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.

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.

Machine Learning for Risk Prediction of Oesophago-Gastric Cancer in Primary Care: Comparison with Existing Risk-Assessment Tools.

Oesophago-gastric cancer is difficult to diagnose in the early stages given its typical non-specific initial manifestation. We hypothesise that machine learning can improve upon the diagnostic performance of current primary care risk-assessment tools by using advanced analytical techniques to exploit the wealth of evidence available in the electronic health record. We used a primary care electronic health record dataset derived from the UK General Practice Research Database (7471 cases; 32,877 controls) and developed five probabilistic machine learning classifiers: Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Extreme Gradient Boosted Decision Trees. Features included basic demographics, symptoms, and lab test results. The Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Extreme Gradient Boosted Decision Tree models achieved the highest performance in terms of accuracy and AUROC (0.89 accuracy, 0.87 AUROC), outperforming a current UK oesophago-gastric cancer risk-assessment tool (ogRAT). Machine learning also identified more cancer patients than the ogRAT: 11.0% more with little to no effect on false positives, or up to 25.0% more with a slight increase in false positives (for Logistic Regression, results threshold-dependent). Feature contribution estimates and individual prediction explanations indicated clinical relevance. We conclude that machine learning could improve primary care cancer risk-assessment tools, potentially helping clinicians to identify additional cancer cases earlier. This could, in turn, improve survival outcomes.

Early economic evaluation of an intervention to improve uptake of the NHS England Diabetes Prevention Programme.

BACKGROUND: Despite reported increases in referral numbers, a large proportion of those with prediabetes still decline participation in the NHS England Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP). The aim of this study was to explore whether investment in interventions to improve uptake of the programme has the potential to be cost-effective. METHODS: An early cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov model parameterized based on secondary data sources. We explored different uptake scenarios and the impact that this had on the maximum allowable intervention price based on cost-effectiveness at the UK NICE willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 (US$ 25,913). Value of information analyses were conducted to explore the potential value of further research to resolve uncertainty at each uptake level. RESULTS: As uptake levels increase, the maximum allowable intervention price and overall expected value of removing decision uncertainty increases. For 5 percentage and 50 percentage points increase in uptake levels, the maximum allowable intervention price is £41.86 (US$ 54.23) and £418.59 (US$ 542.34) per person, and the overall expected value of removing decision uncertainty are £361,818,839 (US$ 468,786,625) and £1,468,712,316 (US$ 1,902,921,063) respectively. CONCLUSION: There is headroom for investment in interventions that improve uptake to the NDPP, thereby allowing the programme itself to be delivered in a manner that remains cost-effective.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Electronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Feasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated. INTERVENTION: Practices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months. OUTCOMES: Patient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter. RESULTS: From control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN125595588.

Trial of personalised care after treatment-Prostate cancer: A randomised feasibility trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The present parallel randomised control trial evaluated the feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention aimed at improving the self-management of prostate cancer survivors. METHODS: We identified 305 eligible patients from a district general hospital, diagnosed 9-48 months previously, who completed radical treatment, or were monitored clinically (ineligible for treatment). Ninety-five patients were recruited by blinded selection and randomised to Intervention (N = 48) and Control (N = 47) groups. Participant allocation was revealed to patients and researchers after recruitment was completed. For 36 weeks, participants received augmented usual care (Control) or augmented usual care and additional nurse support (Intervention) provided in two community hospitals and a university clinic, or by telephone. RESULTS: Data from 91 participants (Intervention, N = 45; Control, N = 46) were analysed. All feasibility metrics met predefined targets: recruitment rate (31.15%; 95% CI: 25.95%-36.35%), attrition rate (9.47%; 95% CI: 3.58%-15.36%) and outcome measures completion rates (77%-92%). Forty-five patients received the intervention, with no adverse events. The Extended Prostate Cancer Index Composite can inform the minimum sample size for a future effectiveness trial. The net intervention cost was £317 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, suggesting that it should be evaluated in a fully powered trial to assess its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Implementing Prudent Healthcare in the NHS in Wales; what are the barriers and enablers for clinicians?

