Literature DB >> 21357592

The diagnostic performance of scoring systems to identify symptomatic colorectal cancer compared to current referral guidance.

Tom Marshall1, Robert Lancashire, Debbie Sharp, Tim J Peters, K K Cheng, William Hamilton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the discrimination characteristics of a new algorithm and two existing symptom scoring systems for identification of patients with suspected colorectal cancer.
DESIGN: Derivation of algorithm by a case-control study and assessment of discrimination characteristics using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Three colorectal cancer scoring systems were investigated. The Bristol-Birmingham (BB) equation, which we derived from a large primary care dataset; the CAPER score, previously derived from a primary care case-control study and a symptom score derived from National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for urgent referral of symptomatic patients. Their discrimination characteristics were investigated in two datasets: the BB derivation dataset and the CAPER score derivation dataset. The main analyses were ROC curves and the areas under them for all three algorithms in both datasets. Setting Electronic primary care databases. Main outcome measures Diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: In the BB dataset, areas under the curve were: BB equation 0.83 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.84); CAPER 0.79 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.80); the NICE guidelines 0.65 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.66). In the CAPER dataset, areas under the curve were: BB 0.92 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.94); CAPER 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93); NICE guidelines 0.75 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79). In subjects under 50 the discrimination characteristics of NICE referral guidelines were no better than chance.
CONCLUSIONS: Both multivariable symptom scoring systems performed significantly better than NICE referral guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21357592     DOI: 10.1136/gut.2010.225987

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  21 in total

1.  Cancer and primary care: the clinical and research agenda.

Authors:  William Hamilton; Peter Vedsted
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Utilizing uncoded consultation notes from electronic medical records for predictive modeling of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Mark Hoogendoorn; Peter Szolovits; Leon M G Moons; Mattijs E Numans
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 5.326

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer diagnosis: Pitfalls and opportunities.

Authors:  Pablo Vega; Fátima Valentín; Joaquín Cubiella
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-12-15

4.  Identifying patients with suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.

Authors:  Julia Hippisley-Cox; Carol Coupland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Antonieta Medina-Lara; Bogdan Grigore; Ruth Lewis; Jaime Peters; Sarah Price; Paolo Landa; Sophie Robinson; Richard Neal; William Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study.

Authors:  William Hamilton; Trish Green; Tanimola Martins; Kathy Elliott; Greg Rubin; Una Macleod
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Identifying patients with undetected colorectal cancer: an independent validation of QCancer (Colorectal).

Authors:  G S Collins; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Preliminary results of a feasibility study of the use of information technology for identification of suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: the CREDIBLE study.

Authors:  E Kidney; L Berkman; A Macherianakis; D Morton; G Dowswell; W Hamilton; R Ryan; H Awbery; S Greenfield; T Marshall
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Anaemia as a risk stratification tool for symptomatic patients referred via the two-week wait pathway for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  S Mashlab; P Large; W Laing; O Ng; M D'Auria; D Thurston; S Thomson; A G Acheson; D J Humes; A Banerjea
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Comparing primary and secondary health-care use between diagnostic routes before a colorectal cancer diagnosis: cohort study using linked data.

Authors:  J R Sheringham; T Georghiou; X A Chitnis; M Bardsley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.