Biomarkers suitable for early detection of intrathoracic cancers in primary care: a systematic review.

Intrathoracic cancers, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and thymoma, present diagnostic challenges in primary care. Biomarkers could resolve some challenges. We synthesized evidence on biomarkers performance for intrathoracic cancer detection in low-prevalence settings. A search in EMBASE and MEDLINE included studies that recruited participants with suspected intrathoracic cancer and reported on at least one diagnostic measure for a validated, non-invasive biomarker. Studies were excluded if participants were recruited based on a pre-established diagnosis. Fifty-two studies were included, reporting on 108 individual biomarkers and panels. CEA, CYFRA 21.1, and VEGF were evaluated for lung cancer and mesothelioma. For lung cancer, CEA and CYFRA 21.1 were most studied, with AUCs of 0.48-0.90 and 0.48-0.83, respectively. Pro-GRP and NSE had the highest NPVs (98.2%, 96.9%), while Early-CDT and MSC panels showed NPVs of 99.3% and 99.0% in smokers. For mesothelioma, Fibrillin-3 and mesothelin plus osteopontin had AUCs of 0.93 and 0.91, respectively. Thymoma panels (Binding AcHR + StrAb) and (Binding AcHR + Modulating AcHR + StrAb) had 100% NPVs in myasthenia gravis patients. The review highlights the performance of some biomarkers. However, few were evaluated in low-prevalence settings. Further evaluation is necessary before implementing these biomarkers for intrathoracic cancers in primary care.

Improving the communication of multifactorial cancer risk assessment results for different audiences: a co-design process.

BACKGROUND: Multifactorial cancer risk prediction tools, such as CanRisk, are increasingly being incorporated into routine healthcare. Understanding risk information and communicating risk is challenging and healthcare professionals rely substantially on the outputs of risk prediction tools to communicate results. This work aimed to produce a new CanRisk report so users can directly access key information and communicate risk estimates effectively. METHODS: Over a 13-month period, we led an 8-step co-design process with patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. Steps comprised 1) think aloud testing of the original CanRisk report; 2) structured feedback on the original report; 3) literature review; 4) development of a new report prototype; 5) first round of structured feedback; 6) updating the new report prototype; 7) second round of structured feedback; and 8) finalising and publishing the new CanRisk report. RESULTS: We received 56 sets of feedback from 34 stakeholders. Overall, the original CanRisk report was not suitable for patients and the public. Building on the feedback, the new report has an overview of the information presented: section one summarises key information for individuals; sections two and three present information for healthcare professionals in different settings. New features also include explanatory text, definitions, graphs, keys and tables to support the interpretation of the information. DISCUSSION: This co-design experience shows the value of collaboration for the successful communication of complex health information. As a result, the new CanRisk report has the potential to better support shared decision-making processes about cancer risk management across clinical settings.

Predictive Performance of Cardiovascular Risk Scores in Cancer Survivors From the UK Biobank.

Background: Cardiovascular preventive strategies are guided by risk scores with unknown validity in cancer cohorts. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of 7 established cardiovascular risk scores in cancer survivors from the UK Biobank. Methods: The predictive performance of QRISK3, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2)/Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation for Older Persons (SCORE-OP), Framingham Risk Score, Pooled Cohort equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF), CHARGE-AF, QStroke, and CHA2DS2-VASc was calculated in participants with and without a history of cancer. Participants were propensity matched on age, sex, deprivation, health behaviors, family history, and metabolic conditions. Analyses were stratified into any cancer, breast, lung, prostate, brain/central nervous system, hematologic malignancies, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Incident cardiovascular events were tracked through health record linkage over 10 years of follow-up. The area under the receiver operating curve, balanced accuracy, and sensitivity were reported. Results: The analysis included 31,534 cancer survivors and 126,136 covariate-matched controls. Risk score distributions were near identical in cases and controls. Participants with any cancer had a significantly higher incidence of all cardiovascular outcomes than matched controls. Performance metrics were significantly worse for all risk scores in cancer cases than in matched controls. The most notable differences were among participants with a history of hematologic malignancies who had significantly higher outcome rates and poorer risk score performance than their matched controls. The performance of risk scores for predicting stroke in participants with brain/central nervous system cancer was very poor, with predictive accuracy more than 30% lower than noncancer controls. Conclusions: Existing cardiovascular risk scores have significantly worse predictive accuracy in cancer survivors compared with noncancer comparators, leading to an underestimation of risk in this cohort.

