The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. METHODS: Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. RESULTS: People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

Short-term psychosocial outcomes of adding a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate psychological, social, and financial outcomes amongst individuals undergoing a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. A total of 500 participants within the YKST, comprising all who had an abnormal CT scan and a random sample of one-third of those with a normal scan between 14/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 were sent a questionnaire at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels scale (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analysed using regression adjusting for participant age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 380 (76%) participants returned questionnaires at 3 months and 328 (66%) at 6 months. There was no difference in any outcomes between participants with a normal scan and those with abnormal scans requiring no further action. Individuals requiring initial further investigations or referral had higher scores on the negative PCQ than those with normal scans at 3 months (standardised mean difference 0.28 sd, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.54; P = 0.044). The difference was greater in those with anxiety or depression at baseline. No differences were seen at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Screening for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies using abdominal CT alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening is unlikely to cause significant lasting psychosocial or financial harm to participants with incidental findings.

The National Health Service urgent cancer referral pathway for suspected urological cancers: early economic evaluation of a risk prediction test.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, the number of patients urgently referred for suspected cancer is increasing, and providers are struggling to cope with demand. We explore the potential cost-effectiveness of a new risk prediction test - the PinPoint test - to triage and prioritize patients urgently referred with suspected urological cancers. METHODS: Two simulation models were developed to reflect the diagnostic pathways for patients with (i) suspected prostate cancer, and (ii) bladder or kidney cancer, comparing the PinPoint test to current practice. An early economic analysis was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The primary outcomes were the percentage of individuals seen within 2 weeks and health care costs. An exploratory analysis was conducted to understand the potential impact of the Pinpoint test on quality-adjusted life years gained. RESULTS: Across both models and applications, the PinPoint test led to more individuals with urological cancer being seen within 2 weeks. Using PinPoint only to prioritize patients led to increased costs overall, whereas using PinPoint to both triage and prioritize patients led to cost savings. The estimated impact on life years gained/lost was very small and highly uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Using the PinPoint test to prioritize urgent referrals meant that more individuals with urological cancer were seen within 2 weeks, but at additional cost to the NHS. If used as a triage and prioritization tool, the PinPoint test shortens wait times for referred individuals and is cost saving. More data on the impact of short-term delays to diagnosis on health-related quality of life is needed.

Diagnosis and treatment outcomes from prebronchodilator spirometry performed alongside lung cancer screening in a Lung Health Check programme.

INTRODUCTION: Incorporating spirometry into low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer may help identify people with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the downstream impacts are not well described. METHODS: Participants attending a Lung Health Check (LHC) as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial were offered spirometry alongside LDCT screening. Results were communicated to the general practitioner (GP), and those with unexplained symptomatic airflow obstruction (AO) fulfilling agreed criteria were referred to the Leeds Community Respiratory Team (CRT) for assessment and treatment. Primary care records were reviewed to determine changes to diagnostic coding and pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Of 2391 LHC participants undergoing prebronchodilator spirometry, 201 (8.4%) fulfilled the CRT referral criteria of which 151 were invited for further assessment. Ninety seven participants were subsequently reviewed by the CRT, 46 declined assessment and 8 had already been seen by their GP at the time of CRT contact. Overall 70 participants had postbronchodilator spirometry checked, of whom 20 (29%) did not have AO. Considering the whole cohort referred to the CRT (but excluding those without AO postbronchodilation), 59 had a new GP COPD code, 56 commenced new pharmacotherapy and 5 were underwent pulmonary rehabilitation (comprising 2.5%, 2.3% and 0.2% of the 2391 participants undergoing LHC spirometry). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering spirometry alongside lung cancer screening may facilitate earlier diagnosis of COPD. However, this study highlights the importance of confirming AO by postbronchodilator spirometry prior to diagnosing and treating patients with COPD and illustrates some downstream challenges in acting on spirometry collected during an LHC.

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner. RESULTS: Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

