Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16-90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843). FINDINGS: Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of -13·9% [-20·2 to -7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of -3·6% [-9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of -4·3% [-11·0 to -2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of -1·6% [-9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of -2·2% [-5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1%, 95% CI -8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Heath Research.

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.

Abdominal Noncontrast Computed Tomography Scanning to Screen for Kidney Cancer and Other Abdominal Pathology Within Community-based Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: Results of the Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) assessed the feasibility of adding abdominal noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) to lung cancer screening to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic study offered abdominal NCCT to 55-80-yr-old ever-smokers attending a UK randomised lung cancer screening trial (May 2021 to October 2022). The exclusion criteria were dementia, frailty, previous kidney/lung cancer, and computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and thorax within previous 6 and 12 mo, respectively. Six-month follow-up was undertaken. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 4438 people attended lung screening, of whom 4309 (97%) were eligible for and 4019 (93%) accepted abdominal NCCT. Only 3.9% respondents regretted participating. The additional time to conduct the YKST processes was 13.3 min. Of the participants, 2586 (64%) had a normal abdominal NCCT, whilst 787 (20%) required an abdominal NCCT imaging review but no further action and 611 (15%) required further evaluation (investigations and/or clinic). Of the participants, 211 (5.3%) had a new serious finding, including 25 (0.62%) with a renal mass/complex cyst, of whom ten (0.25%) had histologically proven kidney cancer; ten (0.25%) with other cancers; and 60 (1.5%) with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Twenty-five (0.62%) participants had treatment with curative intent. Of the participants, 1017 (25%) had nonserious findings, most commonly benign renal cysts (727 [18%]), whereas only 259 (6.4%) had nonserious findings requiring further tests. The number needed to screen to detect one serious abdominal finding was 18; it was 93 to detect one suspicious renal lesion and 402 to detect one histologically confirmed renal cancer. Limitations of the cohort were fixed age range and being prior lung cancer screening attendees. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this first prospective risk-stratified screening study of abdominal NCCT offered alongside CT thorax, uptake and participant satisfaction were high. The prevalence of serious findings, cancers, and AAAs, is in the range of established screening programmes such as bowel cancer. Longer-term outcomes and cost effectiveness should now be evaluated.