RATIONALE: Prudent Healthcare is a strategy adopted by the Welsh Government in response to the challenge of improving health care during times of austerity and when needs and demand are rising. Four principles underlie Prudent Healthcare: to achieve health and wellbeing through co production; care for those with the greatest health needs first; do only what is needed; and reduce inappropriate variation. For Prudent Healthcare to be implemented in Wales, it is necessary for health professionals to adopt these principles in practice. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports a qualitative evaluation of clinicians' awareness, experiences, and views about Prudent Healthcare, identifying barriers and enablers to implementation from the clinician's perspective. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 28) and five focus groups (with 23 participants) were undertaken with a diverse range of health professionals working in primary and secondary care. Analysis was underpinned by the COM-B model which provides a framework to understand behaviour change in context using three domains, Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. RESULTS: Clinicians reported the importance and challenges of accessing and sharing information and evidence to inform practice (Capability). Reduced staffing levels and service availability were highlighted as possible barriers to Prudent Healthcare implementation while multidisciplinary working and reorganization of staff roles and services were considered enablers (Opportunity). Finally, although the principles of Prudent Healthcare were broadly welcomed (Motivation), a lack of awareness of the initiative and the management of patient expectations presented barriers. CONCLUSION: While there was a positive response and widespread support for the principles of Prudent Healthcare by clinicians, increasing awareness of the initiative and improvement to systems to enable information sharing and the monitoring of patient outcomes could improve the consistency of implementation.

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. AIM: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. METHOD: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. RESULTS: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological Cancer (TOPCAT-G): A Randomized Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of completing a parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare usual follow-up care for women who have completed treatment of gynecological cancer against a nurse-led telephone intervention, known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological. METHODS: The unblinded trial aimed to recruit patients who had completed treatment of cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian, or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months at 3 North Wales hospitals. We randomized participants to either usual hospital-based follow-up or specialist nurse-led telephone education, empowerment, and structured needs assessment follow-up. The primary outcomes assessed the feasibility of running a larger trial including patient eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, and outcome measure completion. Secondary outcomes were generic and health-related quality of life and a patient self-report health service use (Client Service Receipt Inventory) data collected at 3 time points (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months). RESULTS: Of the 58 women screened, 44 were eligible (76%) and 24 (55%) were recruited and randomized (12:12 to control and intervention, respectively). One participant was lost to follow-up. Recruited participants had a mean (SD) age of 60 (11.2) years and were approximately 5 months from their initial diagnosis (mean [SD], 159 [58] days). Seventeen (71%) of the participants had an endometrial cancer diagnosis. All outcome measure completion rates exceeded 96%. Although not a core feasibility objective, analyses of outcome measures indicated positive changes in quality of life and well-being within the Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological group; exploratory cost consequence analysis indicated that the nurse-led intervention had a mean total service use cost of £27 per patient (bootstrapped 95% confidence interval, -£290 to £240) lower than did the standard care group. CONCLUSION: Eligibility, recruitment, and retention rates as well as outcome measure completion showed that the trial is feasible.

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Gynaecological cancers are diagnosed in over 1000 women in Wales every year. We estimate that this is costing the National Health Service (NHS) in excess of £1 million per annum for routine follow-up appointments alone. Follow-up care is not evidence-based, and there are no definitive guidelines from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the type of follow-up that should be delivered. Standard care is to provide a regular medical review of the patient in a hospital-based outpatient clinic for a minimum of 5 years. This study is to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed alternative where the patients are delivered a specialist nurse-led telephone intervention known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (OPCAT-G), which comprised of a protocol-based patient education, patient empowerment and structured needs assessment. METHODS: The study will recruit female patients who have completed treatment for cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) in North Wales. Following recruitment, participants will be randomised to one of two arms in the trial (standard care or OPCAT-G intervention). The primary outcomes for the trial are patient recruitment and attrition rates, and the secondary outcomes are quality of life, health status and capability, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-A measures. Additionally, a client service receipt inventory (CSRI) will be collected in order to pilot an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The results from this feasibility study will be used to inform a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate the difference between standard care and the OPCAT-G intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45565436.

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer.

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic.

