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.

Should we? Could we? Feasibility of interventions to support prevention or early diagnosis of future cancer following urgent referral: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of giving additional support to patients after cancer is not found following urgent referral. We sought to understand key facilitators or barriers to offering such support. METHODS: A convenience sample of primary and secondary care healthcare professionals (n = 36) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis, inductively and deductively, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: HCPs indicated that support should be offered if proven to be efficacious. It needs to avoid potential negative consequences such as patient anxiety and information overload. HCPs were more hesitant about whether support could feasibly be offered, due to resource restrictions and perceived remit of the urgent pathway for suspected cancer. CONCLUSION: HCP support after discharge from urgent cancer referral pathways needs to be resource efficient, developed in collaboration with patients and should have proven efficacy. Development of brief interventions for delivery by a range of staff, and use of technology could mitigate barriers to implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Changes to discharge procedures to provide information, endorsement or direction to services could offer much needed support. Additional support would need to overcome logistical challenges and address limited capacity.

A prospective evaluation of the fourth national Be Clear on Cancer 'Blood in Pee' campaign in England.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the fourth Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) 'Blood in Pee' (BiP) campaign (July to September 2018) on bladder and kidney cancer symptom awareness and outcomes in England. METHODS: In this uncontrolled before and after study, symptom awareness and reported barriers to GP attendance were assessed using panel and one-to-one interviews. The Health Improvement Network (THIN), National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and NHS Cancer Waiting Times (CWT) data were analysed to assess the impact on GP attendances, urgent cancer referrals, cancer diagnoses and 1-year survival. Analyses used Poisson, negative binomial and Cox regression. RESULTS: Symptom awareness and intention to consult a GP after one episode of haematuria increased following the campaign. GP attendance with haematuria (rate ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.28) and urgent cancer referrals (RR 1.18 95% CI: 1.08-1.28) increased following the campaign. Early-stage diagnoses increased for bladder cancer (difference in percentage 2.8%, 95% CI: -0.2%-5.8%), but not for kidney cancer (difference -0.6%, 95% CI: -3.2%-2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The fourth BCoC BiP campaign appears to have been effective in increasing bladder cancer symptom awareness and GP attendances, although long-term impacts are unclear.

An evaluation of a national mass media campaign to raise public awareness of possible lung cancer symptoms in England in 2016 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: A two-phase 'respiratory symptoms' mass media campaign was conducted in 2016 and 2017 in England raising awareness of cough and worsening shortness of breath as symptoms warranting a general practitioner (GP) visit. METHOD: A prospectively planned pre-post evaluation was done using routinely collected data on 15 metrics, including GP attendance, GP referral, emergency presentations, cancers diagnosed (five metrics), cancer stage, investigations (two metrics), outpatient attendances, inpatient admissions, major lung resections and 1-year survival. The primary analysis compared 2015 with 2017. Trends in metrics over the whole period were also considered. The effects of the campaign on awareness of lung cancer symptoms were evaluated using bespoke surveys. RESULTS: There were small favourable statistically significant and clinically important changes over 2 years in 11 of the 15 metrics measured, including a 2.11% (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.20, p < 0.001) improvement in the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at an early stage. However, these changes were not accompanied by increases in GP attendances. Furthermore, the time trends showed a gradual change in the metrics rather than steep changes occurring during or after the campaigns. CONCLUSION: There were small positive changes in most metrics relating to lung cancer diagnosis after this campaign. However, the pattern over time challenges whether the improvements are wholly attributable to the campaign. Given the importance of education on cancer in its own right, raising awareness of symptoms should remain important. However further research is needed to maximise the effect on health outcomes.

Abdominal cancer symptoms: Evaluation of the impact of a regional public awareness campaign.

