Optimising the use of the prostate- specific antigen blood test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection in primary care: report from a UK clinical consensus.

BACKGROUND: Screening is not recommended for prostate cancer in the UK. Asymptomatic men aged ≥50 years can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test following counselling on potential harms and benefits. There are areas of clinical uncertainty among GPs, resulting in the content and quality of counselling varying. AIM: To produce a consensus that can influence guidelines for UK primary care on the optimal use of the PSA test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prostate Cancer UK facilitated a RAND/UCLA consensus. METHOD: Statements covering five topics were developed with a subgroup of experts. A panel of 15 experts in prostate cancer scored (round one) statements on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to nine (strongly agree). Panellists met to discuss statements before rescoring (round two). A lived experience panel of seven men scored a subset of statements with outcomes fed into the main panel. RESULTS: Of the initial 94 statements reviewed by the expert panel, a final 48/85 (56%) achieved consensus. In the absence of screening, there was consensus on proactive approaches to initiate discussions about the PSA test with men who were at higher-than-average risk. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway may have reduced some of the harms associated with PSA testing; however, several areas of uncertainty remain in relation to screening, including optimal PSA thresholds for referral and intervals for retesting. There is consensus on proactive approaches to testing in higher-than-average risk groups. This should prompt a review of current guidelines.

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.

Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive.

BACKGROUND: Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases. AIM: To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken. METHOD: Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing. RESULTS: Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation.

Using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive to explore the characteristics and healthcare use of older housebound patients in England: protocol for a retrospective observational study and clinician survey (the CHiP study).

BACKGROUND: Older housebound people are an under-researched group for whom achieving good primary health care can be resource intensive. AIMS: To describe the characteristics and healthcare use of older (≥65 years) housebound people; explore clinician views on delivery of care to housebound people; and assess the feasibility of using a new network of healthcare professionals to deliver high quality research. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective observational study of electronic GP records and clinician survey in England. METHOD: Clinical members of a new UK research network called the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) will collect the data. For part A, around 20 GP practices will be recruited and clinicians will identify 20 housebound and 20 non-housebound people, matched by age and gender (around 400 total in each group). Anonymised data will be collected on characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation decile), long-term conditions, prescribed medicines, quality of healthcare (via Quality Outcomes Framework targets), and continuity of care. Reports with benchmarked practice-level data will be provided to practices to identify areas for quality improvement and to enhance engagement. For part B, 2-4 clinicians will be recruited from around 50 practices in England (around 150 clinicians) to complete a survey about delivery of healthcare for housebound people. For part C, data will be collected to assess the feasibility of using the PACT network to deliver primary care research. CONCLUSION: Older housebound people are a neglected group both in terms of research and clinical care. Understanding the characteristics and use of primary healthcare of housebound people will help identify how to improve their care.

Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.

BACKGROUND: The number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results. AIM: To explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK. METHOD: The Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model. CONCLUSION: PACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.