A review of methods for the analysis of diagnostic tests performed in sequence.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical pathways for the diagnosis of disease are based on diagnostic tests that are performed in sequence. The performance of the full diagnostic sequence is dictated by the diagnostic performance of each test in the sequence as well as the conditional dependence between them, given true disease status. Resulting estimates of performance, such as the sensitivity and specificity of the test sequence, are key parameters in health-economic evaluations. We conducted a methodological review of statistical methods for assessing the performance of diagnostic tests performed in sequence, with the aim of guiding data analysts towards classes of methods that may be suitable given the design and objectives of the testing sequence. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for relevant papers describing methodology for analysing sequences of diagnostic tests. Papers were classified by the characteristics of the method used, and these were used to group methods into themes. We illustrate some of the methods using data from a cohort study of repeat faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients, to highlight the importance of allowing for conditional dependence in test sequences and adjustment for an imperfect reference standard. RESULTS: Five overall themes were identified, detailing methods for combining multiple tests in sequence, estimating conditional dependence, analysing sequences of diagnostic tests used for risk assessment, analysing test sequences in conjunction with an imperfect or incomplete reference standard, and meta-analysis of test sequences. CONCLUSIONS: This methodological review can be used to help researchers identify suitable analytic methods for studies that use diagnostic tests performed in sequence.

Advice after urgent suspected cancer referral when cancer is not found in England: Survey of patients' preferences and perceived acceptability.

Objective: No standardised approach exists to provide advice after urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral when cancer is not found. This study aimed to assess preferences and acceptability of receiving advice after USC referral related to: 1) managing ongoing symptoms, 2) responding to early symptoms of other cancers, 3) cancer screening, 4) reducing risks of future cancer. Methods: 2,541 patients from two English NHS Trusts were mailed a survey 1-3 months after having no cancer found following urgent suspected gastrointestinal or head and neck cancer referral. Participants were asked about: willingness to receive advice; prospective acceptability; preferences related to mode, timing and who should provide advice; and previous advice receipt. Results: 406 patients responded (16.0%) with 397 in the final analyses. Few participants had previously received advice, yet most were willing to. Willingness varied by type of advice: fewer were willing to receive advice about early symptoms of other cancers (88.9%) than advice related to ongoing symptoms (94.3%). Acceptability was relatively high for all advice types. Reducing the risk of future cancer advice was more acceptable. Acceptability was lower in those from ethnic minority groups, and with lower levels of education. Most participants preferred to receive advice from a doctor; with results or soon after; either face to face or via the telephone. Conclusions: There is a potential unmet need for advice after USC referral when no cancer is found. Equitable intervention design should focus on increasing acceptability for people from ethnic minority groups and those with lower levels of education.

Neuropeptide Y and Derivates Are Not Ready for Prime Time in Prostate Cancer Early Detection.

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and related peptides have been proposed as promising biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer by previous immunoassays and immunohistochemical studies. In this study, we evaluated the additional value of NPY and related peptides compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We performed a comprehensive analysis of NPY, its precursors, and metabolite concentrations in both plasma and tissue samples from 181 patients using a highly specific liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Compared with PSA, NPY and related peptides (NPYs) were less accurate at diagnosing significant prostate cancer. Combinations of NPYs in a stepwise approach did not improve a model that would be beneficial for patients. NPY may be beneficial for patients presenting with a PSA concentration in the gray area between 4 and 9 ng/ml, but the strength of this conclusion is limited. Thus, the use of NPYs as standalone or in combination with other variables, such as PSA, prostate volume, or age, to improve the diagnosis is not supported by our study. Patient summary: This study evaluated neuropeptide Y (NPY) of the family of endogenous peptides as a new biomarker to diagnose prostate cancer. We found that NPY in a patient's blood was not more helpful at diagnosing prostate cancer than the standard prostate-specific antigen blood test. Further research is needed to explore the potential of NPY and related peptides in specific subgroups of patients.

