Association between patient ethnicity and prostate cancer diagnosis following a prostate-specific antigen test: a cohort study of 730,000 men in primary care in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Black men have higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and higher prostate cancer incidence and mortality than White men, while Asian men tend to have lower prostate cancer incidence and mortality than White men. Much of the evidence comes from the USA, and information from UK populations is limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data on patients registered at general practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum dataset. Those eligible were men aged 40 and over with a record of ethnicity and a PSA test result recorded between 2010 and 2017 with no prior cancer diagnosis. The aim was to assess the incidence of prostate cancer following a raised PSA test result in men from different ethnic groups. Additionally, incidence of advanced prostate cancer was investigated. Cancer incidence was estimated from multi-level logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: 730,515 men with a PSA test were included (88.9% White). Black men and men with mixed ethnicity had higher PSA values, particularly for those aged above 60 years. In the year following a raised PSA result (using age-specific thresholds), Black men had the highest prostate cancer incidence at 24.7% (95% CI 23.3%, 26.2%); Asian men had the lowest at 13.4% (12.2%, 14.7%); incidence for White men was 19.8% (19.4%, 20.2%). The peak incidence of prostate cancer for all groups was in men aged 70-79. Incidence of prostate cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage was similar between Black and White men. CONCLUSIONS: More prostate cancer was diagnosed in Black men with a raised PSA result, but rates of advanced prostate cancer were not higher in this group. In this large primary care-based cohort, the incidence of prostate cancer in men with elevated PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds, with Black men significantly more likely to be diagnosed compared to White or Asian men. The incidence of advanced stage prostate cancer at diagnosis was similar for Black and White men with a raised PSA result, but lower for Asian men.

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.

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

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

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Applying a genetic risk score for prostate cancer to men with lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care to predict prostate cancer diagnosis: a cohort study in the UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is highly heritable, with >250 common variants associated in genome-wide association studies. It commonly presents with non-specific lower urinary tract symptoms that are frequently associated with benign conditions. METHODS: Cohort study using UK Biobank data linked to primary care records. Participants were men with a record showing a general practice consultation for a lower urinary tract symptom. The outcome measure was prostate cancer diagnosis within 2 years of consultation. The predictor was a genetic risk score of 269 genetic variants for prostate cancer. RESULTS: A genetic risk score (GRS) is associated with prostate cancer in symptomatic men (OR per SD increase = 2.12 [1.86-2.41] P = 3.5e-30). An integrated risk model including age and GRS applied to symptomatic men predicted prostate cancer (AUC 0.768 [0.739-0.796]). Prostate cancer incidence was 8.1% (6.7-9.7) in the highest risk quintile. In the lowest quintile, prostate cancer incidence was <1%. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to apply GRS in primary care to improve the triage of symptomatic patients. Men with the lowest genetic risk of developing prostate cancer could safely avoid invasive investigation, whilst those identified with the greatest risk could be fast-tracked for further investigation. These results show that a GRS has potential application to improve the diagnostic pathway of symptomatic patients in primary care.

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.

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of online questionnaires followed by a face-to-face workshop. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements relating to patient selection for AS via online questionnaires on a 7-point Likert scale. Factors not achieving agreement were iteratively developed between the two rounds of questionnaires. Draft statements were presented at the face-to-face workshop for discussion and consensus building. RESULTS: 12 prostate cancer experts (9 urologists, 2 academics, 1 radiation oncologist) participated in this study from a range of geographical regions (4 USA, 4 Europe, 4 Australia). Complete agreement on statements presented to the participants was 29.4% after Round One and 69.0% after Round Two. Following robust discussions at the face-to-face workshop, agreement was reached on the remaining statements. PSA, PSA density, Multiparametric MRI, and systematic biopsy (with or without targeted biopsy) were identified as minimum diagnostic tests required upon which to select patients to recommend AS as a treatment option for prostate cancer. Patient factors and clinical parameters that identified patients appropriate to potentially receive AS were agreed. Genetic and genomic testing was not recommended for use in clinical decision-making regarding AS. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consistency in the practice of AS for men with lower risk prostate cancer between and within countries was reflected in this modified Delphi study. There are, however, areas of common practice and agreement from which clinicians practicing in the current environment can use to inform their clinical practice to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