Evaluating a computer aid for assessing stomach symptoms (ECASS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For most cancers, only a minority of patients have symptoms meeting the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for urgent referral. For gastro-oesophageal cancers, the 'alarm' symptoms of dysphagia and weight loss are reported by only 32 and 8 % of patients, respectively, and their presence correlates with advanced-stage disease. Electronic clinical decision-support tools that integrate with clinical computer systems have been developed for general practice, although uncertainty remains concerning their effectiveness. The objectives of this trial are to optimise the intervention and establish the acceptability of both the intervention and randomisation, confirm the suitability and selection of outcome measures, finalise the design for the phase III definitive trial, and obtain preliminary estimates of the intervention effect. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-arm, multi-centre, cluster-randomised, controlled phase II trial design, which will extend over a 16-month period, across 60 general practices within the North East and North Cumbria and the Eastern Local Clinical Research Network areas. Practices will be randomised to receive either the intervention (the electronic clinical decision-support tool) or to act as a control (usual care). From these practices, we will recruit 3000 adults who meet the trial eligibility criteria and present to their GP with symptoms suggestive of gastro-oesophageal cancer. The main measures are the process data, which include the practitioner outcomes, service outcomes, diagnostic intervals, health economic outcomes, and patient outcomes. One-on-one interviews in a sub-sample of 30 patient-GP dyads will be undertaken to understand the impact of the use or non-use of the electronic clinical decision-support tool in the consultation. A further 10-15 GPs will be interviewed to identify and gain an understanding of the facilitators and constraints influencing implementation of the electronic clinical decision-support tool in practice. DISCUSSION: We aim to generate new knowledge on the process measures regarding the use of electronic clinical decision-support tools in primary care in general and to inform a subsequent definitive phase III trial. Preliminary data on the impact of the support tool on resource utilisation and health care costs will also be collected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12595588 .

Symptoms of adult chronic and acute leukaemia before diagnosis: large primary care case-control studies using electronic records.

BACKGROUND: Leukaemia is the eleventh commonest UK cancer. The four main subtypes have different clinical profiles, particularly between chronic and acute types. AIM: To identify the symptom profiles of chronic and acute leukaemia in adults in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control studies using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records. METHOD: Putative symptoms of leukaemia were identified in the year before diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression was used for analysis, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated to estimate risk. RESULTS: Of cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2009, 4655 were aged ≥40 years (2877 chronic leukaemia (CL), 937 acute leukaemia (AL), 841 unreported subtype). Ten symptoms were independently associated with CL, the three strongest being: lymphadenopathy (odds ratio [OR] 22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13 to 36), weight loss (OR 3.0, 95% CI = 2.1 to 4.2), and bruising (OR 2.3, 95% CI = 1.6 to 3.2). Thirteen symptoms were independently associated with AL, the three strongest being: nosebleeds and/or bleeding gums (OR 5.7, 95% CI = 3.1 to 10), fever (OR 5.3, 95% CI = 2.7 to 10), and fatigue (OR 4.4, 95% CI = 3.3 to 6.0). No individual symptom or combination of symptoms had a PPV >1%. CONCLUSION: The symptom profiles of CL and AL have both overlapping and distinct features. This presents a dichotomy for GPs: diagnosis, by performing a full blood count, is easy; however, the symptoms of leukaemia are non-specific and of relatively low risk. This explains why many leukaemia diagnoses are unexpected findings.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Quantifying the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in symptomatic primary care patients aged ≥40 years: a large case-control study using electronic records.