A scoping review of unexpected weight loss and cancer: risk, guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnoses often begin with consultations with general practitioners (GPs), but the nonspecific nature of symptoms can lead to delayed diagnosis. Unexpected weight loss (UWL) is a common nonspecific symptom linked to undiagnosed cancer, yet guidelines for its diagnostic assessment in general practice lack consistency. AIM: To synthesise evidence on the association between UWL and cancer diagnosis, and to review clinical guidelines and recommendations for assessing patients with UWL. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Systematic search and analysis of studies conducted in primary care. METHOD: Four databases searched for peer-reviewed literature from 2012 to 2023. Two reviewers conducted all the steps. A narrative review was conducted detailing the evidence for UWL as a risk factor for undiagnosed cancer, existing clinical guidance, and recommended diagnostic approach. RESULTS: We included 25 studies involving 916,092 patients; 92% provided strong evidence of an association between UWL and undiagnosed cancer. The National Institute for Health Care and Excellence Cancer Guideline in the UK was frequently cited. General suggestions encompassed regular weight monitoring, family history, risk factor evaluation, additional signs and symptoms, and a comprehensive physical examination. Commonly recommended pathology tests included C-reactive protein, complete blood count, alkaline phosphatase, and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Immunochemical faecal occult blood test, abdominal ultrasound, and chest X-ray were also prevalent. One large cohort study provided age, sex, and differential diagnosis-specific recommendations. CONCLUSION: This evidence review informs recommendations for investigating patients with UWL and will contribute to a computer decision support tool implementation in primary care, enhancing UWL assessment and potentially facilitating earlier cancer diagnosis.

Predictive value of abnormal blood tests for detecting cancer in primary care patients with nonspecific abdominal symptoms: A population-based cohort study of 477,870 patients in England.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.

Underlying disease risk among fatigued patients: a population-based cohort study in primary care.

Background Presenting to primary care with fatigue is associated with a wide range of conditions, including cancer, although their relative likelihood is unknown. Aim To quantify associations between new-onset fatigue presentation and subsequent diagnosis of various diseases, including cancer. Design and setting Cohort study of patients presenting in English primary care with new-onset fatigue during 2007-2017 (fatigue presenters (FPs)), compared to non-fatigue presenters (NFPs), using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data linked to hospital episodes and national cancer registration data. Method We described excess short-term incidence of 237 diseases in FPs compared to NFPs. We modelled disease-specific 12-month risk by sex and calculated age-adjusted risk. Results We included 304,914 FPs and 423,671 NFPs. 127 of 237 diseases studied were more common in male FPs than in male NFPs, and 151 were more common in female FPs. Diseases that were most strongly associated with fatigue included: depression; insomnia & sleep disturbances, and hypo/hyperthyroidism (women only). By 80 years, cancer was the 3rd most common disease and had the 4th highest absolute excess risk in male FPs (FPs: 7.0%, CI = 6.6 to 7.5; NFPs: 3.4%, CI = 3.1 to 3.7; AER: 3.7%). In women, cancer remained relatively infrequent; by age 80 it had the 13th highest excess risk in FPs. Conclusion Our study ranks the likelihood of possible diagnoses in fatigue presenters, to inform diagnostic guidelines and doctors' decisions. Age-specific findings support recommendations to prioritise cancer investigation in older men with fatigue, but not women.

A manifesto for improving cancer detection: four key considerations when implementing innovations across the interface of primary and secondary care.

Improving cancer outcomes through innovative cancer detection initiatives in primary care is an international policy priority. There are unique implementation challenges to the roll-out and scale-up of different innovations, requiring synchronisation between national policy levers and local implementation strategies. We draw on implementation science to highlight key considerations when seeking to sustainably embed cancer detection initiatives within health systems and clinical practice. Points of action include considering the implications of change on the current configuration of responsibility for detecting cancer; investing in understanding how to adapt systems to support innovations; developing strategies to address inequity when planning innovation implementation; and anticipating and making efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of innovation. We draw on examples of contemporary cancer detection issues to illustrate how to apply these recommendations to practice.

Serrated polyposis syndrome: defining the epidemiology and predicting the risk of dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: Serrated polyposis syndrome is the most common polyposis syndrome that has neoplastic potential. However, the natural history, genetic basis, and risk of dysplasia and neoplasia of serrated polyposis syndrome are incompletely understood. The objective of this study is to define the epidemiology of serrated polyposis syndrome. Using this data, we aim to evaluate candidate variables for predicting the risk of dysplasia and neoplasia in sessile serrated lesions found in serrated polyposis syndrome patients. Finally, we aim to use this data to create and evaluate clinical prediction models for accuracy in predicting dysplastic sessile serrated lesions in serrated polyposis syndrome patients. METHODS: This was a regional Australian single-centre retrospective cohort study. Data was prospectively collected data from the clinical record database of a regional Australian gastroenterology practice. All patients undergoing colonoscopy at Port Macquarie Gastroenterology between January 2015 and September 2021 were screened for this study. Collected data included patient demographic, endoscopic, and histopathological findings. Clinical and endoscopic multivariate logistic regression models were created to predict dysplastic sessile serrated lesions. Model performance was examined using the area under the receiver operating curve. RESULTS: In total 8401 patients underwent a colonoscopy procedure during the study period. Serrated polyposis syndrome was diagnosed in 247, representing a prevalence of 2.94% (mean age 67.15 years, 62.75% female). Logistic regression identified; older age at serrated polyposis syndrome diagnosis, a personal history of colorectal cancer, size of the largest sessile serrated lesions removed, and total sessile serrated lesions count as predictors of dysplastic sessile serrated lesions. The clinical and endoscopic model had an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. CONCLUSION: Serrated polyposis syndrome is more common than previously described. The clinical and endoscopic variables identified in logistic regression have acceptable accuracy in predicting the risk of dysplasia, however other populations need to be studied to achieve generalisability and improve model performance.