Symptom-triggered testing detects early stage and low volume resectable advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Symptom-triggered testing for ovarian cancer was introduced to the UK whereby symptomatic women undergo an ultrasound scan and serum CA125, and are referred to hospital within 2 weeks if these are abnormal. The potential value of symptom-triggered testing in the detection of early-stage disease or low tumor burden remains unclear in women with high grade serous ovarian cancer. In this descriptive study, we report on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, disease distribution, and complete cytoreduction rates in women presenting via the fast-track pathway and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the dataset from Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS), a single-arm prospective diagnostic test accuracy study recruiting from 24 hospitals in the UK. The aim of ROCkeTS is to validate risk prediction models in symptomatic women. We undertook an opportunistic analysis for women recruited between June 2015 to July 2022 and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway. Women presenting with symptoms suspicious for ovarian cancer receive a CA125 blood test and an ultrasound scan if the CA125 level is abnormal. If either of these is abnormal, women are referred to secondary care within 2 weeks. Histology details were available on all women who underwent surgery or biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. Women who did not undergo surgery or biopsy at 3 months were followed up for 12 months as per the national guidelines in the UK. In this descriptive study, we report on patient demographics (age and menopausal status), WHO performance status, FIGO stage at diagnosis, disease distribution (low/pelvic confined, moderate/extending to mid-abdomen, high/extending to upper abdomen) and complete cytoreduction rates in women who underwent surgery. RESULTS: Of 1741 participants recruited via the fast-track pathway, 119 (6.8%) were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. The median age was 63 years (range 32-89). Of these, 112 (94.1%) patients had a performance status of 0 and 1, 30 (25.2%) were diagnosed with stages I/II, and the disease distribution was low-to-moderate in 77 (64.7%). Complete and optimal cytoreduction were achieved in 73 (61.3%) and 18 (15.1%). The extent of disease was low in 43 of 119 (36.1%), moderate in 34 of 119 (28.6%), high in 32 of 119 (26.9%), and not available in 10 of 119 (8.4%). Nearly two thirds, that is 78 of 119 (65.5%) women with high grade serous ovarian cancer, underwent primary debulking surgery, 36 of 119 (30.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, and 5 of 119 (4.2%) women did not undergo surgery. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that one in four women identified with high grade serous ovarian cancer through the fast-track pathway following symptom-triggered testing was diagnosed with early-stage disease. Symptom-triggered testing may help identify women with a low disease burden, potentially contributing to high complete cytoreduction rates.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: The ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in women with breast cancer is common and associated with medication side-effects and distress. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention (ACTION) to enhance medication decision-making and quality of life (QoL). We undertook a pilot trial of ACTION to inform the feasibility of a phase III trial, and to examine intervention acceptability. METHODS: This was a multi-site, exploratory, two-arm, individually randomised external pilot trial. Women with early breast cancer prescribed AET were randomised (1:1) to receive usual care (UC) or UC + ACTION. The ACTION intervention comprised a remotely delivered one-to-one ACT session followed by three group sessions delivered by clinical psychologists, alongside a website containing ideas for the self-management of side effects. RESULTS: Of the 480 women screened for eligibility, 260 (54.2%) were approached and 79 (30.4%) randomised. 71 (89.9%) women provided data at 3-month and 70 (88.6%) at 6-month 40 women were randomised to receive UC + ACTION and 32 (80.0%) completed the intervention. Most (75.0%) accessed the website at least once. ACTION was acceptable to participants (Borkovec & Nau Scale: mean = 7.8 [SD = 2.7] out of 10). Signals of effectiveness in favour of the UC + ACTION arm were observed for medication adherence (Adherence Starts with Knowledge questionnaire-12), QoL (work and social adjustment scale), health-related QoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy[FACT] general and FACT-ES-19/23), distress (generalised anxiety disorder -7, patient health questionnaire-9) and psychological flexibility (valuing questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: The ACTION intervention was acceptable to patients. There were promising signals for effectiveness on primary and secondary outcomes. A phase III randomised controlled trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12027752.

Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer mortality is worse than in many other high-income countries, partly because of diagnostic delays in primary care. AIM: To understand beliefs and behaviours of GPs, and systems of general practice teams, to inform the Think Cancer! intervention development. DESIGN AND SETTING: An embedded qualitative study guided by behaviour change models (COM-B [Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour] and theoretical domains framework [TDF]) in primary care in Wales, UK. METHOD: Twenty qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs were undertaken and four face-to-face focus groups held with practice teams. Framework analysis was used and results were mapped to multiple, overlapping components of COM-B and TDF. RESULTS: Three themes illustrate complex, multilevel referral considerations facing GPs and practice teams; external influences and constraints; and the role of practice systems and culture. Tensions emerged between individual considerations of GPs (Capability and Motivation) and context-dependent external pressures (Opportunity). Detecting cancer was guided not only by external requirements, but also by motivational factors GPs described as part of their cancer diagnostics process. External influences on the diagnosis process often resulted from the primary-secondary care interface and social pressures. GPs adapted their behaviour to deal with this disconnect. Positive practice culture and supportive practice-based systems ameliorated these tensions and complexity. CONCLUSION: By exploring individual GP behaviours together with practice systems and culture we contribute new understanding about how cancer diagnosis operates in primary care and how delays can be improved. We highlight commonly overlooked dynamics and tensions that are experienced by GPs as a tension between individual decision making (Capability and Motivation) and external considerations, such as pressures in secondary care (Opportunity).