OBJECTIVE: A regional 'Be Clear on Cancer' (BCoC) campaign developed by Public Health England aimed to promote public awareness of key abdominal cancer symptoms in people aged 50 years and over. METHODS: Data were analysed for metrics at different stages in the patient care pathway including public awareness, GP attendance and referrals, to cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: There was significantly higher recognition of the BCoC abdominal campaign in the campaign region compared to the control area (Post Campaign/Control, n = 401/406; 35% vs. 24%, p < 0.05). The campaign significantly improved knowledge of 'bloating' as a symptom (p = 0.03) compared to pre-campaign levels. GP attendances for abdominal symptoms increased significantly by 5.8% (p = 0. 03), although the actual increase per practice was small (average 16.8 visits per week in 2016 to 17.7 in 2017). Urgent GP referrals for suspected abdominal cancer increased by 7.6%, compared to a non-significant change (0.05%) in the control area. For specific abdominal cancers, the number diagnosed were similar to or higher than the median in the campaign area but not in the control area in people aged 50 and over: colorectal (additional n = 61 cancers), pancreatic (additional n = 102) and stomach cancers (additional n = 17). CONCLUSIONS: This campaign had a modest impact on public awareness of abdominal cancer symptoms, GP attendances and cancers diagnosed.

Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results.

The Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) campaigns have run in England since 2010. They aim to raise awareness of possible cancer symptoms, encouraging people to consult a general practice with these symptoms. Our study provides an overview of the impact of 11 national campaigns, for bowel, lung, bladder and kidney, breast and oesophago-gastric cancers. We synthesised existing results for each campaign covering seven clinical metrics across the patient pathway from primary care attendances to one-year net survival. For each metric, "before" and "after" periods were compared to assess change potentially related to the campaign. Results show that primary care attendances for campaign-related symptoms increased for 9 of 10 campaigns and relevant urgent referrals for suspected cancer increased above general trends for 9 of 11 campaigns. Diagnostic tests increased for 6 of 11 campaigns. For 7 of 11 campaigns, there were increases in cancer diagnoses resulting from an urgent referral for suspected cancer. There were sustained periods where more cancers were diagnosed than expected for 8 of 10 campaigns, with higher than expected proportions diagnosed at an early stage for sustained periods for 4 of 10 campaigns. There was no impact on survival. In summary, there is evidence that the BCoC campaigns impact help-seeking by patients and referral patterns by general practitioners, with some impact on diagnosis (incidence and stage). There was no clear evidence of impact on survival.

Association between use of urgent suspected cancer referral and mortality and stage at diagnosis: a 5-year national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation between GP practices in England in their use of urgent referral pathways for suspected cancer. AIM: To determine the association between practice use of urgent referral and cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer patient mortality, for all cancers and the most common types of cancer (colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate). DESIGN AND SETTING: National cohort study of 1.4 million patients diagnosed with cancer in England between 2011 and 2015. METHOD: The cohort was stratified according to quintiles of urgent referral metrics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to quantify risk of death, and logistic regression to calculate odds of late-stage (III/IV) versus early-stage (I/II) cancers in relation to referral quintiles and cancer type. RESULTS: Cancer patients from the highest referring practices had a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 0.97), with similar patterns for individual cancers: colorectal (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.93 to 0.97); lung (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.94 to 0.97); breast (HR = 0.96; CI = 0.93 to 0.99); and prostate (HR = 0.88; CI = 0.85 to 0.91). Similarly, for cancer patients from these practices, there were lower odds of late-stage diagnosis for individual cancer types, except for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Higher practice use of referrals for suspected cancer is associated with lower mortality for the four most common types of cancer. A significant proportion of the observed mortality reduction is likely due to earlier stage at diagnosis, except for colorectal cancer. This adds to evidence supporting the lowering of referral thresholds and consequent increased use of urgent referral for suspected cancer.

Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors. RESULTS: The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Cervical cancer - does the morphological subtype affect survival rates?

