Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis. AIM: To understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs. RESULTS: Twenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47-80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36-55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced. CONCLUSION: Prostate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care.

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): RCT of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

Background Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Aim To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher in general practice using a decision aid about taking low-dose aspirin to prevent CRC on informed decision-making and low-dose aspirin uptake compared to a general CRC prevention brochure. Design and Setting Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. Method Patients aged 50-70 years attending a general practitioner (GP) were recruited consecutively. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk; control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. The self-reported co-primary outcomes were informed choices about taking aspirin at one month and low-dose aspirin uptake at six months. Results 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (129 intervention, 132 control). 17.7% (20/113) of intervention and 7.6% (9/118) control participants reported making an informed choice at one month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI 0.29% to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions [odds ratio (OR) 2.47 (97.5% CI:0.94 to 6.52) p=0.074]. The proportions of individuals who reported using aspirin at six months were: 10.2% (12/118) intervention vs 13.8% (16/116) control (estimated between-arm difference: -4.0% (95% CI: -13.5 to 5.5); [OR= 0.68 (97.5% CI:0.27 to 1.70), p= 0.692]. Conclusion The decision aid improved informed decision-making; but has little effect on long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care. METHODS: We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings. RESULTS: We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is increasingly used in UK primary care to triage patients presenting with symptoms and at different levels of colorectal cancer risk. Evidence is scarce on patients' views of using FIT in this context. We aimed to explore patients' care experience and acceptability of using FIT in primary care. DESIGN: A qualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and October 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed using framework analysis. SETTING: East of England general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who presented in primary care with possible symptoms of colorectal cancer, and for whom a FIT was requested, were recruited to the FIT-East study. Participants were purposively sampled for this qualitative substudy based on age, gender and FIT result. RESULTS: 44 participants were interviewed with a mean age 61 years, and 25 (57%) being men: 8 (18%) received a positive FIT result. Three themes and seven subthemes were identified. Participants' familiarity with similar tests and perceived risk of cancer influenced test experience and acceptability. All participants were happy to do the FIT themselves and to recommend it to others. Most participants reported that the test was straightforward, although some considered it may be a challenge to others. However, test explanation by healthcare professionals was often limited. Furthermore, while some participants received their results quickly, many did not receive them at all with the common assumption that 'no news is good news'. For those with a negative result and persisting symptoms, there was uncertainty about any next steps. CONCLUSIONS: While FIT is acceptable to patients, elements of communication with patients by the healthcare system show potential for improvement. We suggest possible ways to improve the FIT experience, particularly regarding communication about the test and its results.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England. METHOD: Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools. CONCLUSION: There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Improving the diagnostic process for patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer: a mixed-methods study to identify potential missed diagnostic opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bladder and kidney cancer may experience diagnostic delays. AIM: To identify patterns of suboptimal care and contributors of potential missed diagnostic opportunities (MDOs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, mixed-methods study recruiting participants from nine general practices in Eastern England between June 2018 and October 2019. METHOD: Patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer were identified using eligibility criteria based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for suspected cancer. Primary care records were reviewed at recruitment and at 1 year for data on symptoms, tests, referrals, and diagnosis. Referral predictors were examined using logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients to explore their experiences of the diagnostic process, and these were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants (n = 940) were mostly female (n = 657, 69.9%), with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 64-77 years). In total, 268 (28.5%) received a referral and 465 (48.5%) had a final diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). There were 33 (3.5%) patients who were diagnosed with cancer, including prostate (n = 17), bladder (n = 7), and upper urothelial tract (n = 1) cancers. Among referred patients, those who had a final diagnosis of UTI had the longest time to referral (median 81.5 days). Only one-third of patients with recurrent UTIs were referred despite meeting NICE referral guidelines. Qualitative findings revealed barriers during the diagnostic process, including inadequate clinical examination, female patients given repeated antibiotics without clinical reviews, and suboptimal communication of test results to patients. CONCLUSION: Older females with UTIs might be at increased risk of MDOs for cancer. Targeting barriers during the initial diagnostic assessment and follow-up might improve quality of diagnosis.

