Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Missed and delayed cancer diagnoses are common, harmful, and often preventable. Automated measures of quality of cancer diagnosis are lacking but could identify gaps and guide interventions. We developed and implemented a digital quality measure (dQM) of cancer emergency presentation (EP) using electronic health record databases of two health systems and characterized the measure's association with missed opportunities for diagnosis (MODs) and mortality. METHODS: On the basis of literature and expert input, we defined EP as a new cancer diagnosis within 30 days after emergency department or inpatient visit. We identified EPs for lung cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Geisinger from 2016 to 2020. We validated measure accuracy and identified preceding MODs through standardized chart review of 100 records per cancer per health system. Using VA's longitudinal encounter and mortality data, we applied logistic regression to assess EP's association with 1-year mortality, adjusting for cancer stage and demographics. RESULTS: Among 38,565 and 2,914 patients with lung cancer and 14,674 and 1,649 patients with CRCs at VA and Geisinger, respectively, our dQM identified EPs in 20.9% and 9.4% of lung cancers, and 22.4% and 7.5% of CRCs. Chart reviews revealed high positive predictive values for EPs across sites and cancer types (72%-90%), and a substantial percent represented MODs (48.8%-84.9%). EP was associated with significantly higher odds of 1-year mortality for lung cancer and CRC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78 and 1.83, respectively, 95% CI, 1.63 to 1.86 and 1.61 to 2.07). CONCLUSION: A dQM for cancer EP was strongly associated with both mortality and MODs. The findings suggest a promising automated approach to measuring quality of cancer diagnosis in US health systems.

Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation. METHODS: We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status. RESULTS: In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis.

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions. METHODS: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group. RESULTS: There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence.

OBJECTIVES: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. AIM: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. METHOD: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. RESULTS: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). CONCLUSION: In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

Primary care blood tests before cancer diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in patients with cancer but how often they are used is unclear. AIM: To explore use of common blood tests before cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39 752 patients with cancer diagnosed in 2018. METHOD: Common blood test use (full blood count [FBC], urea and electrolytes [U&E], and liver function tests [LFTs]), variation by patient and symptom group, and associations with the primary care interval and the diagnostic interval were assessed. RESULTS: At least one common blood test was used in 41% (n = 16 427/39 752) of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Among tested patients, (n = 16 427), FBC was used in 95% (n = 15 540), U&E in 89% (n = 14 555), and LFTs in 76% (n = 12 414). Blood testing was less common in females (adjusted odds ratio versus males: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 0.98) and Black and minority ethnic patients (0.89, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.97 versus White), and more common in older patients (1.12, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.18 for ≥70 years versus 50-69 years). Test use varied greatly by cancer site (melanoma 2% [ n = 55/2297]; leukaemia 84% [ n = 552/661]). Fewer patients presenting with alarm symptoms alone were tested (24% [ n = 3341/13 778]) than those with non-alarm symptoms alone (50% [ n = 8223/16 487]). Median primary care interval and diagnostic interval were longer in tested than non-tested patients (primary care interval: 10 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 49 versus 32 days, respectively, P<0.001 for both), including among tested patients with alarm symptoms (primary care interval: 4 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 41 versus 22 days). CONCLUSION: Two-fifths of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer have primary care blood tests as part of their diagnostic process. Given variable test use, research is needed on the clinical context in which blood tests are ordered.