BACKGROUND: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is the sixth most common cancer in the UK; approximately 35 people are diagnosed and 13 die from the disease daily. AIM: To identify the primary care clinical features of NHL and quantify their risk in symptomatic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink patient records. METHOD: Putative clinical features of NHL were identified in the year before diagnosis. Results were analysed using conditional logistic regression and positive predictive values (PPVs). RESULTS: A total of 4362 patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed with NHL between 2000 and 2009, and 19 468 age, sex, and general practice-matched controls were studied. Twenty features were independently associated with NHL. The five highest risk symptoms were lymphadenopathy, odds ratio (OR) 263 (95% CI = 133 to 519), head and neck mass not described as lymphadenopathy OR 49 (95% CI = 32 to 74), other mass OR 12 (95% CI = 10 to 16), weight loss OR 3.2 (95% CI = 2.3 to 4.4), and abdominal pain OR 2.5 (95% CI = 2.1 to 2.9). Lymphadenopathy has a PPV of 13% for NHL in patients ≥60 years. Weight loss in conjunction with repeated back pain or raised gamma globulin had PPVs >2%. CONCLUSION: Unexplained lymphadenopathy in patients aged ≥60 years produces a very high risk of NHL in primary care. These patients warrant urgent investigation, potentially sooner than 6 weeks from initial presentation where the GP is particularly concerned.

Quantifying the risk of Hodgkin lymphoma in symptomatic primary care patients aged ≥40 years: a case-control study using electronic records.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, approximately five people are diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) daily. One-tenth of diagnoses are in those aged >75 years. AIM: To establish a symptom profile of HL and quantify their risk in primary care patients aged ≥40 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink patient records. METHOD: Putative clinical features of HL were identified in the year before diagnosis. Results were analysed using conditional logistic regression and positive predictive values (PPVs) calculated for the consulting population. RESULTS: Two-hundred and eighty-three patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed with HL between 2000 and 2009, and 1237 age, sex, and general practice-matched participants were studied. Six features were independently associated with HL: lymphadenopathy (OR 280, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 25 to 3100), head and neck mass not described as lymphadenopathy (OR 260, 95% CI = 21 to 3200), other mass (OR 12, 95% CI = 4.4 to 35), thrombocytosis (OR 6.0, 95% CI = 2.6 to 14), raised inflammatory markers (OR 5.2, 95% CI = 3.0 to 9.0), and low full blood count (OR 2.8, 95% CI = 1.6 to 4.8). Lymphadenopathy per se has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 5.6% for HL in patients aged ≥60 years. CONCLUSION: Consistent with secondary care findings, lymphadenopathy is the clinical feature with the highest risk of HL in primary care and warrants urgent investigation.

Quantifying the risk of multiple myeloma from symptoms reported in primary care patients: a large case-control study using electronic records.

BACKGROUND: Patients with myeloma experience the longest diagnostic delays compared with patients with other cancers in the UK; 37% are diagnosed through emergency presentations. AIM: To identify and quantify the risk of myeloma from specific clinical features reported by primary care patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study using General Practice Research Database primary care electronic records. METHOD: Putative clinical features of myeloma were identified and analysed using conditional logistic regression. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for the consulting population. RESULTS: A total of 2703 patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed with myeloma between 2000 and 2009, and 12 157 age, sex, and general practice-matched controls were identified. Sixteen features were independently associated with myeloma: hypercalcaemia, odds ratio 11.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.1 to 18), cytopenia 5.4 (95% CI = 4.6 to 6.4), raised inflammatory markers 4.9 (95% CI = 4.2 to 5.8), fracture 3.1 (95% CI = 2.3 to 4.2), raised mean corpuscular volume 3.1 (95% CI = 2.4 to 4.1), weight loss 3.0 (95% CI = 2.0 to 4.5), nosebleeds 3.0 (95% CI = 1.9 to 4.7), rib pain 2.5 (95% CI = 1.5 to 4.4), back pain 2.2 (95% CI = 2.0 to 2.4), other bone pain 2.1 (95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), raised creatinine 1.8 (95% CI = 1.5 to 2.2), chest pain 1.6 (95% CI = 1.4 to 1.8), joint pain 1.6 (95% CI = 1.2 to 2.2), nausea 1.5 (95% CI = 1.1 to 2.1), chest infection 1.4 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.6), and shortness of breath 1.3 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.5). Individual symptom PPVs were generally <1%, although were >10% for some symptoms when combined with leucopenia or hypercalcaemia. CONCLUSION: Individual symptoms of myeloma in primary care are generally low risk, probably explaining diagnostic delays. Once simple primary care blood tests are taken, risk estimates change. Hypercalcaemia and leucopenia are particularly important abnormalities, and coupled with symptoms, strongly suggest myeloma.