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.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. METHODS: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7-14 days after the Cytosponge test. STUDY COHORT: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. RESULTS: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5-2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03-4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71-7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14-5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) has high mortality partly due to late diagnosis. Prevention is available but may be associated with adverse effects. A multifactorial risk model based on known genetic and epidemiological risk factors (RFs) for EOC can help identify women at higher risk who could benefit from targeted screening and prevention. METHODS: We developed a multifactorial EOC risk model for women of European ancestry incorporating the effects of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D and BRIP1, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) of arbitrary size, the effects of RFs and explicit family history (FH) using a synthetic model approach. The PRS, PV and RFs were assumed to act multiplicatively. RESULTS: Based on a currently available PRS for EOC that explains 5% of the EOC polygenic variance, the estimated lifetime risks under the multifactorial model in the general population vary from 0.5% to 4.6% for the first to 99th percentiles of the EOC risk distribution. The corresponding range for women with an affected first-degree relative is 1.9%-10.3%. Based on the combined risk distribution, 33% of RAD51D PV carriers are expected to have a lifetime EOC risk of less than 10%. RFs provided the widest distribution, followed by the PRS. In an independent partial model validation, absolute and relative 5-year risks were well calibrated in quintiles of predicted risk. CONCLUSION: This multifactorial risk model can facilitate stratification, in particular among women with FH of cancer and/or moderate-risk and high-risk PVs. The model is available via the CanRisk Tool (www.canrisk.org).

Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence.

BACKGROUND: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors. METHODS: BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous. RESULTS: BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.

The SYMPTOM-upper gastrointestinal study: A mixed methods study exploring symptom appraisal and help-seeking in Australian upper gastrointestinal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence on the development of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer, how patients decide to seek help and the factors impacting help-seeking. Our study, the first in Australia, aimed to explore symptom appraisal and diagnostic pathways in these patients. A secondary aim was to examine the potential to recruit cancer patients through a cancer quality registry. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pancreatic or oesophagogastric cancer were recruited through Monash University's Upper-Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry. Data collected through general practitioners (GP) and patient questionnaires included symptoms and their onset, whereas patient interviews focused on the patient's decision-making in seeking help from healthcare pracitioners. Data collection and analysis was informed by the Aarhus statement. Coding was inductive, and themes were mapped onto the Model of Pathways to Treatment. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and March 2020, 27 patient questionnaires and 13 phone interviews were completed. Prior to diagnosis, patients lacked awareness of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms, leading to the normalisation, dismissal and misattribution of the symptoms. Patients initially self-managed symptoms, but worsening of symptoms and jaundice triggered help-seeking. Competing priorities, beliefs about illnesses and difficulties accessing healthcare delayed help-seeking. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness of insidious pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms in patients and general practitioners may prompt more urgent investigations and lead to earlier diagnosis.

Diagnostic performance of a faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: an evaluation in the South West of England.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer in English primary care in 2017, underpinned by little primary care evidence. METHODS: All healthcare providers in the South West of England (population 4 million) participated in this evaluation. 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer had a FIT from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018. A threshold of 10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive test. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighteen (15.9%) patients tested positive; 458 (74.1%) had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. Forty-three were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 tested negative; 324 (9.9%) had an urgent referral within three months. Eight were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Positive predictive value was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1-9.3%). Negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5-99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4-93.0%), specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8-86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86-0.96). A threshold of 37 µg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care; a higher threshold may be appropriate in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.

Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 versus usual care to identify Barrett's oesophagus in a primary care setting: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus prevents progression to adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal diagnostic strategy for Barrett's oesophagus is unclear. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett's oesophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate whether offering this test to patients on medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux would increase the detection of Barrett's oesophagus compared with standard management. METHODS: This multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 109 socio-demographically diverse general practice clinics in England. Randomisation was done both at the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being combined. Patients were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older, had been taking acid-suppressants for symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux for more than 6 months, and had not undergone an endoscopy procedure within the past 5 years. General practice clinics were selected by the local clinical research network and invited to participate in the trial. For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the general practice clinics using a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence. After randomisation, participants received either standard management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (usual care group), in which participants only received an endoscopy if required by their general practitioner, or usual care plus an offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure, with a subsequent endoscopy if the procedure identified TFF3-positive cells (intervention group). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus at 12 months after enrolment, expressed as a rate per 1000 person-years, in all participants in the intervention group (regardless of whether they had accepted the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure) compared with all participants in the usual care group. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN68382401, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 113 general practice clinics were enrolled, but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation. Using an automated search of the electronic prescribing records of the remaining 109 clinics, we identified 13 657 eligible patients who were sent an introductory letter with 14 days to opt out. 13 514 of these patients were randomly assigned (per practice or at the individual patient level) to the usual care group (n=6531) or the intervention group (n=6983). Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the intervention group and 143 (2%) of 6531 participants in the usual care group, on further scrutiny, did not meet all eligibility criteria or withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 6834 participants in the intervention group, 2679 (39%) expressed an interest in undergoing the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of these, 1750 (65%) met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure. Most of these participants (1654 [95%]; median age 69 years) swallowed the Cytosponge successfully and produced a sample. 231 (3%) of 6834 participants had a positive Cytosponge-TFF3 result and were referred for an endoscopy. Patients who declined the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure and all participants in the usual care group only had an endoscopy if deemed necessary by their general practitioner. During an average of 12 months of follow-up, 140 (2%) of 6834 participants in the intervention group and 13 (<1%) of 6388 participants in the usual care group were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18·3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 14·8-21·8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10·6 [95% CI 6·0-18·8], p<0·0001). Nine (<1%) of 6834 participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (n=4) or stage I oesophago-gastric cancer (n=5) in the intervention group, whereas no participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or stage I gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the usual care group. Among 1654 participants in the intervention group who swallowed the Cytosponge device successfully, 221 (13%) underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3 and 131 (8%, corresponding to 59% of those having an endoscopy) were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus or cancer. One patient had a detachment of the Cytosponge from the thread requiring endoscopic removal, and the most common side-effect was a sore throat in 63 (4%) of 1654 participants. INTERPRETATION: In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux, the offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing results in improved detection of Barrett's oesophagus. Cytosponge-TFF3 testing could also lead to the diagnosis of treatable dysplasia and early cancer. This strategy will lead to additional endoscopies with some false positive results. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, the UK National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council.

Primary care use by men with symptoms of possible prostate cancer: A multi-method study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate primary care use by men with recent onset of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to identify differences in presentation and investigation that may explain ethnic inequality in prostate cancer outcomes. METHODS: This is a multi-method study of men presenting LUTS to primary care. Two hundred seventy-four men completed a self-administered questionnaire, and 23 participated in face-to-face interviews. Regression analyses investigated ethnic differences in (a) the period between symptom onset and first primary care presentation (patient interval) and (b) the interval between first primary care presentation and investigation with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE). Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Half (144, 53%) reported a solitary first symptom, although multiple first symptoms were also common, particularly in Asian and Black men. There was no difference between ethnicities in patient interval or time from presentation to investigation. However, Asian men were offered less PSA testing (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.92; p = 0.03). Qualitative data revealed ethnic differences in general practitioners' offer of DRE and PSA testing and highlighted limitations in doctor-patient communication and safety netting. CONCLUSION: Our study showed only small differences in primary care experiences, insufficient to explain ethnic inequalities in prostate cancer outcomes.