Pre-diagnostic clinical features and blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective linked-data study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of colorectal cancer is diagnosed in patients following symptomatic presentation in the UK. AIM: To identify windows of opportunity for timely investigations or referrals in patients presenting with colon and rectal cancer-relevant symptoms or abnormal blood tests. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using linked primary care and cancer registry data for patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed in England between 2012 and 2015. METHOD: Monthly consultation rates for relevant clinical features (change in bowel habit, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, abdominal mass, constitutional symptoms, and other bowel symptoms) and abnormal blood test results (low haemoglobin, high platelets, and high inflammatory markers) up to 24 months pre-diagnosis were calculated. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, and relevant comorbidities was used to estimate the most likely month when consultation rates increased above baseline. RESULTS: In total, 5033 patients with colon cancer and 2516 with rectal cancer were included. Consultations for all examined clinical features and abnormal blood tests increased in the year pre-diagnosis. Rectal bleeding was the earliest clinical feature to increase from the baseline rate: at 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.3 to 11.7) pre-diagnosis for colon cancer and at 8 months (95% CI = 6.1 to 9.9) pre-diagnosis for rectal cancer. Low haemoglobin, high platelets, and high inflammatory markers increased from as early as 9 months pre-diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This study found evidence for an early increase in rates of consultation for relevant clinical features and abnormal blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer, suggesting that earlier instigation of cancer-specific investigations or referrals may be warranted in some patients who were symptomatic.

Does changing healthcare use signal opportunities for earlier detection of cancer? A review of studies using information from electronic patient records.

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that changes in healthcare use before cancer diagnosis could signal opportunities for quicker detection, but systematic appreciation of such evidence is lacking. We reviewed studies examining pre-diagnostic changes in healthcare utilisation (e.g. rates of GP or hospital consultations, prescriptions or diagnostic tests) among patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We identified studies through Pubmed searches complemented by expert elicitation. We extracted information on the earliest time point when diagnosis could have been possible for at least some cancers, together with variation in the length of such 'diagnostic windows' by tumour and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Across twenty-eight studies, changes in healthcare use were observable at least six months pre-diagnosis for many common cancers, and potentially even earlier for colorectal cancer, multiple myeloma and brain tumours. Early changes were also identified for brain and colon cancer sub-sites. CONCLUSION: Changing healthcare utilisation patterns before diagnosis indicate that future improvements in diagnostic technologies or services could help to shorten diagnostic intervals for cancer. There is greatest potential for quicker diagnosis for certain cancer types and patient groups, which can inform priorities for the development of decision support tools.

Identifying opportunities for timely diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer via abnormal blood tests: a longitudinal linked data study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding pre-diagnostic test use could reveal diagnostic windows where more timely evaluation for cancer may be indicated. AIM: To examine pre-diagnostic patterns of results of abnormal blood tests in patients with bladder and renal cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using primary care and cancer registry data on patients with bladder and renal cancer who were diagnosed between April 2012 and December 2015 in England. METHOD: The rates of patients with a first abnormal result in the year before cancer diagnosis, for 'generic' (full blood count components, inflammatory markers, and calcium) and 'organ-specific' blood tests (creatinine and liver function test components) that may lead to subsequent detection of incidental cancers, were examined. Poisson regression was used to detect the month during which the cohort's rate of each abnormal test started to increase from baseline. The proportion of patients with a test found in the first half of the diagnostic window was examined, as these 'early' tests might represent opportunities where further evaluation could be initiated. RESULTS: Data from 4533 patients with bladder and renal cancer were analysed. The monthly rate of patients with a first abnormal test increased towards the time of cancer diagnosis. Abnormalities of both generic (for example, high inflammatory markers) and organ-specific tests (for example, high creatinine) started to increase from 6-8 months pre-diagnosis, with 25%-40% of these patients having an abnormal test in the 'early half' of the diagnostic window. CONCLUSION: Population-level signals of bladder and renal cancer can be observed in abnormalities in commonly performed primary care blood tests up to 8 months before diagnosis, indicating the potential for earlier diagnosis in some patients.

Associations between general practice characteristics and chest X-ray rate: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line test for lung cancer in many settings. Previous research has suggested that higher utilisation of CXR is associated with improved outcomes. AIM: To explore the associations between characteristics of general practices and frequency of investigation with CXR. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study of English general practices. METHOD: A database was constructed of English general practices containing number of CXRs requested and data on practices for 2018, including patient and staff demographics, smoking prevalence, deprivation, and patient satisfaction indicators. Mixed-effects Poisson modelling was used to account for variation because of chance and to estimate the amount of remaining variation that could be attributed to practice and population characteristics. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in GP CXR rates (median 34 per 1000 patients, interquartile range 26-43). Only 18% of between-practice variance in CXR rate was accounted for by recorded characteristics. Higher practice scores for continuity and communication skills, and higher proportions of smokers, Asian and mixed ethnic groups, and patients aged >65 years were associated with increased CXR rates. Higher patient satisfaction scores for access and greater proportions of male patients and patients of Black ethnicity were associated with lower CXR rates. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation was found in CXR rates beyond that expected by chance, which could not be accounted for by practices' recorded characteristics. As other research has indicated that increasing CXR rates can lead to earlier detection, supporting practices that currently investigate infrequently could be an effective strategy to improve lung cancer outcomes.

