explained. AIMS: [1] To describe and compare primary-care involvement in the diagnosis of cancer between rural and urban patients in Scotland. [2] To compare the length of key diagnostic pathway intervals between rural and urban cancer patients in Scotland. METHODS: Participating GPs in the Scottish National Cancer Audit of cancer diagnosis (2017) collected data from primary-care medical records on the diagnostic pathway of patients diagnosed in 2014. Residential postcodes designated the patients as rural or urban dwellers. Key cancer diagnostic pathway intervals (primary, diagnostic, secondary, and treatment) were compared using binary logistic regression. Descriptive analysis included comparison of patient characteristics, and routes to diagnosis. RESULTS: 73 Scottish general practices provided data on 1,905 cancer diagnoses. Rural patients did not have higher odds of prolonged diagnostic intervals compared to urban patients but were significantly more likely to have had a cancer alarm feature at presentation and three or more primary-care consultations prior to referral. Rural GPs were significantly more likely to perceive an avoidable delay in their patient's diagnostic pathway. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that rural patients were more likely to be subject to prolonged cancer diagnostic delays than urban patients. Rural patients may experience primary care differently in the lead-up to a cancer diagnosis. The effect on outcome is probably negligible, but further research is required to confirm this.

Cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care: Results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

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.

The frequency, nature and impact of GP-assessed avoidable delays in a population-based cohort of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing emphasis on the speed of diagnosis as an aspect of cancer prognosis. While epidemiological data in the last decade have quantified diagnostic timeliness and its variation, whether and how often prolonged diagnostic intervals can be considered avoidable is unknown. METHODS: We used data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) on 17,042 patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014. Participating primary care physicians were asked to identify delays in diagnosis that they deemed avoidable, together with the 'setting' of the avoidable delay and key attributable factors. We used descriptive analysis and regression frameworks to assess validity and examine variation in the frequency and nature of avoidable delays. RESULTS: Among 14,259 patients, 24% were deemed to have had an avoidable delay to their diagnosis. Patients with a reported avoidable delay had a longer median diagnostic interval (92 days) than those without (30 days). Of all avoidable delays, 13% were deemed to have occurred pre-consultation, 49% within primary care, and 38% within secondary care. Avoidable delays were mostly attributed to the test request/performance phase (25%). Multimorbidity was associated with greater odds of avoidable delay (OR for 3+ vs no comorbidity: 1.43 (95% CI 1.25-1.63)), with heterogeneous associations with cancer site. CONCLUSION: We have shown that GP-identified instances of avoidable delay have construct validity. Whilst the causes of avoidable diagnostic delays are multi-factorial and occur in different settings and phases of the diagnostic process, their analysis can guide improvement initiatives and enable the examination of any prognostic implications.

Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis interventions such as symptom awareness campaigns increasingly form part of global cancer control strategies. However, these strategies will have little impact in improving cancer outcomes if the targeted symptoms represent advanced stage of disease. Therefore, we aimed to examine associations between common presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed population-level data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014 for patients aged 25 years and older with one of 12 types of solid tumours (bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, laryngeal, lung, melanoma, oral or oropharyngeal, ovarian, prostate, rectal, and renal cancer). We considered 20 common presenting symptoms and examined their associations with stage at diagnosis (TNM stage IV vs stage I-III) using logistic regression. For each symptom, we estimated these associations when reported as a single presenting symptom and when reported together with other symptoms. FINDINGS: We analysed data for 7997 patients. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer varied substantially by presenting symptom, from 1% (95% CI 1-3; eight of 584 patients) for abnormal mole to 80% (71-87; 84 of 105 patients) for neck lump. Three of the examined symptoms (neck lump, chest pain, and back pain) were consistently associated with increased odds of stage IV cancer, whether reported alone or with other symptoms, whereas the opposite was true for abnormal mole, breast lump, postmenopausal bleeding, and rectal bleeding. For 13 of the 20 symptoms (abnormal mole, breast lump, post-menopausal bleeding, rectal bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms, haematuria, change in bowel habit, hoarseness, fatigue, abdominal pain, lower abdominal pain, weight loss, and the "any other symptom" category), more than 50% of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV; for 19 of the 20 studied symptoms (all except for neck lump), more than a third of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. INTERPRETATION: Despite specific presenting symptoms being more strongly associated with advanced stage at diagnosis than others, for most symptoms, large proportions of patients are diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. These findings provide support for early diagnosis interventions targeting common cancer symptoms, countering concerns that they might be simply expediting the detection of advanced stage disease. FUNDING: UK Department of Health's Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis; and Cancer Research UK.