Symptom appraisal and help seeking in males with symptoms of possible prostate cancer: a qualitative study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mortality in Black males is disproportionately high. This problem may be overcome by reducing delays in the pathway to diagnosis, particularly those occurring before initial medical help seeking. A greater understanding of symptom appraisal and help seeking could support the development of targeted interventions for improving early presentation among Black males. AIM: To provide an in-depth understanding of males' pre-consultation experiences following the onset of symptoms of possible prostate cancer, identifying both general trends as well as potential differences that may exist between Black and White males. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of 18 males (nine Black, nine White) in London, UK, who had recently seen their GP with urinary symptoms, erectile dysfunction, or haematuria. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews from a previous multi-methods study of primary care use by males with symptoms of possible prostate cancer were analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Symptoms were often interpreted by patients as unimportant. Most delays occurred due to the absence of reasons to seek help, which, in Black males, often stemmed from poor awareness of prostate cancer. This lack of awareness could have been a consequence of their reluctance to seek health information and discuss health issues with others in their social network. Friends and relatives played an important role in symptom appraisal and help seeking. CONCLUSION: Cognitive biases, cultural stigmas, and everyday interpersonal interactions should be important areas at which to target strategies seeking to reduce delays and improve early presentation in males with possible prostate cancer, particularly Black males.

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.

Incident cardiovascular events and imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank participants with past cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate incident cardiovascular outcomes and imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank participants with previous cancer. METHODS: Cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses were ascertained using health record linkage. Participants with cancer history (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, uterus, haematological) were propensity matched on vascular risk factors to non-cancer controls. Competing risk regression was used to calculate subdistribution HRs (SHRs) for associations of cancer history with incident CVD (ischaemic heart disease (IHD), non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation/flutter, stroke, pericarditis, venous thromboembolism (VTE)) and mortality outcomes (any CVD, IHD, HF/NICM, stroke, hypertensive disease) over 11.8±1.7 years of prospective follow-up. Linear regression was used to assess associations of cancer history with left ventricular (LV) and left atrial metrics. RESULTS: We studied 18 714 participants (67% women, age: 62 (IQR: 57-66) years, 97% white ethnicities) with cancer history, including 1354 individuals with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Participants with cancer had high burden of vascular risk factors and prevalent CVDs. Haematological cancer was associated with increased risk of all incident CVDs considered (SHRs: 1.92-3.56), larger chamber volumes, lower ejection fractions, and poorer LV strain. Breast cancer was associated with increased risk of selected CVDs (NICM, HF, pericarditis and VTE; SHRs: 1.34-2.03), HF/NICM death, hypertensive disease death, lower LV ejection fraction, and lower LV global function index. Lung cancer was associated with increased risk of pericarditis, HF, and CVD death. Prostate cancer was linked to increased VTE risk. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer history is linked to increased risk of incident CVDs and adverse cardiac remodelling independent of shared vascular risk factors.

Symptoms and signs of lung cancer prior to diagnosis: case-control study using electronic health records from ambulatory care within a large US-based tertiary care centre.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the USA. While most patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation, no studies have compared symptoms and physical examination signs at or prior to diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) in the USA. We aimed to identify symptoms and signs in patients prior to diagnosis in EHR data. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinics at a large tertiary care academic health centre in the USA. PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOMES: We studied 698 primary lung cancer cases in adults diagnosed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019, and 6841 controls matched by age, sex, smoking status and type of clinic. Coded and free-text data from the EHR were extracted from 2 years prior to diagnosis date for cases and index date for controls. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with lung cancer at time of diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months before the diagnosis/index dates. RESULTS: Eleven symptoms and signs recorded during the study period were associated with a significantly higher chance of being a lung cancer case in multivariable analyses. Of these, seven were significantly associated with lung cancer 6 months prior to diagnosis: haemoptysis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.3), cough (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), chest crackles or wheeze (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.1), bone pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), back pain (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2), weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8) and fatigue (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer appear to have symptoms and signs recorded in the EHR that distinguish them from similar matched patients in ambulatory care, often 6 months or more before diagnosis. These findings suggest opportunities to improve the diagnostic process for lung cancer.

The Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a decision support tool for risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.