Morbidity and measures of the diagnostic process in primary care for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding how pre-existing conditions (morbidities) may influence the primary care investigation and management of individuals subsequently diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We identified morbidities using information from both primary and secondary care records among 11,716 patients included in the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) 2014. We examined variation in 5 measures of the diagnostic process (the primary care interval, diagnostic interval, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care-led investigations, and referral type) by both primary care- and hospital records-derived measures of morbidity. RESULTS: Morbidity prevalence recorded before cancer diagnosis was almost threefold greater using the primary care (75%) vs secondary care-derived measure (28%). After adjustment, there was limited variation in the primary care interval and the number of pre-referral consultations by either definition of morbidity. Patients with more severe morbidities were less likely to have had a primary care-led investigation before cancer diagnosis compared with those without any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.60-0.86] for Charlson score 3+ vs 0; joint P < 0.001). Patients with multiple primary care-recorded conditions or a Charlson score of 3+ were more likely to have diagnostic intervals exceeding 60 days (aOR: 1.26 [1.10-1.45] and 1.19 [>1.00-1.41], respectively), and more likely to receive an emergency referral (aOR: 1.60 [1.26-2.02] and 1.61 [1.26-2.06], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among cancer cases with up to 2 morbidities, there was no evidence of differences in diagnostic processes and intervals in primary care but higher morbidity burden was associated with longer time to diagnosis and higher likelihood of emergency referral.

Individuals with pre-existing long-term conditions (morbidities) may have a different pathways leading to their cancer diagnosis compared with those without such conditions but detailed evidence is limited. We aimed to investigate how morbidities were associated with a range of measures of the diagnostic process in primary care. We examined morbidity in 2 ways, using information from a primary care audit and hospital records. We found that three-quarters of patients were living with 1 or more conditions according to primary care-based information, while the prevalence was almost threefold lower when estimated using hospital records. There was little difference in the time from first primary care appointment to specialist referral and the number of appointments before specialist referral by morbidity, particularly when comparing patients with 1 or 2 conditions vs those without. However, patients with multiple conditions or more serious diseases experienced lower likelihood of investigation, greater likelihood of being sent to the hospital as an emergency, and longer time to diagnosis. We did not find evidence of substantial differences in primary care-based diagnostic processes by morbidity. However, once an initial referral has been made, multiple or more severe conditions appear to influence the time taken to reach a diagnosis.