Patient-Centered Outcomes From Multiparametric MRI and MRI-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) relating to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-guided biopsy as diagnostic tests for possible prostate cancer. METHODS: Medline via OVID, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles. Hand searching of reference lists and snowballing techniques were performed. Studies of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy that measured any PCO were included. There were no restrictions placed on year of publication, language, or country for study inclusion. All database search hits were screened independently by two reviewers, and data were extracted using a standardized form. RESULTS: Overall, 2,762 database search hits were screened based on title and abstract. Of these, 222 full-text articles were assessed, and 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 2,192 participants featured in the included studies, all of which were conducted in high-income countries. Nineteen different PCOs were measured, with a median of four PCOs per study (range 1-11). Urethral bleeding, pain, and urinary tract infection were the most common outcomes measured. In the four studies that compared mpMRI or MRI-guided biopsy to transrectal ultrasound biopsy, most adverse outcomes occurred less frequently in MRI-related tests. These four studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: PCOs measured in studies of mpMRI or MRI-guided biopsy thus far have mostly been physical outcomes, with some evidence that MRI tests are associated with less frequent adverse outcomes compared with transrectal ultrasound biopsy. There was very little evidence for the effect of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy on emotional, cognitive, social, or behavioral outcomes.

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The current diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) includes prostate biopsy. A large proportion of individuals who undergo biopsy have either no PCa or low-risk disease that does not require treatment. Unnecessary biopsies may potentially be avoided with prebiopsy imaging. Objective: To compare the performance of systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy vs prebiopsy biparametric or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of recent reviews were searched through December 2018 for randomized clinical trials using the terms "prostate cancer" and "MRI." Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing diagnostic pathways including prebiopsy MRI vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by 2 reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection rate of clinically significant and insignificant PCa, number of biopsy procedures, number of biopsy cores taken, and complications. Results: Seven high-quality trials (2582 patients) were included. Compared with systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone, MRI with or without targeted biopsy was associated with a 57% (95% CI, 2%-141%) improvement in the detection of clinically significant PCa, a 33% (95% CI, 23%-45%) potential reduction in the number of biopsy procedures, and a 77% (95% CI, 60%-93%) reduction in the number of cores taken per procedure. One trial showed reduced pain and bleeding adverse effects. Systematic sampling of the prostate in addition to the acquisition of targeted cores did not significantly improve the detection of clinically significant PCa compared with systematic biopsy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, prebiopsy MRI combined with targeted biopsy vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone was associated with improved detection of clinically significant PCa, despite substantial heterogeneity among trials. Prebiopsy MRI was associated with a reduced number of individual biopsy cores taken per procedure and with reduced adverse effects, and it potentially prevented unnecessary biopsies in some individuals. This evidence supports implementation of prebiopsy MRI into diagnostic pathways for suspected PCa.

Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensus statement on current best practice of active surveillance (AS) in the UK, informed by patients and clinical experts. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A consensus statement was drafted on the basis of three sources of data: systematic literature search of national and international guidelines; data arising from a Freedom of Information Act request to UK urology departments regarding their current practice of AS; and survey and interview responses from men with localized prostate cancer regarding their experiences and views of AS. The Prostate Cancer UK Expert Reference Group (ERG) on AS was then convened to discuss and refine the statement. RESULTS: Guidelines and protocols for AS varied significantly in terms of risk stratification, criteria for offering AS, and protocols for AS between and within countries. Patients and healthcare professionals identified clinical, emotional and process needs for AS to be effective. Men with prostate cancer wanted more information and psychological support at the time of discussing AS with the treating team and in the first 2 years of AS, and a named healthcare professional to discuss any questions or concerns they had. The ERG agreed 30 consensus statements regarding best practice for AS. Statements were grouped under headings: 'Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria'; 'AS follow-up protocol' and 'When to stop AS'. CONCLUSION: Significant variation currently exists in the practice of AS in the UK and internationally. Men have clear views on the level of involvement in treatment decisions and support from their treating professionals when receiving AS. The Prostate Cancer UK AS ERG has developed a set of consensus statements for best practice in AS. Evidence for best practice in AS, and the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in AS, is still evolving, and further studies are needed to determine how to optimize AS outcomes.

Prostate Cancer in Primary Care.

