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.

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

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

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

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

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer assessment in primary care: a qualitative study of GP views.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis is key to improve cancer outcomes, and most cancers are diagnosed in primary care after initial symptomatic presentation. Emerging evidence suggests an increase in avoidable cancer deaths owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand GPs' views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical assessment of possible cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative semi-structured interview study with GPs from the East of England. METHOD: GPs were purposively sampled based on age, sex, and years of experience. Interviews were conducted via Zoom or Microsoft Teams in August and September 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. The Model of Pathways to Treatment guided the analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified across 23 interviews on GP views on the impact of: (1) changes in patient help-seeking behaviour on symptoms at presentation; (2) remote consultations on managing patients with possible cancer symptoms; and (3) the COVID-19 pandemic on triaging and referring patients with possible cancer. There were positive changes to practice, but concerns were raised about the adequacy of remote consultations for assessing symptoms. Some GPs reported delayed cancer diagnoses, and uncertainty about how backlog in referrals would be managed. CONCLUSION: This study provides new evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on assessing symptomatic patients. Recommendations are made to inform safe and effective primary care clinical practice. Urgent action is needed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensure appropriate symptomatic assessment now and in the future.

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.

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

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

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

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

Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Women with ovarian cancer can present with a variety of symptoms and signs, and an increasing range of tests are available for their investigation. A number of international guidelines provide advice for the initial assessment of possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. We systematically identified and reviewed the consistency and quality of these documents. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, guideline-specific databases and professional organisation websites were searched in March 2018 for relevant clinical guidelines, consensus statements and clinical pathways, produced by professional or governmental bodies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised documents using the Appraisal for Guidelines and Research Evaluation 2 (AGREEII) tool. RESULTS: Eighteen documents from 11 countries in six languages met selection criteria. Methodological quality varied with two guidance documents achieving an AGREEII score ≥ 50% in all six domains and 10 documents scoring ≥50% for "Rigour of development" (range: 7-96%). All guidance documents provided advice on possible symptoms of ovarian cancer, although the number of symptoms included in documents ranged from four to 14 with only one symptom (bloating/abdominal distension/increased abdominal size) appearing in all documents. Fourteen documents provided advice on physical examinations but varied in both the examinations they recommended and the physical signs they included. Fifteen documents provided recommendations on initial investigations. Transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound and the serum biomarker CA125 were the most widely advocated initial tests. Five distinct testing strategies were identified based on the number of tests and the order of testing advocated: 'single test', 'dual testing', 'sequential testing', 'multiple testing options' and 'no testing'. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations on the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women vary considerably between international guidance documents. This variation could contribute to differences in the way symptomatic women are assessed and investigated between countries. Greater research is needed to evaluate the assessment and testing approaches advocated by different guidelines and their impact on ovarian cancer detection.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

A Modeling Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Stratified Surveillance Program for Melanoma in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for melanoma is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted surveillance of high-risk individuals may be. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies in the UK population, stratified by risk using a simple self-assessment tool scoring between 0 and 67. METHODS: A decision model comparing alternative surveillance policies from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over 30 years was developed. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit for each risk score was identified, resulting in a compound risk-stratified policy describing the most cost-effective population-wide strategy. The overall expected cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and associated uncertainty were reported. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy is for those with a Williams score of 15 to 21 (relative risk [RR] of 0.79-1.60 vs. a mean score of 17 in the United Kingdom) to be offered a one-off full-body skin examination, and for those with a score of 22 or more (RR 1.79+) to be enrolled into a quinquennial monitoring program, rising to annual recall for those with a risk score greater than 43 (RR 20.95+). Expected incremental cost would be £164 million per annum (~0.1% of the National Health Service budget), gaining 15,947 additional QALYs and yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,199/QALY gained (51.3% probability <£30,000). CONCLUSIONS: The risk-stratified policy would be expensive to implement but cost-effective compared with typical UK thresholds (£20,000-£30,000/QALY gained), although decision uncertainty is high. Phased implementation enrolling only higher risk individuals would be substantially less expensive, but with consequent foregone health gain.