Diagnostic Performance of Biomarkers for Bladder Cancer Detection Suitable for Community and Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Evidence on the use of biomarkers to detect bladder cancer in the general population is scarce. This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the diagnostic performance of biomarkers which might be suitable for use in community and primary care settings [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021258754]. Database searches on MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to May 2022 resulted in 4914 unique citations, 44 of which met inclusion criteria. Included studies reported on 112 biomarkers and combinations. Heterogeneity of designs, populations and outcomes allowed for the meta-analysis of three biomarkers identified in at least five studies (NMP-22, UroVysion, uCyt+). These three biomarkers showed similar discriminative ability (adjusted AUC estimates ranging from 0.650 to 0.707), although for NMP-22 and UroVysion there was significant unexplained heterogeneity between included studies. Narrative synthesis revealed the potential of these biomarkers for use in the general population based on their reported clinical utility, including effects on clinicians, patients, and the healthcare system. Finally, we identified some promising novel biomarkers and biomarker combinations (N < 3 studies for each biomarker/combination) with negative predictive values of ≥90%. These biomarkers have potential for use as a triage tool in community and primary care settings for reducing unnecessary specialist referrals. Despite promising emerging evidence, further validation studies in the general population are required at different stages within the diagnostic pathway.

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.

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. METHODS: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7-14 days after the Cytosponge test. STUDY COHORT: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. RESULTS: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5-2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03-4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71-7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14-5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

Agreement between patient's description of abdominal symptoms of possible upper gastrointestinal cancer and general practitioner consultation notes: a qualitative analysis of video-recorded UK primary care consultation data.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal symptoms are common in primary care but infrequently might be due to an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Patients' descriptions may differ from medical terminology used by general practitioners (GPs). This may affect how information about abdominal symptoms possibly due to an UGI cancer are documented, creating potential missed opportunities for timely investigation. OBJECTIVES: To explore how abdominal symptoms are communicated during primary care consultations, and identify characteristics of patients' descriptions that underpin variation in the accuracy and completeness with which they are documented in medical records. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary care consultation video recordings, transcripts and medical records from an existing dataset were screened for adults reporting abdominal symptoms. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to capture alignments (medical record entries matching patient verbal and non-verbal descriptions) and misalignments (symptom information omitted or differing from patient descriptions). Categories were informed by the Calgary-Cambridge guide's 'gathering information' domains and patterns in descriptions explored. RESULTS: Our sample included 28 consultations (28 patients with 18 GPs): 10 categories of different clinical features of abdominal symptoms were discussed. The information GPs documented about these features commonly did not match what patients described, with misalignments more common than alignments (67 vs 43 instances, respectively). Misalignments often featured patients using vague descriptors, figurative speech, lengthy explanations and broad hand gestures. Alignments were characterised by patients using well-defined terms, succinct descriptions and precise gestures for symptoms with an exact location. Abdominal sensations reported as 'pain' were almost always documented compared with expressions of 'discomfort'. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal symptoms that are well defined or communicated as 'pain' may be more salient to GPs than those expressed vaguely or as 'discomfort'. Variable documentation of abdominal symptoms in medical records may have implications for the development of clinical decision support systems and decisions to investigate possible UGI cancer.

Patient-centred outcomes of imaging tests: recommendations for patients, clinicians and researchers.

BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are one of the most frequently used diagnostic modalities in healthcare, but the benefits of their direct impacts on clinical decision-making have been countered by concerns that they can be overused. Assessing the relative value of imaging tests has largely focused on measures of test accuracy, which overlooks more comprehensive benefits and risks of imaging tests, particularly their impact on patient-centred outcomes (PCOs). We present the findings of the Patient Reported Outcomes of Diagnostics (PROD) research study in response to a methodological gap in the area of diagnostic test comparative effectiveness research. METHODS: Over a 3-year period, the PROD Study engaged with multiple stakeholders to identify existing conceptual models related to PCOs for imaging testing, conducted primary research and evidence synthesis, and developed consensus recommendations to describe and categorise PCOs related to imaging testing. RESULTS: The PROD framework categorises PCOs from imaging studies within four main domains: information or knowledge yielded, physical impact, emotional outcomes and test burden. PCOs interact with each other and influence effects across domains, and can be modified by factors related to the patient, clinical situation, healthcare team and the testing environment. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCOs to inform healthcare decision-making will require ways of collating and presenting information on PCOs in ways that can inform patient-provider decision-making, and developing methods to determine the relative importance of outcomes (including test accuracy) to one another.