Development and validation of multivariable machine learning algorithms to predict risk of cancer in symptomatic patients referred urgently from primary care: a diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate tests to assess the risk of any cancer for patients referred to the NHS Urgent Suspected Cancer (2-week wait, 2WW) clinical pathways. SETTING: Primary and secondary care, one participating regional centre. PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of data from 371 799 consecutive 2WW referrals in the Leeds region from 2011 to 2019. The development cohort was composed of 224 669 consecutive patients with an urgent suspected cancer referral in Leeds between January 2011 and December 2016. The diagnostic algorithms developed were then externally validated on a similar consecutive sample of 147 130 patients (between January 2017 and December 2019). All such patients over the age of 18 with a minimum set of blood counts and biochemistry measurements available were included in the cohort. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve Area Under Curve (AUC), calibration curves RESULTS: We present results for two clinical use-cases. In use-case 1, the algorithms identify 20% of patients who do not have cancer and may not need an urgent 2WW referral. In use-case 2, they identify 90% of cancer cases with a high probability of cancer that could be prioritised for review. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a panel of widely available blood markers produces effective blood tests for cancer for NHS 2WW patients. The tests are affordable, and can be deployed rapidly to any NHS pathology laboratory with no additional hardware requirements.

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Lower Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Prognosis improves with earlier diagnosis, and non-invasive biomarkers have the potential to aid with early detection. Substantial investment has been made into the development of biomarkers; however, studies are often carried out in specialist settings and few have been evaluated for low-prevalence populations. METHODS: We aimed to identify novel biomarkers for the detection of lower GI cancers that have the potential to be evaluated for use in primary care. MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019. Reference lists of included studies were also assessed. Studies had to report on measures of diagnostic performance for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect colorectal or anal cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with fewer than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted from published studies on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used, and measures of specificity and sensitivity were meta-analysed where possible. RESULTS: We identified 142 studies reporting on biomarkers for lower GI cancers, for 24,844 cases and 45,374 controls. A total of 378 unique biomarkers were identified. Heterogeneity of study design, population type and sample source precluded meta-analysis for all markers except methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) and pyruvate kinase type tumour M2 (TuM2-PK). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of mSEPT9 was 80.6% (95% CI 76.6-84.0%) and 88.0% (95% CI 79.1-93.4%) respectively; TuM2-PK had an estimated sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 75.2-86.6%) and specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 76.7-83.0%). CONCLUSION: Two novel biomarkers (mSEPT9 and TuM2-PK) were identified from the literature with potential for use in lower-prevalence populations. Further research is needed to validate these biomarkers in primary care for screening and assessment of symptomatic patients.

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Detecting upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in primary care is challenging, as cancer symptoms are common, often non-specific, and most patients presenting with these symptoms will not have cancer. Substantial investment has been made to develop biomarkers for cancer detection, but few have reached routine clinical practice. We aimed to identify novel biomarkers for upper GI cancers which have been sufficiently validated to be ready for evaluation in low-prevalence populations. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and Web of Science for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020165005). Reference lists of included studies were assessed. Studies had to report on second measures of diagnostic performance (beyond discovery phase) for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect pancreatic, oesophageal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with less than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Heterogeneity prevented pooling of outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 149 eligible studies, involving 22,264 cancer cases and 49,474 controls. A total of 431 biomarkers were identified (183 microRNAs and other RNAs, 79 autoantibodies and other immunological markers, 119 other proteins, 36 metabolic markers, 6 circulating tumour DNA and 8 other). Over half (n = 231) were reported in pancreatic cancer studies. Only 35 biomarkers had been investigated in at least two studies, with reported outcomes for that individual marker for the same tumour type. Apolipoproteins (apoAII-AT and apoAII-ATQ), and pepsinogens (PGI and PGII) were the most promising biomarkers for pancreatic and gastric cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most novel biomarkers for the early detection of upper GI cancers are still at an early stage of matureness. Further evidence is needed on biomarker performance in low-prevalence populations, in addition to implementation and health economic studies, before extensive adoption into clinical practice can be recommended.

Unmet clinical needs for COVID-19 tests in UK health and social care settings.

There is an urgent requirement to identify which clinical settings are in most need of COVID-19 tests and the priority role(s) for tests in these settings to accelerate the development of tests fit for purpose in health and social care across the UK. This study sought to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs for COVID-19 tests across different settings within the UK health and social care sector via an online survey of health and social care professionals and policymakers. Four hundred and forty-seven responses were received between 22nd May and 15th June 2020. Hospitals and care homes were recognized as the settings with the greatest unmet clinical need for COVID-19 diagnostics, despite reporting more access to laboratory molecular testing than other settings. Hospital staff identified a need for diagnostic tests for symptomatic workers and patients. In contrast, care home staff expressed an urgency for screening at the front door to protect high-risk residents and limit transmission. The length of time to test result was considered a widespread problem with current testing across all settings. Rapid tests for staff were regarded as an area of need across general practice and dental settings alongside tests to limit antibiotics use.

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a single-consent Zelen's design, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: For medical tests that have a central role in clinical decision-making, current guidelines advocate outcome-based analytical performance specifications. Given that empirical (clinical trial-style) analyses are often impractical or unfeasible in this context, the ability to set such specifications is expected to rely on indirect studies to calculate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream clinical, operational, and economic outcomes. Currently, however, a lack of awareness and guidance concerning available alternative indirect methods is limiting the production of outcome-based specifications. Therefore, our aim was to review available indirect methods and present an analytical framework to inform future outcome-based performance goals. CONTENT: A methodology review consisting of database searches and extensive citation tracking was conducted to identify studies using indirect methods to incorporate or evaluate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream outcomes (including clinical accuracy, clinical utility, and/or costs). Eighty-two studies were identified, most of which evaluated the impact of imprecision and/or bias on clinical accuracy. A common analytical framework underpinning the various methods was identified, consisting of 3 key steps: (a) calculation of "true" test values; (b) calculation of measured test values (incorporating uncertainty); and (c) calculation of the impact of discrepancies between (a) and (b) on specified outcomes. A summary of the methods adopted is provided, and key considerations are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Various approaches are available for conducting indirect assessments to inform outcome-based performance specifications. This study provides an overview of methods and key considerations to inform future studies and research in this area.

The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of In Vitro Tests.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous factors contribute to uncertainty in test measurement procedures, and this uncertainty can have a significant impact on the downstream clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of testing strategies. Currently, however, there is no clear guidance concerning if or how such factors should be considered within Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of tests. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide an introduction to key concepts in measurement uncertainty for the HTA community and to explore, via systematic review, current methods utilised within HTAs. METHODS: HTAs of in vitro tests including a model-based economic evaluation were identified via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) HTA database and key reimbursement authority websites. Data were extracted to explore the specific components of measurement uncertainty assessed and methods utilised. The findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Of 107 identified HTAs, 20 (19%) attempted to assess components of measurement uncertainty: 15 did so via some form of pre-model assessment (such as a literature review or laboratory survey); four also included components within the economic model; and one considered measurement uncertainty within the model only. One study quantified the impact of measurement uncertainty on cost-effectiveness and found that this parameter significantly changed the results, but did not impact the overall decision uncertainty. CONCLUSION: A minority of HTAs identified from this review used various approaches to assess and/or incorporate the impact of measurement uncertainty, indicating that these assessments are feasible. Uncertainty remains around best practice methodology for conducting such analyses; further research is required to ensure that future HTAs are fit for purpose.