'ThinkCancer!': randomised feasibility trial of a novel practice-based early cancer diagnosis intervention.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer deaths remain high; primary care is key for earlier cancer diagnosis as half of avoidable delays occur here. Improvement is possible through lower referral thresholds, better guideline adherence, and better safety-netting systems. Few interventions target whole practice teams. We developed a novel whole-practice team intervention to address this. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, complex behavioural intervention, 'ThinkCancer!', for assessment in a subsequent Phase III trial. DESIGN & SETTING: Pragmatic, superiority pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis in Welsh general practices. METHOD: Clinical outcome data were collected from practices (the unit of randomisation). Practice characteristics and cancer safety-netting systems were assessed. Individual practice staff completed evaluation and feedback forms and qualitative interviews. The intervention was adapted and refined. RESULTS: Trial recruitment and workshop deliveries took place between March 2020 and May 2021. Trial progression criteria for recruitment, intervention fidelity, and routine data collection were met. Staff-level fidelity, retention, and individual level data collection processes were reviewed and amended. Interviews highlighted positive participant views on all aspects of the intervention. All practices set out to liberalise referral thresholds appropriately, implement guidelines, and address safety-netting plans in detail. CONCLUSION: 'ThinkCancer!' appears feasible and acceptable. The new iteration of the workshops was completed and the Phase III trial has been funded to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this novel professional behaviour change intervention. Delivery at scale to multiple practices will likely improve fidelity and reach.

Understanding GPs' referral decisions for younger patients with symptoms of cancer: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence increases with age, so some clinical guidelines include patient age as one of the criteria used to decide whether a patient should be referred through the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway. Little is known about how strictly GPs adhere to these age criteria and what factors might influence their referral decisions for younger patients. AIM: To understand GPs' clinical decision making for younger patients with concerning symptoms who do not meet the age criteria for USC referral. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with GPs working in surgeries across England. METHOD: Participants (n = 23) were asked to recall consultations with younger patients with cancer symptoms, describe factors influencing their clinical decisions, and discuss their overall attitude to age thresholds in cancer referral guidelines. A thematic analysis guided by the Framework approach was used to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: GPs' decision making regarding younger patients was influenced by several factors, including personal experiences, patients' views and behaviour, level of clinical concern, and ability to bypass system constraints. GPs weighted potential benefits and harms of a referral outside guidelines both on the patient and the health system. If clinical concern was high, GPs used their knowledge of local systems to ensure patients were investigated promptly even when not meeting the age criteria. CONCLUSION: While most GPs interpret age criteria flexibly and follow their own judgement and experience when making clinical decisions regarding younger patients, system constraints may be a barrier to timely investigation.

Investigating harms of testing for ovarian cancer - psychological outcomes and cancer conversion rates in women with symptoms of ovarian cancer: A cohort study embedded in the multicentre ROCkeTS prospective diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychological correlates in women referred with suspected ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway, explore how anxiety and distress levels change at 12 months post-testing, and report cancer conversion rates by age and referral pathway. DESIGN: Single-arm prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicentre. Secondary care including outpatient clinics and emergency admissions. POPULATION: A cohort of 2596 newly presenting symptomatic women with a raised CA125 level, abnormal imaging or both. METHODS: Women completed anxiety and distress questionnaires at recruitment and at 12 months for those who had not undergone surgery or a biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anxiety and distress levels measured using a six-item short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) and the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-r) questionnaire. Ovarian cancer (OC) conversion rates by age, menopausal status and referral pathway. RESULTS: Overall, 1355/2596 (52.1%) and 1781/2596 (68.6%) experienced moderate-to-severe distress and anxiety, respectively, at recruitment. Younger age and emergency presentations had higher distress levels. The clinical category for anxiety and distress remained unchanged/worsened in 76% of respondents at 12 months, despite a non-cancer diagnosis. The OC rates by age were 1.6% (95% CI 0.5%-5.9%) for age <40 years and 10.9% (95% CI 8.7%-13.6%) for age ≥40 years. In women referred through fast-track pathways, 3.3% (95% CI 1.9%-5.7%) of pre- and 18.5% (95% CI 16.1%-21.0%) of postmenopausal women were diagnosed with OC. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing diagnostic testing display severe anxiety and distress. Younger women are especially vulnerable and should be targeted for support. Women under the age of 40 years have low conversion rates and we advocate reducing testing in this group to reduce the harms of testing.

Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

Gender inequalities across ethnicities in primary care cancer referrals: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Early cancer diagnosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity; however, studies indicate that women and individuals from ethnic minorities experience longer times to diagnosis and worse prognosis compared with their counterparts for various cancers. In countries with a gatekeeper healthcare system, such as the UK, most suspected cancer referrals are initiated in primary care. AIM: To understand the extent of evidence available on the relationship between primary care cancer referral pathways and cancer outcomes in relation to gender across different ethnic groups. This will identify research gaps and enable development of strategies to ease potential inequalities in cancer diagnosis. DESIGN & SETTING: A scoping review of articles written in English, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used. METHOD: Electronic databases and private collections of the team members will be searched for studies. Two independent reviewers will carry out the study selection and data extraction. Based on Population (or participants), Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, this review will consider studies after year 2000, which explored the relationship between gender, across various ethnic groups, and cancer outcomes, following primary care cancer referral in countries with gatekeeper healthcare systems (UK, New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, and Norway). Results will be presented as a narrative analysis. CONCLUSION: The results are expected to provide an overview of the discrepancies in primary care cancer referrals based on gender across ethnic groups, which will be crucial to define an appropriate range of strategies to ease any inequalities in primary healthcare cancer diagnosis.

Parkinson's disease: a scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence of its diagnostic accuracy in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease is a multisystem condition that usually presents as a movement disorder in clinical practice. There is no objective method for its diagnosis and therefore the current diagnostic process is based on characteristic clinical signs and symptoms. As the presenting symptoms can be vague and non-specific, there is often a delay in diagnosis leading to mismanagement and delayed treatment initiation. In the UK, GPs identify and initially assess individuals with Parkinson's disease and refer them to specialists for formal diagnosis and treatment initiation. AIM: To use a scoping review to examine the available evidence on the accuracy of Parkinson's disease diagnosis in primary care and to assess the potential for GPs to make a diagnosis and initiate treatment, and hence avoid harmful delays. DESIGN AND SETTING: The scoping methodology as proposed by Westphaln and colleagues that is a modified version of Arksey and O'Malley's original framework was followed. All findings were reported according to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. METHOD: Four databases (EMBASE, PubMed Central, Cochrane, and CINAHL) and references lists of relevant published literature were systematically searched for all types of literature available in English on the accuracy of Parkinsonism or Parkinson's disease diagnosis in primary care. There were no search restrictions placed on countries, type of studies, or age. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts followed by full-text screening. RESULTS: Out of 1844 studies identified, only six studies met the inclusion criteria. Five were from high-income and one from a middle-income nation. Of these, three studies identified significant knowledge gaps of GPs in diagnosing Parkinson's disease using a questionnaire-based assessment. Delay in appropriate referral because of delayed symptom identification was reported in one study. Only one study compared the accuracy of primary care Parkinson's disease diagnosis with that of specialists, and reported that, although specialists' diagnosis showed more sensitivity, GPs had higher specificity in diagnosing Parkinson's disease. However, this study was found to have methodological issues leading to bias in the findings. CONCLUSION: This scoping review shows that there are no well-conducted studies assessing the accuracy of Parkinson's disease diagnoses when made by GPs. This calls for more focused research in this area as diagnostic delays and errors may lead to potentially harmful but preventable delays in treatment initiation resulting in decreased quality of life for individuals with Parkinson's disease.

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.

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.

Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.

Incidence of 'Low-Risk but Not No-Risk' Features of Cancer Prior to High-Risk Feature Occurrence: An Observational Cohort Study in Primary Care.