Incorporating a brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change into primary care: a multi-methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of cancers could be prevented if people lived healthier lifestyles. We have developed a theory-based brief intervention to share personalised cancer risk information and promote behaviour change within primary care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating this intervention into primary care consultations. METHOD: Patients eligible for an NHS Health Check or annual chronic disease review at five general practices were invited to participate in a non-randomised pilot study. In addition to the NHS Health Check or chronic disease review, those receiving the intervention were provided with their estimated risk of developing the most common preventable cancers alongside tailored behaviour change advice. Patients completed online questionnaires at baseline, immediately post-consultation and at 3-month follow-up. Consultations were audio/video recorded. Patients (n = 12) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 7) participated in post-intervention qualitative interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 62 patients took part. Thirty-four attended for an NHS Health Check plus the intervention; 7 for a standard NHS Health Check; 16 for a chronic disease review plus the intervention; and 5 for a standard chronic disease review. The mean time for delivery of the intervention was 9.6 min (SD 3) within NHS Health Checks and 9 min (SD 4) within chronic disease reviews. Fidelity of delivery of the intervention was high. Data from the questionnaires demonstrates potential improvements in health-related behaviours following the intervention. Patients receiving the intervention found the cancer risk information and lifestyle advice understandable, useful and motivating. HCPs felt that the intervention fitted well within NHS Health Checks and facilitated conversations around behaviour change. Integrating the intervention within chronic disease reviews was more challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a risk-based intervention to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention into primary care consultations is feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCPs. A randomised trial is now needed to assess the effect on health behaviours. When designing that trial, and other prevention activities within primary care, it is necessary to consider challenges around patient recruitment, the HCP contact time needed for delivery of interventions, and how best to integrate discussions about disease risk within routine care.

Do ethnic patients report longer lung cancer intervals than Anglo-Australian patients?: Findings from a prospective, observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer patients from ethnic minorities have poorer outcomes than their Caucasian counterparts. We compared lung cancer intervals between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and Anglo-Australian patients to identify ethnic disparities. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study comprising a patient survey and reviews of patients' hospital and general practice records. Across three states, 577 (407 Anglo-Australian and 170 CALD) patients were recruited and their hospital records reviewed. The survey was returned by 189 (135 Anglo-Australian and 54 CALD) patients, and a review was completed by general practitioners (GPs) of 99 (76 Anglo-Australian and 23 CALD) patients. Survival and Cox regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: CALD patients had longer hospital diagnostic interval [median 30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26-34] than Anglo-Australian patients (median 17, 95% CI 14-20), p = 0.005, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60). This difference persisted after relevant factors were taken into consideration, adjusted HR = 1.26 (95% CI 1.03-1.54, p = 0.022). CALD patients also reported longer prehospital intervals; however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Target interventions need to be developed to address ethnic disparity in hospital diagnostic interval.

Artificial Intelligence Techniques That May Be Applied to Primary Care Data to Facilitate Earlier Diagnosis of Cancer: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: More than 17 million people worldwide, including 360,000 people in the United Kingdom, were diagnosed with cancer in 2018. Cancer prognosis and disease burden are highly dependent on the disease stage at diagnosis. Most people diagnosed with cancer first present in primary care settings, where improved assessment of the (often vague) presenting symptoms of cancer could lead to earlier detection and improved outcomes for patients. There is accumulating evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) can assist clinicians in making better clinical decisions in some areas of health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review AI techniques that may facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer and could be applied to primary care electronic health record (EHR) data. The quality of the evidence, the phase of development the AI techniques have reached, the gaps that exist in the evidence, and the potential for use in primary care were evaluated. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases from January 01, 2000, to June 11, 2019, and included all studies providing evidence for the accuracy or effectiveness of applying AI techniques for the early detection of cancer, which may be applicable to primary care EHRs. We included all study designs in all settings and languages. These searches were extended through a scoping review of AI-based commercial technologies. The main outcomes assessed were measures of diagnostic accuracy for cancer. RESULTS: We identified 10,456 studies; 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing the data of 3,862,910 patients. A total of 13 studies described the initial development and testing of AI algorithms, and 3 studies described the validation of an AI algorithm in independent data sets. One study was based on prospectively collected data; only 3 studies were based on primary care data. We found no data on implementation barriers or cost-effectiveness. Risk of bias assessment highlighted a wide range of study quality. The additional scoping review of commercial AI technologies identified 21 technologies, only 1 meeting our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the heterogeneity of AI modalities, data set characteristics, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: AI techniques have been applied to EHR-type data to facilitate early diagnosis of cancer, but their use in primary care settings is still at an early stage of maturity. Further evidence is needed on their performance using primary care data, implementation barriers, and cost-effectiveness before widespread adoption into routine primary care clinical practice can be recommended.

