BACKGROUND: Diagnostic delay is deemed to account for an estimated 5000 to 10 000 extra cancer deaths each year in the UK. Many cancer patients do not have symptoms meeting national referral criteria for rapid investigation. Risk assessment tools (RATs) have been developed to assist GPs in selecting patient for cancer investigation. AIM: To assess the usability and acceptability of lung and colorectal RATs, as well as subsequent resource use and cancer diagnoses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study with nested qualitative study with 614 GPs from 165 practices in seven English cancer networks were provided with RATs applicable to patients aged ≥40 years with bowel or respiratory symptoms. In-depth interviews were conducted with 34 individuals (11 project managers and 23 GPs). METHOD: The study measured the number of RATs used, and subsequent cancer investigations and diagnoses, over a 6-month period and compared these with the previous 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2593 RATs (1160 lung, 1433 colorectal) were completed. Compared with the preceding 6 months, there were 292 more chest X-rays, 104 extra 2-week chest clinic appointments, and 47 additional diagnoses of lung cancer. For suspected colorectal cancer, there were 304 more 2-week referrals, 270 more colonoscopies, and 10 more cancers identified. RATs appeared to help GPs in their selection of patients for cancer investigation. Users reported that RATs helped to confirm a need for investigation as well as allowing reassurance when investigation was not needed. CONCLUSION: Use of RATs in primary care was accompanied by increased diagnostic activity and additional cancer diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic delay is deemed to account for an estimated 5000 to 10 000 extra cancer deaths each year in the UK. Many cancerpatients do not have symptoms meeting national referral criteria for rapid investigation. Risk assessment tools (RATs) have been developed to assist GPs in selecting patient for cancer investigation. AIM: To assess the usability and acceptability of lung and colorectal RATs, as well as subsequent resource use and cancer diagnoses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study with nested qualitative study with 614 GPs from 165 practices in seven English cancer networks were provided with RATs applicable to patients aged ≥40 years with bowel or respiratory symptoms. In-depth interviews were conducted with 34 individuals (11 project managers and 23 GPs). METHOD: The study measured the number of RATs used, and subsequent cancer investigations and diagnoses, over a 6-month period and compared these with the previous 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2593 RATs (1160 lung, 1433 colorectal) were completed. Compared with the preceding 6 months, there were 292 more chest X-rays, 104 extra 2-week chest clinic appointments, and 47 additional diagnoses of lung cancer. For suspected colorectal cancer, there were 304 more 2-week referrals, 270 more colonoscopies, and 10 more cancers identified. RATs appeared to help GPs in their selection of patients for cancer investigation. Users reported that RATs helped to confirm a need for investigation as well as allowing reassurance when investigation was not needed. CONCLUSION: Use of RATs in primary care was accompanied by increased diagnostic activity and additional cancer diagnoses.
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M P Coleman; D Forman; H Bryant; J Butler; B Rachet; C Maringe; U Nur; E Tracey; M Coory; J Hatcher; C E McGahan; D Turner; L Marrett; M L Gjerstorff; T B Johannesen; J Adolfsson; M Lambe; G Lawrence; D Meechan; E J Morris; R Middleton; J Steward; M A Richards Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 79.321
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
Authors: Olusegun Isaac Alatise; Omobolaji O Ayandipo; Ademola Adeyeye; Ken Seier; Akinwunmi O Komolafe; Matthew O Bojuwoye; Oludapo O Afuwape; Ann Zauber; Adeleye Omisore; Samuel Olatoke; Adegboyega Akere; Olusola Famurewa; Mithat Gonen; David O Irabor; T Peter Kingham Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 6.860
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