The Association between Blood Test Trends and Undiagnosed Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient's individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence.

Personal and organisational health literacy in the non-specific symptom pathway for cancer: An ethnographic study.

INTRODUCTION: People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non-specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways. METHODS: This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy. RESULTS: Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge. CONCLUSION: We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help-seeking post-discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.-A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic gastroscopy in the UK: British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database.

OBJECTIVE: This national analysis aimed to calculate the diagnostic yield from gastroscopy for common symptoms, guiding improved resource utilisation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted of diagnostic gastroscopies between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, age and sex) effects on two dependent variables (endoscopic cancer; Barrett's oesophagus (BO) diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: 382 370 diagnostic gastroscopies were analysed; 30.4% were performed in patients aged <50 and 57.7% on female patients. The overall unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.0% (males 1.7%; females 0.6%, p<0.01). Other major pathology was found in 9.1% of procedures, whereas 89.9% reported only normal findings or minor pathology (92.5% in females; 94.6% in patients <50).Highest cancer aPPVs were reached in the over 50s (1.3%), in those with dysphagia (3.0%) or weight loss plus another symptom (1.4%). Cancer aPPVs for all other symptoms were below 1%, and for those under 50, remained below 1% regardless of symptom. Overall, 73.7% of gastroscopies were carried out in patient groups where aPPV cancer was <1%.The overall unadjusted PPV for BO was 4.1% (males 6.1%; females 2.7%, p<0.01). The aPPV for BO for reflux was 5.8% and ranged from 3.2% to 4.0% for other symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer yield was highest in elderly male patients, and those over 50 with dysphagia. Three-quarters of all gastroscopies were performed on patients whose cancer risk was <1%, suggesting inefficient resource utilisation.

FIT negative clinic as a safety net for low-risk patients with colorectal cancer: impact on endoscopy and radiology utilisation-a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to triage symptomatic primary care patients who have unexplained symptoms but do not meet the criteria for a suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer pathway. During the COVID-19 pandemic, FIT was used to triage patients referred with urgent 2-week wait (2ww) cancer referrals instead of a direct-to-test strategy. FIT-negative patients were assessed and safety netted in a FIT negative clinic. Methods: We reviewed case notes for 622 patients referred on a 2ww pathway and seen in a FIT negative clinic between June 2020 and April 2021 in a tertiary care hospital. We collected information on demographics, indication for referral, dates for referral, clinic visit, investigations and long-term outcomes. Results: The average age of the patients was 71.5 years with 54% female, and a median follow-up of 2.5 years. Indications for referrals included: anaemia (11%), iron deficiency (24%), weight loss (9%), bleeding per rectum (5%) and change in bowel habits (61%). Of the cases, 28% (95% CI 24% to 31%) had endoscopic (15%, 95% CI 12% to 18%) and/or radiological (20%, 95% CI 17% to 23%) investigations requested after clinic review, and among those investigated, malignancy rate was 1.7%, with rectosigmoid neuroendocrine tumour, oesophageal cancer and lung adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: A FIT negative clinic provides a safety net for patients with unexplained symptoms but low risk of colorectal cancer. These real-world data demonstrate significantly reduced demand on endoscopy and radiology services for FIT-negative patients referred via the 2ww pathway.

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK: A British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database.