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy seen worldwide. The incidence has risen in recent decades, mainly fuelled by more widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, although prostate cancer mortality rates have remained relatively static over that time period. A man's risk of prostate cancer is affected by his age and family history of the disease. Men with prostate cancer generally present symptomatically in primary care settings, although some diagnoses are made in asymptomatic men undergoing opportunistic PSA screening. Symptoms traditionally thought to correlate with prostate cancer include lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), such as nocturia and poor urinary stream, erectile dysfunction and visible haematuria. However, there is significant crossover in symptoms between prostate cancer and benign conditions affecting the prostate such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostatitis, making it very challenging to distinguish between them on the basis of symptoms. The evidence for the performance of PSA in asymptomatic and symptomatic men for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is equivocal. PSA is subject to false positive and false negative results, affecting its clinical utility as a standalone test. Clinicians need to counsel men about the risks and benefits of PSA testing to inform their decision-making. Digital rectal examination (DRE) by primary care clinicians has some evidence to show discrimination between benign and malignant conditions affecting the prostate. Patients referred to secondary care for diagnostic testing for prostate cancer will typically undergo a transrectal or transperineal biopsy, where a number of samples are taken and sent for histological examination. These biopsies are invasive procedures with side effects and a risk of infection and sepsis, and alternative tests such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are currently being trialled for their accuracy and safety in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer.

Predicting prostate cancer progression: protocol for a retrospective cohort study to identify prognostic factors for prostate cancer outcomes using routine primary care data.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK, with nearly 40 000 diagnosed in 2014; and it is the second most common cause of male cancer-related mortality. The clinical conundrum is that most men live with prostate cancer rather than die from it, while existing treatments have significant associated morbidity. Recent studies have shown very low mortality rates (1% after a median of 10-year follow-up) and no treatment-related reductions in mortality, in men with localised prostate cancer. This study will identify prognostic factors associated with prostate cancer progression to help differentiate aggressive from more indolent tumours in men with localised disease at diagnosis, and so inform the decision to adopt conservative (active surveillance) or radical (surgery or radiotherapy) management strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) contains 57 318 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 2016. These men will be linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service registry databases for mortality, TNM stage, Gleason grade and treatment data. Men with a diagnosis date prior to 1 January 1987 and men with lymph node or distant metastases at diagnosis will be excluded. A priori determined prognostic factors potentially associated with prostate cancer mortality, the end point of cancer progression, will be measured at baseline, and the participants followed through to development of cancer progression, death or the end of the follow-up period (31 December 2016). Cox proportional hazards regression will be used to estimate crude and mutually adjusted HRs. Mortality risk will be predicted using flexible parametric survival models that can accurately fit the shape of the hazard function. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has approval from the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Database Research (protocol 17_041). The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and local CPRD researcher meetings.

Knowledge and Attitudes of General Practitioners and Sexual Health Care Professionals Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination for Young Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) may be at higher risk for human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers. Healthcare professionals' recommendations can affect HPV vaccination uptake. Since 2016, MSM up to 45 years have been offered HPV vaccination at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in a pilot programme, and primary care was recommended as a setting for opportunistic vaccination. Vaccination prior to potential exposure to the virus (i.e., sexual debut) is likely to be most efficacious, therefore a focus on young MSM (YMSM) is important. This study aimed to explore and compare the knowledge and attitudes of UK General Practitioners (GPs) and sexual healthcare professionals (SHCPs) regarding HPV vaccination for YMSM (age 16-24). A cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire examined 38 GPs and 49 SHCPs, including 59 (67.82%) females with a mean age of 40.71 years. Twenty-two participants (20 SHCPs, p < 0.001) had vaccinated a YMSM patient against HPV. GPs lack of time (25/38, 65.79%) and SHCP staff availability (27/49, 55.10%) were the main reported factors preventing YMSM HPV vaccination. GPs were less likely than SHCPs to believe there was sufficient evidence for vaccinating YMSM (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.47); less likely to have skills to identify YMSM who may benefit from vaccination (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.15); and less confident recommending YMSM vaccination (OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.01). GPs appear to have different knowledge, attitudes, and skills regarding YMSM HPV vaccination when compared to SHCPs.

Association between unexplained hypoalbuminaemia and new cancer diagnoses in UK primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: The association between hypoalbuminaemia and a new diagnosis of cancer is as yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether unexplained hypoalbuminaemia was associated with an increased risk of subsequent new cancer diagnosis within the next 12 months. METHODS: A cohort study was performed using a large UK database of adult primary care patients. Patients with a serum albumin test, either low or normal, were followed for 12 months for a new diagnosis of non-skin cancer. Logistic regression was used to assess for relationships between hypoalbuminaemia and cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 100 122 participants had at least one albumin test result. Of these, 5753 (5.75%) had a result <35g/l, of whom 1634 developed cancer within 12 months. Of the 94 116 patients with normal albumin values, 13 906 developed cancer. Hypoalbuminaemia was associated with an increased risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis within 12 months (odds ratio [OR]: 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-2.43). This association was smaller in magnitude after controlling for other conditions known to affect albumin levels (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.12-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: Low albumin levels were associated with an increased risk of cancer. This finding needs to be confirmed in other primary care populations.