Predictive values for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease of 6 common abdominal symptoms among more than 1.9 million primary care patients in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic assessment of abdominal symptoms in primary care presents a challenge. Evidence is needed about the positive predictive values (PPVs) of abdominal symptoms for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the United Kingdom (2000-2017), we estimated the PPVs for diagnosis of (i) cancer (overall and for different cancer sites); (ii) IBD; and (iii) either cancer or IBD in the year post-consultation with each of 6 abdominal symptoms: dysphagia (n = 86,193 patients), abdominal bloating/distension (n = 100,856), change in bowel habit (n = 106,715), rectal bleeding (n = 235,094), dyspepsia (n = 517,326), and abdominal pain (n = 890,490). The median age ranged from 54 (abdominal pain) to 63 years (dysphagia and change in bowel habit); the ratio of women/men ranged from 50%:50% (rectal bleeding) to 73%:27% (abdominal bloating/distension). Across all studied symptoms, the risk of diagnosis of cancer and the risk of diagnosis of IBD were of similar magnitude, particularly in women, and younger men. Estimated PPVs were greatest for change in bowel habit in men (4.64% cancer and 2.82% IBD) and for rectal bleeding in women (2.39% cancer and 2.57% IBD) and lowest for dyspepsia (for cancer: 1.41% men and 1.03% women; for IBD: 0.89% men and 1.00% women). Considering PPVs for specific cancers, change in bowel habit and rectal bleeding had the highest PPVs for colon and rectal cancer; dysphagia for esophageal cancer; and abdominal bloating/distension (in women) for ovarian cancer. The highest PPVs of abdominal pain (either sex) and abdominal bloating/distension (men only) were for non-abdominal cancer sites. For the composite outcome of diagnosis of either cancer or IBD, PPVs of rectal bleeding exceeded the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended specialist referral threshold of 3% in all age-sex strata, as did PPVs of abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, and dyspepsia, in those aged 60 years and over. Study limitations include reliance on accuracy and completeness of coding of symptoms and disease outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence from more than 1.9 million patients presenting in primary care, the findings provide estimated PPVs that could be used to guide specialist referral decisions, considering the PPVs of common abdominal symptoms for cancer alongside that for IBD and their composite outcome (cancer or IBD), taking into account the variable PPVs of different abdominal symptoms for different cancers sites. Jointly assessing the risk of cancer or IBD can better support decision-making and prompt diagnosis of both conditions, optimising specialist referrals or investigations, particularly in women.

Guideline interval: A new time interval in the diagnostic pathway for symptomatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: A standard measure of the cancer diagnostic pathway, diagnostic interval, is the time from "first presentation of cancer" to diagnosis. Cancer presentation may be unclear in patients with multimorbidity or non-specific symptoms, signs or test results ("features"). We propose an alternative, guideline interval, with a more certain start date; namely, when the patient first meets suspected-cancer criteria for investigation or referral. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and English cancer registry data. Participants, aged ≥55 years, had diagnostic codes for oesophagogastric cancers in 1/1/12-31/12/17. Features of oesophagogastric cancer in the year before diagnosis were identified from CPRD codes for dysphagia, haematemesis, upper-abdominal mass or pain, low haemoglobin, reflux, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, weight loss or thrombocytosis. Diagnostic interval was the time from first feature to diagnosis; guidance interval, the time from first meeting criteria in NICE suspected-cancer guidance to diagnosis. Multimorbidity burden was quantified using Adjusted Clinical Groups®. Accelerated failure-time models explored associations between multimorbidity burden and length of both diagnostic and guideline interval. RESULTS: There were 3,793 eligible participants (69.0 % male), mean age 74.1 years (SD 10.5). 3,097 (81.7 %) presented with ≥1 feature in the year before diagnosis, and 1,990 (52.5 %) met NICE suspected-cancer criteria. The median for both intervals was 11 days in healthy users, and rose with increasing morbidity burden. At very high multimorbidity burden, diagnostic interval was 5.47 (95%CI 3.25-9.20) times longer and guideline interval was 3.91 (2.63-5.80) times longer than for healthy users. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline interval is proposed as a new measure of the cancer diagnostic pathway. It has a more certain start date than diagnostic interval, and is lengthened less than diagnostic interval in people with a very high multimorbidity burden. Guideline interval has potential for assessing the implementation of suspected-cancer policies.

Diagnostic performance of a faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: an evaluation in the South West of England.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer in English primary care in 2017, underpinned by little primary care evidence. METHODS: All healthcare providers in the South West of England (population 4 million) participated in this evaluation. 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer had a FIT from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018. A threshold of 10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive test. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighteen (15.9%) patients tested positive; 458 (74.1%) had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. Forty-three were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 tested negative; 324 (9.9%) had an urgent referral within three months. Eight were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Positive predictive value was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1-9.3%). Negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5-99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4-93.0%), specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8-86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86-0.96). A threshold of 37 µg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care; a higher threshold may be appropriate in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.

Prolonged Diagnostic Intervals as Marker of Missed Diagnostic Opportunities in Bladder and Kidney Cancer Patients with Alarm Features: A Longitudinal Linked Data Study.