An exploratory assessment of the impact of a novel risk assessment test on breast cancer clinic waiting times and workflow: a discrete event simulation model.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinics across the UK have long been struggling to cope with high demand. Novel risk prediction tools - such as the PinPoint test - could help to reduce unnecessary clinic referrals. Using early data on the expected accuracy of the test, we explore the potential impact of PinPoint on: (a) the percentage of patients meeting the two-week referral target, and (b) the number of clinic 'overspill' appointments generated (i.e. patients having to return to the clinic to complete their required investigations). METHODS: A simulation model was built to reflect the annual flow of patients through a single UK clinic. Due to current uncertainty around the exact impact of PinPoint testing on standard care, two primary scenarios were assessed. Scenario 1 assumed complete GP adherence to testing, with only non-referred cancerous cases returning for delayed referral. Scenario 2 assumed GPs would overrule 20% of low-risk results, and that 10% of non-referred non-cancerous cases would also return for delayed referral. A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key uncertainties on the model results. Service reconfiguration scenarios, removing individual weekly clinics from the clinic schedule, were also explored. RESULTS: Under standard care, 66.3% (95% CI: 66.0 to 66.5) of patients met the referral target, with 1,685 (1,648 to 1,722) overspill appointments. Under both PinPoint scenarios, > 98% of patients met the referral target, with overspill appointments reduced to between 727 (707 to 746) [Scenario 1] and 886 (861 to 911) [Scenario 2]. The reduced clinic demand was sufficient to allow removal of one weekly low-capacity clinic [N = 10], and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings from this early analysis indicate that risk prediction tools could have the potential to alleviate pressure on cancer clinics, and are expected to have increased utility in the wake of heightened pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is required to validate these findings with real world evidence; evaluate the broader clinical and economic impact of the test; and to determine outcomes and risks for patients deemed to be low-risk on the PinPoint test and therefore not initially referred.

COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review.

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

What factors affect patients' ability to access healthcare? An overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This overview aims to synthesise global evidence on factors affecting healthcare access, and variations across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) vs. high-income countries (HICs); to develop understanding of where barriers to healthcare access lie, and in what context, to inform tailored policies aimed at improving access to healthcare for all who need it. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews guided by a published protocol was conducted. Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Systematic Reviews databases were searched for published articles. Additional searches were conducted on the Gates Foundation, WHO and World Bank websites. Study characteristics and findings (barriers and facilitators to healthcare access) were documented and summarised. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using an adapted version of the AMSTAR 2 tool. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were included, 23 presenting findings from LMICs and 35 presenting findings from HICs. While many barriers to healthcare access occur in HICs as well as LMICs, the way they are experienced is quite different. In HICs, there is a much greater emphasis on patient experience; as compared to the physical absence of care in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: As countries move towards universal healthcare access, evaluation methods that account for health system and wider cultural factors that impact capacity to provide care, healthcare finance systems and the socio-cultural environment of the setting are required. Consequently, methods employed in HICs may not be appropriate in LMICs due to the stark differences in these areas.

Integrating Early Economic Evaluation into Target Product Profile development for medical tests: advantages and potential applications.

Target Product Profiles (TPPs) outline the characteristics that new health technologies require to address an unmet clinical need. To date, published TPPs for medical tests have focused on infectious diseases, mostly in the context of low- and middle-income countries. Recently, there have been calls for a broader use of TPPs as a mechanism to ensure that diagnostic innovation is aligned with clinical needs, yet the methodology underpinning TPP development remains suboptimal. Here, we propose that early economic evaluation (EEE) should be integrated within the TPP methodology to create a more rigorous framework for the development of "fit-for-purpose" tests. We discuss the potential benefits that EEE could bring to the core activities underpinning TPP development-scoping, drafting, consensus building, and updating-and argue that using EEE to help inform TPPs provides a more objective, evidence-based, and transparent approach to defining test specifications.

Target Product Profiles for medical tests: a systematic review of current methods.

BACKGROUND: A Target Product Profile (TPP) outlines the necessary characteristics of an innovative product to address an unmet clinical need. TPPs could be used to better guide manufacturers in the development of 'fit for purpose' tests, thus increasing the likelihood that novel tests will progress from bench to bedside. However, there is currently no guidance on how to produce a TPP specifically for medical tests. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to summarise the methods currently used to develop TPPs for medical tests, the sources used to inform these recommendations and the test characteristics for which targets are made. Database and website searches were conducted in November 2018. TPPs written in English for any medical test were included. Based on an existing framework, test characteristics were clustered into commonly recognised themes. RESULTS: Forty-four TPPs were identified, all of which focused on diagnostic tests for infectious diseases. Three core decision-making phases for developing TPPs were identified: scoping, drafting and consensus-building. Consultations with experts and the literature mostly informed the scoping and drafting of TPPs. All TPPs provided information on unmet clinical need and desirable analytical performance, and the majority specified clinical validity characteristics. Few TPPs described specifications for clinical utility, and none included cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a commonly used framework that could be beneficial for anyone interested in drafting a TPP for a medical test. Currently, key outcomes such as utility and cost-effectiveness are largely overlooked within TPPs though and we foresee this as an area for further improvement.

At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites. RESULTS: Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.