The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The serum biomarker cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is widely used as an investigation for possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women presenting to primary care. However, its diagnostic performance in this setting is unknown. We evaluated the performance of CA125 in primary care for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancers. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We studied women in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a CA125 test performed between 1 May 2011-31 December 2014. Ovarian and non-ovarian cancers diagnosed in the year following CA125 testing were identified from the cancer registry. Women were categorized by age: <50 years and ≥50 years. Conventional measures of test diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value, were calculated for the standard CA125 cut-off (≥35 U/ml). The probability of a woman having cancer at each CA125 level between 1-1,000 U/ml was estimated using logistic regression. Cancer probability was also estimated on the basis of CA125 level and age in years using logistic regression. We identified CA125 levels equating to a 3% estimated cancer probability: the "risk threshold" at which the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advocates urgent specialist cancer investigation. A total of 50,780 women underwent CA125 testing; 456 (0.9%) were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,321 (2.6%) with non-ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml, 3.4% aged <50 years and 15.2% aged ≥50 years had ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml who were aged ≥50 years and who did not have ovarian cancer, 20.4% were diagnosed with a non-ovarian cancer. A CA125 value of 53 U/ml equated to a 3% probability of ovarian cancer overall. This varied by age, with a value of 104 U/ml in 40-year-old women and 32 U/ml in 70-year-old women equating to a 3% probability. The main limitations of our study were that we were unable to determine why CA125 tests were performed and that our findings are based solely on UK primary care data, so caution is need in extrapolating them to other healthcare settings. CONCLUSIONS: CA125 is a useful test for ovarian cancer detection in primary care, particularly in women ≥50 years old. Clinicians should also consider non-ovarian cancers in women with high CA125 levels, especially if ovarian cancer has been excluded, in order to prevent diagnostic delay. Our results enable clinicians and patients to determine the estimated probability of ovarian cancer and all cancers at any CA125 level and age, which can be used to guide individual decisions on the need for further investigation or referral.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: review of international use and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recently, faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have been introduced for investigation of primary care patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC), but recommendations vary across the world. This systematic review of clinical practice guidelines aimed to determine how FITs are used in symptomatic primary care patients and the underpinning evidence for these guidelines. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and TRIP databases were systematically searched, from 1 November 2008 to 1 November 2018 for guidelines on the assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of CRC. Known guideline databases, websites and references of related literature were searched. The following questions were addressed: (i) which countries use FIT for symptomatic primary care patients; (ii) in which populations is FIT used; (iii) what is the cut-off level used for haemoglobin in the faeces (FIT) and (iv) on what evidence are FIT recommendations based. RESULTS: The search yielded 2433 publications; 25 covered initial diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms of CRC in 15 countries (Asia, n = 1; Europe, n = 13; Oceania, n = 4; North America, n = 5; and South America, n = 2). In three countries (Australia, Spain and the UK), FIT was recommended for patients with abdominal symptoms, unexplained weight loss, change in bowel habit or anaemia despite a low level of evidence in the symptomatic primary care patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Few countries recommend FITs in symptomatic patients in primary care either because of limited evidence or because symptomatic patients are directly referred to secondary care without triage. These results demonstrate a clear need for research on FIT in the symptomatic primary care population.