BACKGROUND: In England, patients who meet National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline criteria for suspected cancer should receive a specialist assessment within 14 days. We examined how quickly bladder and kidney cancer patients who met fast-track referral criteria were actually diagnosed. METHODS: We used linked primary care and cancer registration data on bladder and kidney cancer patients who met fast-track referral criteria and examined the time from their first presentation with alarm features to diagnosis. Using logistic regression we examined factors most likely to be associated with non-timely diagnosis (defined as intervals exceeding 90 days), adjusting for age, sex and cancer type, positing that such occurrences represent missed opportunity for timely referral, possibly due to sub-optimal guideline adherence. RESULTS: 28%, 42% and 31% of all urological cancer patients reported no, one or two or more relevant symptoms respectively in the year before diagnosis. Of the 2105 patients with alarm features warranting fast-track assessment, 1373 (65%) presented with unexplained haematuria, 382 (18%) with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), 303 (14%) with visible haematuria, and 45 (2%) with an abdominal mass. 27% overall, and 24%, 45%, 18% and 27% of each group respectively, had a non-timely diagnosis. Presentation with recurrent UTI was associated with longest median diagnostic interval (median 83 days, IQR 43-151) and visible haematuria with the shortest (median 50 days, IQR 30-79). After adjustment, presentation with recurrent UTIs, being in the youngest or oldest age group, female sex, and diagnosis of kidney and upper tract urothelial cancer, were associated with greater odds of non-timely diagnosis. CONCLUSION: More than a quarter of patients presenting with fast-track referral features did not achieve a timely diagnosis, suggesting inadequate guideline adherence for some patients. The findings highlight a substantial number of opportunities for expediting the diagnosis of patients with bladder or kidney cancers.

Patient Experience Drivers of Overall Satisfaction With Care in Cancer Patients: Evidence From Responders to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

BACKGROUND: Surveys collecting patient experience data often contain a large number of items covering a wide range of experiences. Knowing which areas to prioritize for improvements efforts can be difficult. OBJECTIVE: To examine which aspects of care experience are the key drivers of overall satisfaction with cancer care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between overall satisfaction and 10 core questions covering aspects of experience applicable to all patients. Supplementary analyses examined a further 16 questions applying only to patients in certain groups or on specific treatment pathways. RESULTS: Of 68 340 included patients, 58 697 (86%) rated overall satisfaction highly (8 or more out of 10). The strongest predictors of overall satisfaction across all models were responses to 2 questions on experience of care administration and care coordination (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [95% CI = 2.05-2.17, P < .0001; OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.97-2.09, P < .0001, respectively, per 1 standard deviation change). CONCLUSION: Focusing improvement efforts on care administration and coordination has potential to improve overall satisfaction with oncological care across diverse patient groups/care pathways.

The prevalence of chronic conditions in patients diagnosed with one of 29 common and rarer cancers: A cross-sectional study using primary care data.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing chronic conditions (morbidities) influence the diagnosis and management of cancer. The prevalence of specific morbidities in patients diagnosed with common and rarer cancers is inadequately described. METHODS: Using data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014, we studied 11 pre-existing morbidities recorded as yes/no items by participating general practitioners based on information included in primary care records. We examined the number and type of morbidities across socio-demographic and cancer site strata, and subsequently estimated observed and age/sex standardised prevalence of each morbidity by cancer. RESULTS: Over three-quarters (77 %; 11,429/14,774) of non-screen-detected patients had at least one chronic condition before diagnosis, while nearly half (47 %) had two or more. Hypertension (39 %) and physical disability (2%) were the most and least common conditions. Male, older and more socio-economically deprived patients were more likely to have at least one morbidity (p < 0.001 for all between variable group comparisons). For most morbidities, the standardised prevalence was similar across different cancers with a few exceptions, including respiratory disease prevalence being greatest among lung cancer patients and diabetes prevalence being greatest among liver, pancreatic, and endometrial cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most cancer patients have at least one morbidity, while almost one in two have two or more. The findings highlight the need to take certain morbidity- and cancer-site combinations into account when examining associations between morbidity and cancer outcomes.