A retrospective population-based observational study using cancer registration data of women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer between 2006 and 2010, in England, was carried out to explore how different morphological subtypes affect survival rates. Age-standardised net survival rates by morphological subtype are presented alongside with excess mortality modelling accounting for the impact of demographic, diagnostic and tumour factors. The three main morphological subtypes (squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma) have similar one-year net survival rates of approximately 85%. After adjusting for other important determinants of survival, there were no differences at five-years amongst the three main morphological subtypes, with unadjusted survival rates of 55-65%. As expected, women presenting with neuroendocrine tumours had a much poorer outcome than other epithelial cervical malignancies, with 1-year survival of up to 55%, five-year survival of 34% and excess mortality rates compared to SCC varying between 1.9 and 5.9. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject: This is the first study on survival by cervical cancer morphological subtype using national cancer data. What the results of this study add: This study uses excess mortality modelling to investigate the effects of the morphological subtypes whilst adjusting the other factors that affect cervical cancer survival such as stage, age and grade. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research: It is known that cervical neuroendocrine tumours have a poor prognosis and this is confirmed by this study. Squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), adenocarcinomas (AC) and adenosquamous carcinomas (ASC) have the highest net survival and when accounting for other factors there are no differences amongst these morphological subtypes in terms of survival.

Variation and statistical reliability of publicly reported primary care diagnostic activity indicators for cancer: a cross-sectional ecological study of routine data.

OBJECTIVES: Recent public reporting initiatives in England highlight general practice variation in indicators of diagnostic activity related to cancer. We aimed to quantify the size and sources of variation and the reliability of practice-level estimates of such indicators, to better inform how this information is interpreted and used for quality improvement purposes. DESIGN: Ecological cross-sectional study. SETTING: English primary care. PARTICIPANTS: All general practices in England with at least 1000 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sixteen diagnostic activity indicators from the Cancer Services Public Health Profiles. RESULTS: Mixed-effects logistic and Poisson regression showed that substantial proportions of the observed variance in practice scores reflected chance, variably so for different indicators (between 7% and 85%). However, after accounting for the role of chance, there remained substantial variation between practices (typically up to twofold variation between the 75th and 25th centiles of practice scores, and up to fourfold variation between the 90th and 10th centiles). The age and sex profile of practice populations explained some of this variation, by different amounts across indicators. Generally, the reliability of diagnostic process indicators relating to broader populations of patients most of whom do not have cancer (eg, rate of endoscopic investigations, or urgent referrals for suspected cancer (also known as 'two week wait referrals')) was high (≥0.80) or very high (≥0.90). In contrast, the reliability of diagnostic outcome indicators relating to incident cancer cases (eg, per cent of all cancer cases detected after an emergency presentation) ranged from 0.24 to 0.54, which is well below recommended thresholds (≥0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Use of indicators of diagnostic activity in individual general practices should principally focus on process indicators which have adequate or high reliability and not outcome indicators which are unreliable at practice level.

Associations between diagnostic activity and measures of patient experience in primary care: a cross-sectional ecological study of English general practices.

BACKGROUND: Lower use of endoscopies and urgent referrals for suspected cancer has been linked to poorer outcomes for patients with cancer; it is important to examine potential predictors of variable use. AIM: To examine the associations between general practice measures of patient experience and practice use of endoscopies or urgent referrals for suspected cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional ecological analysis in English general practices. METHOD: Data were taken from the GP Patient Survey and the Cancer Services Public Health Profiles. After adjustment for practice population characteristics, practice-level associations were examined between the use of endoscopy and urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and the ability to book an appointment (used as proxy for ease of access), the ability to see a preferred doctor (used as proxy for relational continuity), and doctor/nurse communication skills. RESULTS: Taking into account practice scores for the ability to book an appointment, practices rated higher for the proxy measure of relational continuity used urgent referrals and endoscopies less often (for example, 30% lower urgent referral and 15% lower gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). In contrast, practices rated higher for doctor communication skills used urgent referrals and endoscopies more often (for example, 26% higher urgent referral and 17% higher gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). Patients with cancer in practices that were rated higher for doctor communication skills were less likely to be diagnosed as emergencies (1.7% lower between practices in the 90th than in the 10th centile). CONCLUSION: Practices where patients rated doctor communication highly were more likely to investigate and refer patients urgently but, in contrast, practices where patients could see their preferred doctor more readily were less likely to do so. This article discusses the possible implications of these findings for clinical practice.