Development and validation of a model to predict outcomes of colon cancer surveillance.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials suggest that intensive surveillance of colon cancer (CC) survivors to detect recurrence increases curative-intent treatment, although any survival benefit of surveillance as currently practiced appears modest. Realizing the potential of surveillance will require tools for identifying patients likely to benefit and for optimizing testing regimens. We describe and validate a model for predicting outcomes for any schedule of surveillance in CC survivors with specified age and cancer stage. METHODS: A Markov process parameterized based on individual-level clinical trial data generates natural history events for simulated patients. A utilization submodel simulates surveillance and diagnostic testing. We validate the model against outcomes from the follow-up after colorectal surgery (FACS) trial. RESULTS: Prevalidation sensitivity analysis showed no parameter influencing curative-intent treatment by > 5.0% or overall five-year survival (OS5) by > 1.5%. In validation, the proportion of recurring subjects predicted to receive curative-intent treatment fell within FACS 95% CI for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-intensive, computed tomography (CT)-intensive, and combined CEA+CT regimens, but not for a minimum surveillance regimen, where the model overestimated recurrence and curative treatment. The observed OS5 fell within 95% prediction intervals for all regimens. CONCLUSION: The model performed well in predicting curative surgery for three of four FACS arms. It performed well in predicting OS5 for all arms.

Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: For medical tests that have a central role in clinical decision-making, current guidelines advocate outcome-based analytical performance specifications. Given that empirical (clinical trial-style) analyses are often impractical or unfeasible in this context, the ability to set such specifications is expected to rely on indirect studies to calculate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream clinical, operational, and economic outcomes. Currently, however, a lack of awareness and guidance concerning available alternative indirect methods is limiting the production of outcome-based specifications. Therefore, our aim was to review available indirect methods and present an analytical framework to inform future outcome-based performance goals. CONTENT: A methodology review consisting of database searches and extensive citation tracking was conducted to identify studies using indirect methods to incorporate or evaluate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream outcomes (including clinical accuracy, clinical utility, and/or costs). Eighty-two studies were identified, most of which evaluated the impact of imprecision and/or bias on clinical accuracy. A common analytical framework underpinning the various methods was identified, consisting of 3 key steps: (a) calculation of "true" test values; (b) calculation of measured test values (incorporating uncertainty); and (c) calculation of the impact of discrepancies between (a) and (b) on specified outcomes. A summary of the methods adopted is provided, and key considerations are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Various approaches are available for conducting indirect assessments to inform outcome-based performance specifications. This study provides an overview of methods and key considerations to inform future studies and research in this area.

Point-of-care creatinine testing for kidney function measurement prior to contrast-enhanced diagnostic imaging: evaluation of the performance of three systems for clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) can occur rarely in patients exposed to iodinated contrast and result in contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI). A key risk factor is the presence of preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD); therefore, it is important to assess patient risk and obtain kidney function measurement prior to administration. Point-of-care (PoC) testing provides an alternative strategy but there remains uncertainty, with respect to diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. METHODS: A device study compared three PoC analysers (Nova StatSensor, Abbott i-STAT and Radiometer ABL800 FLEX) with a reference laboratory standard (Roche Cobas 8000 series, enzymatic creatinine). Three hundred adult patients attending a UK hospital phlebotomy department were recruited to have additional blood samples for analysis on the PoC devices. RESULTS: The ABL800 FLEX had the strongest concordance with laboratory measured serum creatinine (mean bias=-0.86, 95% limits of agreement=-9.6 to 7.9) followed by the i-STAT (average bias=3.88, 95% limits of agreement=-8.8 to 16.6) and StatSensor (average bias=3.56, 95% limits of agreement=-27.7 to 34.8). In risk classification, the ABL800 FLEX and i-STAT identified all patients with an eGFR≤30, whereas the StatSensor resulted in a small number of missed high-risk cases (n=4/13) and also operated outside of the established performance goals. CONCLUSIONS: The screening of patients at risk of CI-AKI may be feasible with PoC technology. However, in this study, it was identified that the analyser concordance with the laboratory reference varies. It is proposed that further research exploring PoC implementation in imaging department pathways is needed.

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological review of health technology assessments.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. METHODS: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. RESULTS: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests.