Early economic evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection in primary care.

Objectives: To explore the potential impacts of incorporating prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging into primary care as a triage test within the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Subjects and methods: Decision analytic modelling with decision trees was utilised for this early economic evaluation. A conceptual model was developed reflecting the common primary care routes to diagnosis for prostate cancer: opportunistic, asymptomatic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening or symptomatic presentation. The use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) or biparametric MRI (bpMRI) as a primary care triage test following an elevated PSA result was evaluated. A health system perspective was adopted with a time horizon of 12 months. Health effects were expressed in terms of utilities drawn from the literature. The primary outcome was prostate cancer diagnosis. Evidence used to inform the model was drawn from published primary studies, systematic reviews, and secondary analyses of primary and secondary care datasets. Results: Base case analysis showed that the PSA pathway was dominated by both mpMRI- and bpMRI-based pathways for patients undergoing opportunistic screening and symptomatic assessment. bpMRI pathways had greater improvement in cost and utility than mpMRI pathways in both clinical scenarios. Significantly more MRI scans would be performed using the modelled approach (66 626 scans vs. 37 456 scans per 100 000 patients per annum), with fewer subsequent urgent suspected cancer referrals for both mpMRI (38% reduction for screening and symptomatic patients) and bpMRI (72% reduction for screening; 71% for symptomatic) pathways, and a small increase in number of missed cancer diagnoses. Deterministic sensitivity analyses, varying each parameter to its upper and lower 95% confidence intervals, showed no significant change in the dominance of the MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. Conclusion: Using prostate MRI as a second-level triage test for suspected prostate cancer in primary care could reduce health service costs without a detrimental effect on patient utility.

Understanding symptom contribution to sex inequality in bladder and renal cancer stage at diagnosis.

Background: Understanding sex-specific factors contributing to advanced-stage diagnosis can guide interventions to reduce sex inequality in patients with urological cancers. Method: We used linked primary care and cancer registry data to examine associations between symptoms and advanced-stage in 1151 bladder cancer and 440 renal cancer patients diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2015 in England. We performed logistic regression, adjusting for sex, age, deprivation and routes to diagnosis, including interaction terms between symptoms and sex and symptoms and age. Results: Female sex (OR vs. men 1.89 [1.28-2.79]; p = 0.001) and patients presenting with urinary tract infections (OR 2.22 [1.34-3.69]) and abdominal symptoms (OR 2.19 [1.30-3.70]) were associated with increased odds of advanced-stage bladder cancer (vs. haematuria, p = 0.016 for both). Women with haematuria and men with abdominal symptoms (compared with the opposite sex with the same presenting symptom) were more likely to have advanced-stage bladder cancer. Neither sex nor symptom associations were observed for renal cancer. Conclusion: Non-haematuria symptoms are associated with higher risk of advanced-stage bladder cancer. Greater risk of advanced-stage bladder cancer in women may reflect biological differences in haematuria onset and sex differences during diagnostic process. Identifying higher risk women with haematuria may reduce sex inequalities in bladder cancer outcomes.

Hematuria Cancer Risk Score with Ultrasound Informs Cystoscopy Use in Patients with Hematuria.

