Summary Background Early diagnosis interventions such as symptom awareness campaigns increasingly form part of global cancer control strategies. However, these strategies will have little impact in improving cancer outcomes if the targeted symptoms represent advanced stage of disease. Therefore, we aimed to examine associations between common presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we analysed population-level data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014 for patients aged 25 years and older with one of 12 types of solid tumours (bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, laryngeal, lung, melanoma, oral or oropharyngeal, ovarian, prostate, rectal, and renal cancer). We considered 20 common presenting symptoms and examined their associations with stage at diagnosis (TNM stage IV vs stage I–III) using logistic regression. For each symptom, we estimated these associations when reported as a single presenting symptom and when reported together with other symptoms. Findings We analysed data for 7997 patients. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer varied substantially by presenting symptom, from 1% (95% CI 1–3; eight of 584 patients) for abnormal mole to 80% (71–87; 84 of 105 patients) for neck lump. Three of the examined symptoms (neck lump, chest pain, and back pain) were consistently associated with increased odds of stage IV cancer, whether reported alone or with other symptoms, whereas the opposite was true for abnormal mole, breast lump, postmenopausal bleeding, and rectal bleeding. For 13 of the 20 symptoms (abnormal mole, breast lump, post-menopausal bleeding, rectal bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms, haematuria, change in bowel habit, hoarseness, fatigue, abdominal pain, lower abdominal pain, weight loss, and the “any other symptom” category), more than 50% of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV; for 19 of the 20 studied symptoms (all except for neck lump), more than a third of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. Interpretation Despite specific presenting symptoms being more strongly associated with advanced stage at diagnosis than others, for most symptoms, large proportions of patients are diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. These findings provide support for early diagnosis interventions targeting common cancer symptoms, countering concerns that they might be simply expediting the detection of advanced stage disease. Funding UK Department of Health's Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis; and Cancer Research UK.

/pdf/presenting-symptoms-of-cancer-and-stage-at-diagnosis-24lulxdzfj.pdf

Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study.

An earlier diagnosis is a key strategy for improving the outcomes of patients with cancer. However, achieving this goal can be challenging, particularly for the growing number of people with one or more chronic conditions (comorbidity/multimorbidity) at the time of diagnosis. Pre-existing chronic diseases might affect patient participation in cancer screening, help-seeking for new and/or changing symptoms and clinicians' decision-making on the use of diagnostic investigations. Evidence suggests, for example, that pre-existing pulmonary, cardiovascular, neurological and psychiatric conditions are all associated with a more advanced stage of cancer at diagnosis. By contrast, hypertension and certain gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal conditions might be associated with a more timely diagnosis. In this Review, we propose a comprehensive framework that encompasses the effects of disease-specific, patient-related and health-care-related factors on the diagnosis of cancer in individuals with pre-existing chronic illnesses. Several previously postulated aetiological mechanisms (including alternative explanations, competing demands and surveillance effects) are integrated with newly identified mechanisms, such as false reassurances, or patient concerns about appearing to be a hypochondriac. By considering specific effects of chronic diseases on diagnostic processes and outcomes, tailored early diagnosis initiatives can be developed to improve the outcomes of the large proportion of patients with cancer who have pre-existing chronic conditions.

/pdf/comorbid-chronic-diseases-and-cancer-diagnosis-disease-3plhxosgil.pdf

Comorbid chronic diseases and cancer diagnosis: disease-specific effects and underlying mechanisms

Objective To determine whether a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) can be safely implemented in primary care as a rule-out test for significant bowel disease (SBD) (colorectal cancer (CRC), higher risk adenoma (HRA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) when used as an adjunct to the clinical assessment of new bowel symptoms. Design Single-centre prospective cohort study of all patients who attended primary care and submitted a FIT in the first calendar year of the service beginning December 2015. f-Hb was estimated using HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex) with a clinical cut-off of ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces. Incident cases of CRC were verified via anonymised record linkage to the Scottish Cancer Registry. Results 5422 patients submitted 5660 FIT specimens, of which 5372 were analysed (positivity: 21.9%). 2848 patients were referred immediately to secondary care and three with f-Hb Conclusion In primary care, measurement of f-Hb, in conjunction with clinical assessment, can safely and objectively determine a patient’s risk of SBD.

https://bmjopengastro.bmj.com/content/bmjgast/6/1/e000293.full.pdf

Impact of introducing a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin into primary care on the outcome of patients with new bowel symptoms: a prospective cohort study