BACKGROUND: The value of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE; colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) relates to its ability to detect clinically relevant findings, predominantly cancers, preneoplastic polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. There are concerns that many LGIEs are performed on low-risk patients with limited benefit. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic outcomes of LGIE for common symptoms. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic LGIE between March 2019 and February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, patient age, and sex) effects upon two dependent variables (large polyp [≥10 mm] and cancer diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: We analysed 384,510 LGIEs; 33.2% were performed on patients aged under 50 and 53.6% on women. Regarding colonoscopies, the unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.4-1.5); higher for men than women (1.9% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). The PPV for large polyps was 3.2% (95% CI: 3.1-3.2). The highest colonoscopy cancer aPPVs were in the over 50s (1.9%) and in those with rectal bleeding (2.5%) or anaemia (2.1%). Cancer aPPVs for other symptoms were <1% despite representing 54.3% of activity. In patients under 50, aPPVs were 0.4% for cancer and 1.6% for large polyps. Results were similar for sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Most colonoscopies were performed on patients with low-risk symptoms, where cancer risk was similar to the general population. Cancer and large polyp yield was highest in elderly patients with rectal bleeding or anaemia, although still fell short of FIT-based screening yields.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of preventive healthcare? An interrupted time series analysis of adults in English primary care from 2018 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: Offering advice and support for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity is an evidence-based component of primary care. The objective was to quantify the impact of the pandemic on the rate of advice or referral for these four risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data from 1847 practices in England and 21,191,389 patients contributing to the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken with a single change point (March 2020). Monthly trends were modelled from 1st January 2018 - 30th June 2022 using segmented linear regression. RESULTS: There was an initial step reduction in advice and referrals for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in March 2020. By June 2022, advice on smoking (slope change -0.02 events per hundred patient years/month (EPH/month); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17, 0.21), obesity (0.06 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.12), alcohol (0.02 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.05) and physical inactivity (0.05 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.09) had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Similarly, smoking cessation referral remained lower (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09), excess alcohol referral returned to similar levels (0.0005 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.0002, 0.0008), while referral for obesity (0.14 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.10, 0.19) and physical inactivity (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.02) increased relative to pre-pandemic rates. CONCLUSION: Advice and support for smoking, and advice for weight, excess alcohol and physical inactivity have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Clinicians and policy makers should prioritise preventive care in COVID-19 recovery plans.

Adequacy of clinical guideline recommendations for patients with low-risk cancer managed with monitoring: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. RESULTS: Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance. CONCLUSION: With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.

Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Access to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally. AIM: To systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems. DESIGN AND SETTING: Scoping review examining international literature. METHOD: Literature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems. RESULTS: In total, 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage, and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems that related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add-on' systems and aims for efficiency have become more popular in recent years. CONCLUSION: This synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be underinvestigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services have been promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.

Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in a primary care population (RAPTOR-C19).

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care. METHODS: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR). RESULTS: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30. DISCUSSIONS: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza.

Future cancer risk after urgent suspected cancer referral in England when cancer is not found: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Following referral for investigation of urgent suspected cancer within the English National Health Service referral system, 7% of referred individuals are diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to investigate the risk of cancer occurrence within 1-5 years of finding no cancer following an urgent suspected cancer referral. METHODS: This national cohort study used urgent suspected cancer referral data for England from the Cancer Waiting Times dataset and linked it with cancer diagnosis data from the National Cancer Registration dataset. Data were extracted for the eight most commonly referred to urgent suspected cancer referral pathways (breast, gynaecological, head and neck, lower and upper gastrointestinal, lung, skin, and urological) for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, with 5-year follow-up for individuals with no cancer diagnosis within 1 year of referral. The primary objective was to investigate the occurrence and type of subsequent cancer in years 1-5 following an urgent suspected cancer referral when no cancer was initially found, both overall and for each of the eight referral pathways. The numbers of subsequent cancers were compared with expected cancer incidence in years 1-5 following referral, using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) based on matched age-gender distributions of expected cancer incidence in England for the same time period. The analysis was repeated, stratifying by referral group, and by calculating the absolute and expected rate of all cancers and of the same individual cancer as the initial referral. FINDINGS: Among 1·18 million referrals without a cancer diagnosis in years 0-1, there were 63 112 subsequent cancers diagnosed 1-5 years post-referral, giving an absolute rate of 1338 (95% CI 1327-1348) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (1038 [1027-1050] in females, 1888 [1867-1909] in males), compared with an expected rate of 1054 (1045-1064) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (SIR 1·27 [95% CI 1·26-1·28]). The absolute rate of any subsequent cancer diagnosis 1-5 years after referral was lowest following suspected breast cancer referral (746 [728-763] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year) and highest following suspected urological (2110 [2070-2150]) or lung cancer (1835 [1767-1906]) referral. For diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway, the highest absolute rates were for the urological and lung pathways (1011 [984-1039] and 638 [598-680] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year, respectively). The highest relative risks of subsequent diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway were for the head and neck pathway (SIR 3·49 [95% CI 3·22-3·78]) and lung pathway (3·00 [2·82-3·20]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer risk was higher than expected in the 5 years following an urgent suspected cancer referral. The potential for targeted interventions, such as proactive monitoring, safety-netting, and cancer awareness or risk reduction initiatives should be investigated. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests for COVID-19 when used in symptomatic patients in community settings in the UK primary care COVID diagnostic accuracy platform trial (RAPTOR-C19).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care. METHODS: Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN142269.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. FINDINGS: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. INTERPRETATION: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.