Diagnosing cancer may be expedited by decreasing referral risk threshold. Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants (≥40 years) had a positive predictive value (PPV) ≥3% feature for breast, lung, colorectal, oesophagogastric, pancreatic, renal, bladder, prostatic, ovarian, endometrial or laryngeal cancer in 2016. The numbers of participants with features representing a 1-1.99% or 2-2.99% PPV for same cancer in the previous year were reported, alongside the time difference between meeting the ≥3% criteria and the lower threshold criteria. A total of 8616 participants had a PPV ≥3% feature, of whom 365 (4.2%) and 1147 (13.3%), respectively, met 2-2.99% and 1-1.99% criteria in the preceding year. The median time difference was 131 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 27 to 256) for the 2-2.99% band and 179 days (IQR 58 to 289) for the 1-1.99% band. Results were heterogeneous across cancer sites. For some cancers, participants may progress from presenting lower- to higher-risk features before meeting urgent referral criteria; however, this was not usually the case. The details of specific features across multiple cancer sites will allow for a tailored approach to future reductions in referral thresholds, potentially improving the efficiency of urgent cancer referrals for the benefit both of individuals and the National Health Service (NHS).

Measuring spirometry in a lung cancer screening cohort highlights possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD.

Introduction: COPD is underdiagnosed, and measurement of spirometry alongside low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is one strategy to increase earlier diagnosis of this disease. Methods: Ever-smokers at high risk of lung cancer were invited to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial for a lung health check (LHC) comprising LDCT screening, pre-bronchodilator spirometry and a smoking cessation service. In this cross-sectional study we present data on participant demographics, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema on imaging and both self-reported and primary care diagnoses of COPD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD in this population, with airflow obstruction defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70. Results: Out of 3920 LHC attendees undergoing spirometry, 17% had undiagnosed airflow obstruction with respiratory symptoms, representing potentially undiagnosed COPD. Compared to those with a primary care COPD code, this population had milder symptoms, better lung function and were more likely to be current smokers (p≤0.001 for all comparisons). Out of 836 attendees with a primary care COPD code who underwent spirometry, 19% did not have airflow obstruction, potentially representing misdiagnosed COPD, although symptom burden was high. Discussion: Spirometry offered alongside LDCT screening can potentially identify cases of undiagnosed and misdiagnosed COPD. Future research should assess the downstream impact of these findings to determine whether any meaningful changes to treatment and outcomes occur, and to assess the impact on co-delivering spirometry on other parameters of LDCT screening performance such as participation and adherence. Additionally, work is needed to better understand the aetiology of respiratory symptoms in those with misdiagnosed COPD, to ensure that this highly symptomatic group receive evidence-based interventions.

Presenting Symptoms in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma, Relation to Organ Damage, and Implications for Symptom-Directed Screening: A Secondary Analysis from the Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma (TEAMM) Trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) patients risk diagnostic delays and irreversible organ damage. In those with newly diagnosed myeloma, we explored the presenting symptoms to identify early signals of MM and their relationships to organ damage. The symptoms were recorded in patients' own words at diagnosis and included diagnostic time intervals. Those seen by a haematologist >6 months prior to MM diagnosis were classified as precursor disease (PD). Most (962/977) patients provided data. Back pain (38%), other pain (31%) and systemic symptoms (28%) predominated. Patients rarely complain of 'bone pain', simply 'pain'. Vertebral fractures are under-recognised as pathological and are the predominant irreversible organ damage (27% of patients), impacting the performance status (PS) and associated with back pain (odds ratio (OR) 6.14 [CI 4.47-8.44]), bone disease (OR 3.71 [CI 1.88-7.32]) and age >65 years (OR 1.58 [CI 1.15-2.17]). Renal failure is less frequent and associated with gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 2.23 [CI1.28-3.91]), age >65 years (OR 2.14 [CI1.28-3.91]) and absence of back pain (OR 0.44 [CI 0.29-0.67]). Patients with known PD (n = 149) had fewer vertebral fractures (p = 0.001), fewer adverse features (p = 0.001), less decline in PS (p = 0.001) and a lower stage (p = 0.04) than 813 with de novo MM. Our data suggest subgroups suitable for trials of 'symptom-directed' screening: those with back pain, unexplained pain, a general decline in health or low-impact vertebral compression fractures.