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

BACKGROUND: Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this. AIM: To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England. METHOD: Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management. RESULTS: Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0-27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more. CONCLUSION: The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.

Cadherin-5: a biomarker for metastatic breast cancer with optimum efficacy in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancers with vascular invasion.

BACKGROUND: A glycoproteomic study has previously shown cadherin-5 (CDH5) to be a serological marker of metastatic breast cancer when both protein levels and glycosylation status were assessed. In this study we aimed to further validate the utility of CDH5 as a biomarker for breast cancer progression. METHODS: A nested case-control study of serum samples from breast cancer patients, of which n=52 had developed a distant metastatic recurrence within 5 years post-diagnosis and n=60 had remained recurrence-free. ELISAs were used to quantify patient serum CDH5 levels and assess glycosylation by Helix pomatia agglutinin (HPA) binding. Clinicopathological, treatment and lifestyle factors associated with metastasis and elevated biomarker levels were identified. RESULTS: Elevated CDH5 levels (P=0.028) and ratios of CDH5:HPA binding (P=0.007) distinguished patients with metastatic disease from those that remained metastasis-free. Multivariate analysis showed that the association between CDH5:HPA ratio and the formation of distant metastases was driven by patients with oestrogen receptor (ER+) positive cancer with vascular invasion (VI+). CONCLUSIONS: CDH5 levels and the CDH5 glycosylation represent biomarker tests that distinguish patients with metastatic breast cancer from those that remain metastasis-free. The test reached optimal sensitivity and specificity in ER-positive cancers with vascular invasion.

Genetic predisposition to in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of all invasive breast carcinomas. It is generally ER positive (ER+) and often associated with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Genome-wide association studies have identified more than 70 common polymorphisms that predispose to breast cancer, but these studies included predominantly ductal (IDC) carcinomas. To identify novel common polymorphisms that predispose to ILC and LCIS, we pooled data from 6,023 cases (5,622 ILC, 401 pure LCIS) and 34,271 controls from 36 studies genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Six novel SNPs most strongly associated with ILC/LCIS in the pooled analysis were genotyped in a further 516 lobular cases (482 ILC, 36 LCIS) and 1,467 controls. These analyses identified a lobular-specific SNP at 7q34 (rs11977670, OR (95%CI) for ILC = 1.13 (1.09-1.18), P = 6.0 × 10(-10); P-het for ILC vs IDC ER+ tumors = 1.8 × 10(-4)). Of the 75 known breast cancer polymorphisms that were genotyped, 56 were associated with ILC and 15 with LCIS at P<0.05. Two SNPs showed significantly stronger associations for ILC than LCIS (rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2, P-het = 0.04 and rs889312/5q11/MAP3K1, P-het = 0.03); and two showed stronger associations for LCIS than ILC (rs6678914/1q32/LGR6, P-het = 0.001 and rs1752911/6q14, P-het = 0.04). In addition, seven of the 75 known loci showed significant differences between ER+ tumors with IDC and ILC histology, three of these showing stronger associations for ILC (rs11249433/1p11, rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2 and rs10995190/10q21/ZNF365) and four associated only with IDC (5p12/rs10941679; rs2588809/14q24/RAD51L1, rs6472903/8q21 and rs1550623/2q31/CDCA7). In conclusion, we have identified one novel lobular breast cancer specific predisposition polymorphism at 7q34, and shown for the first time that common breast cancer polymorphisms predispose to LCIS. We have shown that many of the ER+ breast cancer predisposition loci also predispose to ILC, although there is some heterogeneity between ER+ lobular and ER+ IDC tumors. These data provide evidence for overlapping, but distinct etiological pathways within ER+ breast cancer between morphological subtypes.