Expert Elicitation of Multinomial Probabilities for Decision-Analytic Modeling: An Application to Rates of Disease Progression in Undiagnosed and Untreated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Expert elicitation is required to inform decision making when relevant "better quality" data either do not exist or cannot be collected. An example of this is to inform decisions as to whether to screen for melanoma. A key input is the counterfactual, in this case the natural history of melanoma in patients who are undiagnosed and hence untreated. OBJECTIVES: To elicit expert opinion on the probability of disease progression in patients with melanoma that is undetected and hence untreated. METHODS: A bespoke webinar-based expert elicitation protocol was administered to 14 participants in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, comprising 12 multinomial questions on the probability of progression from one disease stage to another in the absence of treatment. A modified Connor-Mosimann distribution was fitted to individual responses to each question. Individual responses were pooled using a Monte-Carlo simulation approach. Participants were asked to provide feedback on the process. RESULTS: A pooled modified Connor-Mosimann distribution was successfully derived from participants' responses. Feedback from participants was generally positive, with 86% willing to take part in such an exercise again. Nevertheless, only 57% of participants felt that this was a valid approach to determine the risk of disease progression. Qualitative feedback reflected some understanding of the need to rely on expert elicitation in the absence of "hard" data. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully elicited and pooled the beliefs of experts in melanoma regarding the probability of disease progression in a format suitable for inclusion in a decision-analytic model.

Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since 2009, all eligible persons in England have been entitled to an NHS Health Check. Uncertainty remains about who attends, and the health-related impacts. AIM: To review quantitative evidence on coverage (the proportion of eligible individuals who attend), uptake (proportion of invitees who attend), and impact of NHS Health Checks. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review and quantitative data synthesis. Included were studies or data reporting coverage or uptake and studies reporting any health-related impact that used an appropriate comparison group or before- and-after study design. METHOD: Eleven databases and additional internet sources were searched to November 2016. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies and one additional dataset were included. Since 2013, 45.6% of eligible individuals have received a health check. Coverage is higher among older people, those with a family history of coronary heart disease, those living in the most deprived areas, and some ethnic minority groups. Just under half (48.2%) of those invited have taken up the invitation. Data on uptake and impact (especially regarding health-related behaviours) are limited. Uptake is higher in older people and females, but lower in those living in the most deprived areas. Attendance is associated with small increases in disease detection, decreases in modelled cardiovascular disease risk, and increased statin and antihypertensive prescribing. CONCLUSION: Published attendance, uptake, and prescribing rates are all lower than originally anticipated, and data on impact are limited, with very few studies reporting the effect of attendance on health-related behaviours. High-quality studies comparing matched attendees and non-attendees and health economic analyses are required.

Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40-74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes. AIM: To review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. METHOD: An electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings. CONCLUSION: The findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection.

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice. DESIGN: A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice. RESULTS: Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme.

Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England. DESIGN: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, Clinical Trials.gov and the ISRCTN registry to 09/11/16 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks. RESULTS: 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 reporting quantitative data and 15 qualitative data. There were consistently high levels of reported satisfaction in surveys, with over 80% feeling that they had benefited from an NHS Health Check. Data from qualitative studies showed that the NHS Health Check had been perceived to act as a wake-up call for many who reported having gone on to make substantial lifestyle changes which they attributed to the NHS Health Check. However, some had been left with a feeling of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, found the lifestyle advice too simplistic and non-personalised or were confused about follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While participants were generally very supportive of the NHS Health Check programme and examples of behaviour change were reported, there are a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include greater clarity around the aims of the programme within the promotional material, more proactive support for lifestyle change and greater appreciation of the challenges of communicating risk and the limitations of relying on the risk score alone as a trigger for facilitating behaviour change.

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence.

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity. METHODS: We used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach. RESULTS: A large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value. CONCLUSION: Willingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights.

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 .