BACKGROUND: Hematuria is a cardinal symptom of urinary tract cancer and would require further investigations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of renal bladder ultrasound (RBUS) with the Hematuria Cancer Risk Score (HCRS) to inform cystoscopy use in patients with hematuria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The development cohort comprised 1984 patients with hematuria from 40 UK hospitals (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) who received RBUS. An independent validation cohort comprised 500 consecutive patients referred to secondary care for a suspicion of bladder cancer. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Sensitivity and true negative of the HCRS and RBUS were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 134 (7%) and 36 (8%) patients in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, had a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer. Validation of the HCRS achieves good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.727 (95% confidence interval 0.648-0.800) in the validation cohort with sensitivity of 95% for the identification of cancer. Utilizing the cutoff of 4.500 derived from the HCRS in combination with RBUS in the development cohort, 680 (34%) patients would have been spared cystoscopy at the cost of missing a G1 Ta bladder cancer and a urinary tract cancer patient, while 117 (25%) patients would have avoided cystoscopy at the cost of missing a single patient of G1 Ta bladder cancer with sensitivity for the identification of cancer of 97% in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The HCRS with RBUS offers good discriminatory ability in identifying patients who would benefit from cystoscopy, sparing selected patient cohorts from an invasive procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY: The hematuria cancer risk score with renal bladder ultrasound allows for the triage of patients with hematuria who would benefit from visual examination of the bladder (cystoscopy). This resulted in 25% of patients safely omitting cystoscopy, which is an invasive procedure, and would lead to health care cost savings.

Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis. AIM: To understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs. RESULTS: Twenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47-80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36-55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced. CONCLUSION: Prostate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care.

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. RESULTS: A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]). CONCLUSION: The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

Pre-diagnostic prescription patterns in bladder and renal cancer: a longitudinal linked data study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding pre-diagnostic prescribing activity could reveal windows during which more timely cancer investigation and detection may occur. AIM: To examine prescription patterns for common urological clinical features prior to renal and bladder cancer diagnoses. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic primary care and cancer registry data on patients with bladder and renal cancer, who received their diagnosis between April 2012 and December 2015 in England. METHOD: Primary care prescriptions up to 2 years pre- diagnosis were analysed for five groups of clinical features (irritative urological symptoms, obstructive symptoms, urinary tract infections [UTIs], genital infections, and atrophic vaginitis). Poisson regressions estimating the inflection point from which the rate of prescriptions increased from baseline were used to identify the start of diagnostic windows during which cancer could be detected. RESULTS: A total of 48 094 prescriptions for 5322 patients were analysed. Inflection points for an increase in UTI prescriptions were identified 9 months pre- diagnosis for renal (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3 to 12.7) and bladder (95% CI = 7.4 to 10.6) cancers. For bladder cancer, the change in UTI antibiotic prescription rates occurred 4 months earlier in females (11 months pre- diagnosis, 95% CI = 9.7 to 12.3) than in males (7 months pre-diagnosis, 95% CI = 5.4 to 8.6). For other clinical features, no inflection points were identified and, as such, no diagnostic windows could be defined. CONCLUSION: Prescription rates for UTIs increased 9 months before bladder and renal cancer diagnoses, indicating that there is potential to expedite diagnosis of these cancers in patients presenting with features of UTI. The greatest opportunity for more timely diagnosis may be in females with bladder cancer, who experienced the earliest increase in UTI prescription rate.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care. METHODS: We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings. RESULTS: We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is increasingly used in UK primary care to triage patients presenting with symptoms and at different levels of colorectal cancer risk. Evidence is scarce on patients' views of using FIT in this context. We aimed to explore patients' care experience and acceptability of using FIT in primary care. DESIGN: A qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and October 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed using framework analysis. SETTING: East of England general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who presented in primary care with possible symptoms of colorectal cancer, and for whom a FIT was requested, were recruited to the FIT-East study. Participants were purposively sampled for this qualitative substudy based on age, gender and FIT result. RESULTS: 44 participants were interviewed with a mean age 61 years, and 25 (57%) being men: 8 (18%) received a positive FIT result. Three themes and seven subthemes were identified. Participants' familiarity with similar tests and perceived risk of cancer influenced test experience and acceptability. All participants were happy to do the FIT themselves and to recommend it to others. Most participants reported that the test was straightforward, although some considered it may be a challenge to others. However, test explanation by healthcare professionals was often limited. Furthermore, while some participants received their results quickly, many did not receive them at all with the common assumption that 'no news is good news'. For those with a negative result and persisting symptoms, there was uncertainty about any next steps. CONCLUSIONS: While FIT is acceptable to patients, elements of communication with patients by the healthcare system show potential for improvement. We suggest possible ways to improve the FIT experience, particularly regarding communication about the test and its results.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England. METHOD: Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools. CONCLUSION: There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Economic Evaluations of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathways Incorporating Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Context: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. Evidence acquisition: INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Evidence synthesis: A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies. Conclusions: Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.