Gradual Versus Abrupt Smoking Cessation: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most smoking cessation guidelines advise quitting abruptly. However, many quit attempts involve gradual cessation. If gradual cessation is as successful, smokers can be advised to quit either way. OBJECTIVE: To examine the success of quitting smoking by gradual compared with abrupt quitting. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. (International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN22526020). SETTING: Primary care clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: 697 adult smokers with tobacco addiction. INTERVENTION: Participants quit smoking abruptly or reduced smoking gradually by 75% in the 2 weeks before quitting. Both groups received behavioral support from nurses and used nicotine replacement before and after quit day. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was prolonged validated abstinence from smoking 4 weeks after quit day. The secondary outcome was prolonged, validated, 6-month abstinence. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, 39.2% (95% CI, 34.0% to 44.4%) of the participants in the gradual-cessation group were abstinent compared with 49.0% (CI, 43.8% to 54.2%) in the abrupt-cessation group (relative risk, 0.80 [CI, 0.66 to 0.93]). At 6 months, 15.5% (CI, 12.0% to 19.7%) of the participants in the gradual-cessation group were abstinent compared with 22.0% (CI, 18.0% to 26.6%) in the abrupt-cessation group (relative risk, 0.71 [CI, 0.46 to 0.91]). Participants who preferred gradual cessation were significantly less likely to be abstinent at 4 weeks than those who preferred abrupt cessation (38.3% vs 52.2%; P = 0.007). LIMITATIONS: Blinding was impossible. Most participants were white. CONCLUSION: Quitting smoking abruptly is more likely to lead to lasting abstinence than cutting down first, even for smokers who initially prefer to quit by gradual reduction. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: British Heart Foundation.

Site and Stage of Colorectal Cancer Influence the Likelihood and Distribution of Disease Recurrence and Postrecurrence Survival: Data From the FACS Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns of recurrence and postrecurrence survival in a large cohort of accurately staged patients with Dukes' A-C colorectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Recurrence remains a frequent cause of mortality after the treatment of colorectal cancer with curative intent. Understanding the likelihood and site of recurrence informs adjuvant treatment and follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of data from the FACS (follow-up after colorectal cancer surgery) trial after a median 4.4 years of follow-up; postrecurrence survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 94% of patients; 189 (17%) patients had experienced recurrence. Incidence of recurrence varied according to the site of the primary (right colon: 51/379, 14%; left colon: 68/421, 16%; rectum: 70/332, 21%; P = 0.023) and initial stage (Dukes' A: 26/249, 10%; Dukes' B: 81/537, 15%; Dukes' C: 82/346, 24%; P < 0.0001). Pulmonary recurrence was most frequently associated with rectal tumors, and multisite/other recurrence with right-sided colonic tumors. Recurrences from lower-stage tumors were more likely to be treatable with curative intent (Dukes' A: 13/26, 50%; Dukes' B: 32/81, 40%; Dukes' C: 20/82, 24%; P = 0.03). Those with rectal tumors benefited most from follow-up (proportion with treatable recurrence: rectum 30/332, 9%; left colon 23/421, 6%; right colon 12/379, 3%; P = 0.003). Both initial stage (log rank P = 0.005) and site of primary (log rank P = 0.01) influenced postrecurrence survival. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood and site of recurrence, and survival, are influenced by the site and stage of the primary tumor. Those with rectal cancers benefited most from follow-up.ISRCTN 41458548.

Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12-30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. RESULTS: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8-82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6-45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02024282 (registered on 14th September 2012).

Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To explore ongoing symptoms, unmet needs, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and overall health status in survivors of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An invitation to participate in a postal questionnaire survey was sent to 546 men, diagnosed with prostate cancer 9-24 months previously at two UK cancer centres. The study group comprised men who had been subject to a range of treatments: surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and active surveillance. The questionnaire included measures of prostate-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite 26-item version, EPIC-26); unmet needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey 34-item version, SCNS-SF34); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), self-efficacy (modified Self-efficacy Scale), health status (EuroQol 5D, EQ-5D) and satisfaction with care (questions developed for this study). A single reminder was sent to non-responders after 3 weeks. Data were analysed by age, co-morbidities, and treatment group. RESULTS: In all, 316 men completed questionnaires (64.1% response rate). Overall satisfaction with follow-up care was high, but was lower for psychosocial than physical aspects of care. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning was reported as a moderate/big problem in the last month for 15.2% (n = 48), 5.1% (n = 16), and 36.5% (n = 105) men, respectively. The most commonly reported moderate/high unmet needs related to changes in sexual feelings/relationships, managing fear of recurrence/uncertainty, and concerns about the worries of significant others. It was found that 17% of men (51/307) reported potentially moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety and 10.2% (32/308) reported moderate-to-severe levels of depression. The presence of problematic side-effects was associated with higher psychological morbidity, poorer self-efficacy, greater unmet needs, and poorer overall health status. CONCLUSION: While some men report relatively few problems after prostate cancer treatment, this study highlights important physical and psycho-social issues for a significant minority of survivors of prostate cancer. Strategies for identifying those men with on-going problems, alongside new interventions and models of care, tailored to individual needs, are needed to improve quality of life.