Variations in Treatment of Cervical Cancer According to Tumor Morphology-Population-Based Cohort Analysis of English National Cancer Registration Data.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate differences in the treatment of cervical cancer by tumor morphology after accounting for demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors. METHODS: Retrospective population-based observational study using linked cancer registration and treatment data from administrative data sources of women diagnosed with cervical cancer (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition C53, malignant behavior) during 2009 and 2010 in England. Descriptive analyses and multinomial regression modeling have been used to consider differences in treatment by morphological subtype. For each morphological subtype, number and percentage of cases are presented by demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors and treatment modality. Relative risk ratios are provided for each treatment modality by morphological subtype and other specified factors. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of women were treated surgically; 36% by clinical oncology and only 8% by combination of surgery and clinical oncology. Compared with squamous cell carcinomas, both adenocarcinomas and adenosquamous carcinomas were more likely to be treated by trachelectomy, hysterectomy, radiotherapy with hysterectomy, or chemoradiotherapy with hysterectomy than by chemoradiotherapy without hysterectomy. These differences were explained mainly by a different stage distribution, but some difference remained after adjustment for other factors including stage. As clinically recommended, neuroendocrine tumors were not treated surgically. Further treatment differences were found by age, route to diagnosis, stage, and grade. Deprivation was not generally associated with treatment differences, with 1 exception that those from more deprived areas were less likely to be treated by trachelectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Important treatment differences according to tumor morphology remain after adjusting for relevant patient demographic, diagnostic, and tumor factors. In particular, the difference between the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is notable.

Factors Affecting Short-term Mortality in Women With Ovarian, Tubal, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer: Population-Based Cohort Analysis of English National Cancer Registration Data.

OBJECTIVE: International studies show lower survival rates in the United Kingdom than other countries with comparable health care systems. We report on factors associated with excess mortality in the first year after diagnosis of primary invasive epithelial ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal cancer. METHODS: Routinely collected national data were used for patients diagnosed in England in 2008 to 2010. A multivariate Poisson model was used to model excess mortality in 3 periods covering the first year after diagnosis, adjusting for various factors including age at diagnosis, route to diagnosis, tumor stage, tumor morphology, and treatment received. RESULTS: Of 14,827 women diagnosed as having ovarian cancer, 5296 (36%) died in the first year, with 1673 deaths in the first month after diagnosis. Age older than 70 years, diagnosis after an emergency presentation or by an unknown route, and unspecified or unclassified epithelial morphologies were strongly and independently associated with excess mortality in the first year after diagnosis. Of the 2100 (14%) women who fulfilled all 3 criteria, 1553 (74%) did not receive any treatment and 1774 (85%) died in the first year after diagnosis. In contrast, only 193 (4%) of the 4414 women without any of these characteristics did not receive any treatment, and only 427 (9%) died in the first year after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results are based on data from England, they are likely to have implications for cancer care pathways worldwide because most of the identified factors are not specific to the UK health care system. Our results suggest the need to increase symptom awareness, promote timely general practitioner referral, and optimize diagnostic and early treatment pathways within secondary care to increase access to treatment for women with advanced-stage invasive epithelial ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal cancer. This process should be pursued alongside continued efforts to develop primary prevention and screening strategies.

Use of the English urgent referral pathway for suspected cancer and mortality in patients with cancer: cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the overall effect of the English urgent referral pathway on cancer survival. SETTING: 8049 general practices in England. DESIGN: Cohort study. Linked information from the national Cancer Waiting Times database, NHS Exeter database, and National Cancer Register was used to estimate mortality in patients in relation to the propensity of their general practice to use the urgent referral pathway. PARTICIPANTS: 215,284 patients with cancer, diagnosed or first treated in England in 2009 and followed up to 2013. OUTCOME MEASURE: Hazard ratios for death from any cause, as estimated from a Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: During four years of follow-up, 91,620 deaths occurred, of which 51,606 (56%) occurred within the first year after diagnosis. Two measures of the propensity to use urgent referral, the standardised referral ratio and the detection rate, were associated with reduced mortality. The hazard ratio for the combination of high referral ratio and high detection rate was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.99), applying to 16% (n=34,758) of the study population. Patients with cancer who were registered with general practices with the lowest use of urgent referral had an excess mortality (hazard ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.08); 37% (n=79,416) of the study population). The comparator group for these two hazard ratios was the remaining 47% (n=101,110) of the study population. This result in mortality was consistent for different types of cancer (apart from breast cancer) and with other stratifications of the dataset, and was not sensitive to adjustment for potential confounders and other details of the statistical model. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the urgent referral pathway could be efficacious. General practices that consistently have a low propensity to use urgent referrals could consider increasing the use of this pathway to improve the survival of their patients with cancer.