Improving the diagnostic process for patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer: a mixed-methods study to identify potential missed diagnostic opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bladder and kidney cancer may experience diagnostic delays. AIM: To identify patterns of suboptimal care and contributors of potential missed diagnostic opportunities (MDOs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, mixed-methods study recruiting participants from nine general practices in Eastern England between June 2018 and October 2019. METHOD: Patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer were identified using eligibility criteria based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for suspected cancer. Primary care records were reviewed at recruitment and at 1 year for data on symptoms, tests, referrals, and diagnosis. Referral predictors were examined using logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients to explore their experiences of the diagnostic process, and these were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants (n = 940) were mostly female (n = 657, 69.9%), with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 64-77 years). In total, 268 (28.5%) received a referral and 465 (48.5%) had a final diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). There were 33 (3.5%) patients who were diagnosed with cancer, including prostate (n = 17), bladder (n = 7), and upper urothelial tract (n = 1) cancers. Among referred patients, those who had a final diagnosis of UTI had the longest time to referral (median 81.5 days). Only one-third of patients with recurrent UTIs were referred despite meeting NICE referral guidelines. Qualitative findings revealed barriers during the diagnostic process, including inadequate clinical examination, female patients given repeated antibiotics without clinical reviews, and suboptimal communication of test results to patients. CONCLUSION: Older females with UTIs might be at increased risk of MDOs for cancer. Targeting barriers during the initial diagnostic assessment and follow-up might improve quality of diagnosis.

Symptom appraisal and help seeking in males with symptoms of possible prostate cancer: a qualitative study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mortality in Black males is disproportionately high. This problem may be overcome by reducing delays in the pathway to diagnosis, particularly those occurring before initial medical help seeking. A greater understanding of symptom appraisal and help seeking could support the development of targeted interventions for improving early presentation among Black males. AIM: To provide an in-depth understanding of males' pre-consultation experiences following the onset of symptoms of possible prostate cancer, identifying both general trends as well as potential differences that may exist between Black and White males. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of 18 males (nine Black, nine White) in London, UK, who had recently seen their GP with urinary symptoms, erectile dysfunction, or haematuria. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews from a previous multi-methods study of primary care use by males with symptoms of possible prostate cancer were analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Symptoms were often interpreted by patients as unimportant. Most delays occurred due to the absence of reasons to seek help, which, in Black males, often stemmed from poor awareness of prostate cancer. This lack of awareness could have been a consequence of their reluctance to seek health information and discuss health issues with others in their social network. Friends and relatives played an important role in symptom appraisal and help seeking. CONCLUSION: Cognitive biases, cultural stigmas, and everyday interpersonal interactions should be important areas at which to target strategies seeking to reduce delays and improve early presentation in males with possible prostate cancer, particularly Black males.

Symptoms and signs of lung cancer prior to diagnosis: case-control study using electronic health records from ambulatory care within a large US-based tertiary care centre.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the USA. While most patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation, no studies have compared symptoms and physical examination signs at or prior to diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) in the USA. We aimed to identify symptoms and signs in patients prior to diagnosis in EHR data. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinics at a large tertiary care academic health centre in the USA. PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOMES: We studied 698 primary lung cancer cases in adults diagnosed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019, and 6841 controls matched by age, sex, smoking status and type of clinic. Coded and free-text data from the EHR were extracted from 2 years prior to diagnosis date for cases and index date for controls. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with lung cancer at time of diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months before the diagnosis/index dates. RESULTS: Eleven symptoms and signs recorded during the study period were associated with a significantly higher chance of being a lung cancer case in multivariable analyses. Of these, seven were significantly associated with lung cancer 6 months prior to diagnosis: haemoptysis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.3), cough (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), chest crackles or wheeze (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.1), bone pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), back pain (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2), weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8) and fatigue (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer appear to have symptoms and signs recorded in the EHR that distinguish them from similar matched patients in ambulatory care, often 6 months or more before diagnosis. These findings suggest opportunities to improve the diagnostic process for lung cancer.