Barriers to contacting general practice with alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer: a population-based study.

Background: A prerequisite for general practitioners (GPs) being able to refer patients with cancer alarm symptoms for further investigations is that individuals present to the GP. Knowledge of barriers to help-seeking is, however, sparse. Objectives. The aim of this study was to analyse associations between the experience of recent-onset alarm symptom of colorectal cancer and four different barriers towards GP contact. Methods: A nationwide web-based cohort survey was conducted in 100000 individuals aged 20 years or above, randomly selected from the Danish Civil Registration System. Items regarding experience of four predefined alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer (rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, change in stool texture and change in stool frequency), decisions about contact to GPs and barriers towards GP contact were included. Results: A total of 37455 respondents over 40 years (51.8%) completed the questionnaire. The proportion of individuals with no contact to the GP varied between 69.8% and 79.8% for rectal bleeding and change in stool frequency, respectively. The most widely reported barriers were being worried about wasting the doctor's time and being too busy to make time to visit the doctor. Men with rectal bleeding significantly more often reported being worried about what the doctor might find. The proportion of individuals who reported barriers was, in general, higher among the youngest age group. Conclusion: Barriers to contacting the GP were frequent when experiencing alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer. Reporting the different barriers was significantly associated with gender and age.

Importance of biopsy site selection for peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis treated with repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB). Methods: Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E. Results: Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB. Conclusions: Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.