Association of Self-reported Presenting Symptoms With Timeliness of Help-Seeking Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the BRIGHTLIGHT Study.

Importance: Evidence regarding the presenting symptoms of cancer in adolescents and young adults can support the development of early diagnosis interventions. Objective: To examine common presenting symptoms in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years who subsequently received a diagnosis of cancer and potential variation in time to help-seeking by presenting symptom. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter study is a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study, which was conducted across hospitals in England. Participants included adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years with cancer. Information on 17 prespecified presenting symptoms and the interval between symptom onset and help-seeking (the patient interval) was collected through structured face-to-face interviews and was linked to national cancer registry data. Data analysis was performed from January 2018 to August 2019. Exposures: Self-reported presenting symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were frequencies of presenting symptoms and associated symptom signatures by cancer group and the proportion of patients with each presenting symptom whose patient interval was longer than 1 month. Results: The study population consisted of 803 adolescents and young adults with valid symptom information (443 male [55%]; 509 [63%] aged 19-24 years; 705 [88%] White). The number of symptoms varied by cancer group: for example, 88 patients with leukemia (86%) presented with 2 or more symptoms, whereas only 9 patients with melanoma (31%) presented with multiple symptoms. In total, 352 unique symptom combinations were reported, with the 10 most frequent combinations accounting for 304 patients (38%). Lump or swelling was reported by more than one-half the patients (419 patients [52%; 95% CI, 49%-56%]). Other common presenting symptoms across all cancers were extreme tiredness (308 patients [38%; 95% CI, 35%-42%]), unexplained pain (281 patients [35%; 95% CI, 32%-38%]), night sweats (192 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), lymphadenopathy (191 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]), and weight loss (190 patients [24%; 95% CI, 21%-27%]). The relative frequencies of presenting symptoms also varied by cancer group; some symptoms (such as lump or swelling) were highly prevalent across several cancer groups (seen in >50% of patients with lymphomas, germ cell cancers, carcinomas, bone tumors, and soft-tissue sarcomas). More than 1 in 4 patients (27%) reported a patient interval longer than 1 month; this varied from 6% (1 patient) for fits and seizures to 43% (18 patients) for recurrent infections. Conclusions and Relevance: Adolescents and young adults with cancer present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, some of which are shared across cancer types. These findings point to discordant presenting symptom prevalence estimates when information is obtained from patient report vs health records and indicate the need for further symptom epidemiology research in this population.

Imaging activity possibly signalling missed diagnostic opportunities in bladder and kidney cancer: A longitudinal data-linkage study using primary care electronic health records.

INTRODUCTION: Sub-optimal use or interpretation of imaging investigations prior to diagnosis of certain cancers may be associated with less timely diagnosis, but pre-diagnostic imaging activity for urological cancer is unknown. METHOD: We analysed linked data derived from primary and secondary care records and cancer registration to evaluate the use of clinically relevant imaging tests pre-diagnosis, in patients with bladder and kidney cancer diagnosed in 2012-15 in England. As pre-diagnostic imaging activity increased from background rate 8 months pre-diagnosis, we used logistic regression to determine factors associated with first imaging test occurring 4-8 months pre-diagnosis, considering that such instances may reflect possible missed opportunities for expediting the diagnosis. RESULTS: 1963 patients with bladder or kidney cancer had at least one imaging test in the 8 months pre-diagnosis. 420 (21%) of patients had their first imaging test 4-8 months pre-diagnosis, that being ultrasound, CT and X-ray in 48%, 43% and 9% of those cases, respectively. Factors associated with greater risk of a first imaging test 4-8 months pre-diagnosis were kidney cancer, diagnosis at stages other than stage IV, first imaging having been an X-ray, test requested by GP and absence of haematuria before the imaging request. CONCLUSION: About 1 in 5 patients with urological cancers receive relevant first imaging investigations 4-8 months prior to diagnosis, which may represent potential missed diagnostic opportunities for earlier diagnosis.