Specialist surgery for ovarian cancer in England.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the 1999 national recommendations for ovarian cancer surgery in England to be performed by specialist surgeons in specialist centres. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of English cancer registry records, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for all English NHS providers and General Medical Council (GMC) sub-specialty accreditation, to consider changes to the annual proportion of ovarian cancer (ICD10 C56-C57) patients undergoing major gynaecological surgery in gynaecological cancer centres (GCCs) or by specialist gynaecological oncologists (GOs). RESULTS: From 2000 to 2009, 2428 consultants were responsible for surgery on 30,753 patients. There were significant increases in the proportions of patients undergoing surgery at GCCs (43% to 76%, P<0.001), by GMC accredited GOs (5% to 36%, P<0.001), and by high ovarian cancer caseload (≥18 cases) surgeons (22% to 56%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: There have been increased centralisation and specialisation of surgery for ovarian cancer patients since the NHS Cancer Plan (2000) and there has also been improved survival. However, by 2009, many ovarian cancer patients were still not receiving specialist surgery; the majority of patients were not operated on by GMC accredited gynaecological oncologists and there was considerable regional variation. Systems of accreditation should be reviewed and trusts should ensure that HES data accurately records clinical activity.

Access, continuity of care and consultation quality: which best predicts urgent cancer referrals from general practice?

BACKGROUND: For some cancers, late presentation is associated with poor survival. In England, less than half of patients are diagnosed following a general practitioner-initiated urgent referral. We explore whether particular practice or practitioner characteristics are associated with use of the urgent referral system. METHODS: The study sample was 603/614 practices in the East Midlands. Logistic regression models were fitted to investigate relationships between cancer detection rate, how easy it is to book appointments quickly, in advance or with a preferred doctor, and whether patients have confidence and trust in the doctor. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who definitely have confidence and trust in the doctor was positively associated with the cancer detection rate [odds ratio = 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01, 1.15) per 10 percentage points]. When all four survey variables were modelled together, the percentage of patients who were able to see a preferred doctor was negatively associated with the cancer detection rate [odds ratio = 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.98) per 10 percentage points]. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses suggest that in the UK National Health Service, confidence and trust in the doctor may be more important in cancer detection than the ease of access or whether there is choice of doctor.

Variation in use of the 2-week referral pathway for suspected cancer: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: A 2-Week Wait (2WW) referral pathway for earlier diagnosis of suspected cancer was introduced in England in 2000. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients with cancer are diagnosed by other routes (detection rate), only a small proportion of 2WW referrals have cancer (conversion rate) and there is considerable between-practice variation. AIM: This study examined use by practices of the 2WW referral in relation to all cancer diagnoses. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of data extracted from the Cancer Waiting Times Database for all 2WW referrals in 2009 and for all patients receiving a first definitive treatment in the same year. METHOD: The age standardised referral ratio, conversion rate, and detection rate were calculated for all practices in England and the correlation coefficient for each pair of measures. The median detection rate was calculated for each decile of practices ranked by conversion rate and vice versa, performing nonparametric tests for trend in each case. RESULTS: Data for 8049 practices, 865 494 referrals, and 224 984 cancers were analysed. There were significant correlations between referral ratio and conversion rate (inverse) and detection rate (direct). There was also a direct correlation between conversion and detection rates. There was a significant trend in conversion rate for deciles of detection rate, and vice versa, with a marked difference between the lowest and higher deciles. CONCLUSION: There is a consistent relationship between 2WW referral conversion rate and detection rate that can be interpreted as representing quality of clinical practice. The 2WW referral rate should not be a measure of quality of clinical care.