Women's appraisal, interpretation and help-seeking for possible symptoms of breast and cervical cancer in South Africa: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and cervical cancer the leading cause of cancer mortality. Most cancers are diagnosed at a late-stage and following symptomatic presentation. The overall purpose of the study was to inform interventions aimed at improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with women with potential breast or cervical cancer symptoms from urban and rural South Africa. Participants were recruited from a community-based cross-sectional study on breast and cervical cancer awareness. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighteen women were interviewed (10 urban, 8 rural): the median age was 34.5 years (range 22-58). Most were unemployed, and five were HIV positive. Themes included impact and attribution of bodily changes; influence of social networks and health messaging in help-seeking; management of symptoms and help-seeking barriers. Breast changes were often attributed to manual activities or possible cancer. Women were often unsure how to interpret vaginal symptoms, attributing them to HIV, hormonal contraceptives, or partner infidelity. Concerns about cancer were based on health information from the radio, social networks, or from primary care providers. Prompt care seeking was triggered by impact of symptoms on personal lives. Rural women, especially with possible symptoms of cervical cancer, experienced challenges during help-seeking including judgmental attitudes of clinic staff. Most participants were skeptical of traditional medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study exploring interpretation of possible breast and cervical cancer symptoms at a community level in South Africa. The process of interpreting bodily changes, symptom attribution and help-seeking is complex and influenced by women's everyday life experiences. Timely diagnosis interventions should not only include cancer symptom awareness but also address individual, structural and health systems related barriers to care.

Using an electronic self-completion tool to identify patients at increased risk of melanoma in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Some international guidelines recommend a risk-based approach to screening for melanoma, but few suggest how to account for multiple risk factors or how to implement risk-based screening in practice. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of identifying patients at increased risk of melanoma in Australian general practice using a self-completed risk assessment tool. Stratification of risk was based on the validated Williams melanoma risk prediction model. METHODS: Patients and companions aged 18 or older in Australian general practices were approached in the waiting room and invited to enter information about their melanoma risk factors into the tool using an iPad. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of people willing to participate from those invited and feasibility by the number of people able to complete the tool unaided. Risk of developing melanoma was stratified into four risk categories using the Williams model. RESULTS: 1535 (90.4%) participants were recruited from two general practices. Only 200 participants (13%) needed assistance to complete the tool. The mean risk score for participants was 15.2 (±SD 9.8). The Williams model estimated between 5% and 19% of the sample were at increased risk accounting for an estimated 30% to 60% of future incident melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: A risk-stratified tool using the Williams model was acceptable and feasible for patients to self-complete in general practice clinics. This could be an effective way to identify people in primary care for implementing risk-based targeted melanoma screening and prevention.

Incidence of second and higher order smoking-related primary cancers following lung cancer: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer 5-year survival has doubled over 15 years. Although the risk of second primary cancer is recognised, quantification over time is lacking. We describe the incidence of second and higher order smoking-related primary cancers in lung cancer survivors, identifying high-incidence groups and how incidence changes over time from first diagnosis. METHODS: Data on smoking-related primary cancers (lung, laryngeal, head and neck, oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and bladder) diagnosed in England between 2000 and 2014 were obtained from Public Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. We calculated absolute incidence rates and standardised incidence rate ratios, both overall and for various subgroups of second primary cancer for up to 10 years from the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Elevated incidence of smoking-related second primary cancer persists for at least 10 years from first lung cancer diagnosis with those aged 50 and 79 at first diagnosis at particularly high risk. The most frequent type of second malignancy was lung cancer although the highest standardised incidence rate ratios were for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (2.4) and laryngeal cancers (2.8) and consistently higher in women than in men. Over the last decade, the incidence of second primary lung cancer has doubled. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer survivors have increased the incidence of subsequent lung, laryngeal, head and neck and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma for at least a decade from the first diagnosis. Consideration should be given to increasing routine follow-up from 5 years to 10 years for those at highest risk, alongside surveillance for other smoking-related cancers.