Background The incidence of oral cancer is increasing. Guidance for oral cancer from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is unique in recommending cross-primary care referral from GPs to dentists. Aim This review investigates knowledge about delays in the diagnosis of symptomatic oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in primary care. Design and setting An independent multi-investigator literature search strategy and an analysis of study methodologies using a modified data extraction tool based on Aarhus checklist criteria relevant to primary care. Method The authors conducted a focused systematic review involving document retrieval from five databases up to March 2018. Included were studies looking at OSCC diagnosis from when patients first accessed primary care up to referral, including length of delay and stage of disease at time of definitive diagnosis. Results From 538 records, 16 articles were eligible for full-text review. In the UK, more than 55% of patients with OSCC were referred by their GP, and 44% by their dentist. Rates of prescribing between dentists and GPs were similar, and both had similar delays in referral, though one study found greater delays attributed to dentists as they had undertaken dental procedures. On average, patients had two to three consultations before referral. Less than 50% of studies described the primary care aspect of referral in detail. There was no information on inter-GP–dentist referrals. Conclusion There is a need for primary care studies on OSCC diagnosis. There was no evidence that GPs performed less well than dentists, which calls into question the NICE cancer option to refer to dentists, particularly in the absence of robust auditable pathways.

Diagnosis and referral delays in primary care for oral squamous cell cancer: a systematic review.

Objectives To understand self-reported potential cancer symptom help-seeking behaviours and attitudes during the first 6 months (March–August 2020) of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. Design UK population-based survey conducted during August and September 2020. Correlates of help-seeking behaviour were modelled using logistic regression in participants reporting potential cancer symptoms during the previous 6 months. Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposeful subsample of participants, analysed thematically. Setting Online UK wide survey. Participants 7543 adults recruited via Cancer Research UK online panel provider (Dynata) and HealthWise Wales (a national register of ‘research ready’ participants) supplemented with social media (Facebook and Twitter) recruitment. 30 participants were also interviewed. Main outcome measures Survey measures included experiences of 15 potential cancer symptoms, help-seeking behaviour, barriers and prompts to help-seeking. Results Of 3025 (40.1%) participants who experienced a potential cancer symptom, 44.8% (1355/3025) had not contacted their general practitioner (GP). Odds of help-seeking were higher among participants with disability (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.38, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.71) and who experienced more symptoms (aOR=1.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.82), and lower among those who perceived COVID-19 as the cause of symptom(s) (aOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52). Barriers included worries about wasting the doctor’s time (1158/7543, 15.4%), putting strain on healthcare services (945, 12.6%) and not wanting to make a fuss (907, 12.0%). Interviewees reported reluctance to contact the GP due to concerns about COVID-19 and fear of attending hospitals, and described putting their health concerns on hold. Conclusions Many people avoided healthcare services despite experiencing potential cancer symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside current help-seeking campaigns, well-timed and appropriate nationally coordinated campaigns should signal that services are open safely for those with unusual or persistent symptoms. Trial registration number ISRCTN17782018.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/9/e053095.full.pdf

Cancer symptom experience and help-seeking behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a cross-sectional population survey.

Background Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this. Aim To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit. Design and setting Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England. Method Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management. Results Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15–86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0–27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more. Conclusion The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.

/pdf/diagnosing-cancer-in-primary-care-results-from-the-national-1fyo8mrtnl.pdf

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

Objective To characterize cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care and draw comparisons with cancer diagnostic activity in England. Method A national audit of cancer diagnosis was conducted in Scottish and English general practices. Participating GPs collected diagnostic pathway data on patients diagnosed in 2014 from medical records. Data were supplemented by linkage to national cancer registries. Analysis explored and compared patient characteristics, diagnostic intervals, and routes to diagnosis. Results 7.7% of all Scottish general practices in 2017 provided data on 2,014 cancer diagnoses. 71.5% of cases presented to GPs and 37.4% were referred using the "Urgent-Suspected Cancer" route. The median primary care interval was 5 days (IQR 0-23 days) and median diagnostic interval was 30 days (IQR 13-68). Both varied by cancer-site. Diagnostic intervals were longer in the most remote patients and those with more comorbidities. Scottish and English samples corresponded closely in key characteristics. Conclusions Most people diagnosed with cancer in Scotland present to a GP first. Most are referred and diagnosed quickly, with variations by cancer-site. Intervals were longest for the most remote patients. GPs in Scotland and England appear to perform equally but, in view of growing differences between health systems, future comparative audits may be informative.

/pdf/cancer-diagnosis-in-scottish-primary-care-results-from-the-2d6fsl3qjx.pdf

Jana Witt

Papers

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

Cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care: Results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

Impact of geography on Scottish cancer diagnoses in primary care: Results from a national cancer diagnosis audit.