Cross-sectional study using primary care and cancer registration data to investigate patients with cancer presenting with non-specific symptoms

Clare Pearson, Veronique Poirier, Karen Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin, Willie Hamilton, Clare Pearson, Veronique Poirier, Karen Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin, Willie Hamilton

Abstract

Introduction: Patients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Pilot Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Centres (MDCs) provide a referral route for such patients in England.

Objectives: This work aimed to use linked primary care and cancer registration data to describe diagnostic pathways for patients similar to those being referred into MDCs and compare them to patients presenting with more specific symptoms.

Methods: This cross-sectional study linked primary care data from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) to national cancer registration and Route to Diagnosis records. Patient symptoms recorded in the NCDA were used to allocate patients to one of two groups - those presenting with symptoms mirroring referral criteria of MDCs (non-specific but concerning symptoms (NSCS)) and those with at least one site-specific alarm symptom (non-NSCS). Descriptive analyses compared the two groups and regression analysis by group investigated associations with long primary care intervals (PCIs).

Results: Patients with NSCS were more likely to be diagnosed at later stage (32% stage 4, compared with 21% in non-NSCS) and via an emergency presentation (34% vs 16%). These patients also had more multiple pre-referral general practitioner consultations (59% vs 43%) and primary care-led diagnostics (blood tests: 57% vs 35%). Patients with NSCS had higher odds of having longer PCIs (adjusted OR: 1.24 (1.11 to 1.36)). Patients with lung and urological cancers also had higher odds of longer PCIs overall and in both groups.

Conclusions: Differences in the diagnostic pathway show that patients with symptoms mirroring the MDC referral criteria could benefit from a new referral pathway.

Keywords: epidemiology; oncology; primary care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data exclusions and allocation to symptom-based analysis groups.NCDA, National Cancer Diagnosis Audit; NSCS, non-specific but concerning symptoms.

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. NICE guideline (NG12), 2015. Available: [Accessed 5 Nov 2018].
    1. NHS Digital Cancer waiting times monitoring dataset. Available: [Accessed 15 Jun 2018].
    1. Cancer Research UK Cancer waiting times definitions by country, 2015. Available:
    1. Ingeman ML, Christensen MB, Bro F, et al. . The Danish cancer pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer-a cross-sectional study of patient characteristics and cancer probability. BMC Cancer 2015;15:421 10.1186/s12885-015-1424-5
    1. Neal RD, Din NU, Hamilton W, et al. . Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK general practice research database. Br J Cancer 2014;110:584–92. 10.1038/bjc.2013.791
    1. Scheel BI, Ingebrigtsen SG, Thorsen T, et al. . Cancer suspicion in general practice: the role of symptoms and patient characteristics, and their association with subsequent cancer. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63:e627–35. 10.3399/bjgp13X671614
    1. Ingebrigtsen SG, Scheel BI, Hart B, et al. . Frequency of ‘warning signs of cancer’ in Norwegian general practice, with prospective recording of subsequent cancer. Fam Pract 2013;30:153–60. 10.1093/fampra/cms065
    1. Koo MM, Hamilton W, Walter FM, et al. . Symptom signatures and diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients: a review of current evidence. Neoplasia 2018;20:165–74. 10.1016/j.neo.2017.11.005
    1. Neal RD, Tharmanathan P, France B, et al. . Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? systematic review. Br J Cancer 2015;112 (Suppl 1):S92–107. 10.1038/bjc.2015.48
    1. Mendonca SC, Abel GA, Saunders CL, et al. . Pre-referral general practitioner consultations and subsequent experience of cancer care: evidence from the English cancer patient experience survey. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016;25:478–90. 10.1111/ecc.12353
    1. Renzi C, Lyratzopoulos G, Card T, et al. . Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England. Br J Cancer 2016;115:866–75. 10.1038/bjc.2016.250
    1. McPhail S, Elliss-Brookes L, Shelton J, et al. . Emergency presentation of cancer and short-term mortality. Br J Cancer 2013;109:2027–34. 10.1038/bjc.2013.569
    1. Nicholson BD, Oke J, Friedemann Smith C, et al. . The suspected cancer (scan) pathway: protocol for evaluating a new standard of care for patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018168 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018168
    1. Moseholm E, Lindhardt B Ø. Patient characteristics and cancer prevalence in the Danish cancer patient pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer-a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol 2017;50:166–72. 10.1016/j.canep.2017.08.003
    1. Stenman E, Palmér K, Rydén S, et al. . Diagnostic spectrum and time intervals in Sweden’s first diagnostic center for patients with nonspecific symptoms of cancer. Acta Oncol 2019;58:296–305. 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1537506
    1. Swann R, McPhail S, Witt J, et al. . Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National cancer diagnosis audit. Br J Gen Pract 2018;68:e63–72. 10.3399/bjgp17X694169
    1. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, et al. . Routes to diagnosis for cancer - determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1220–6. 10.1038/bjc.2012.408
    1. ACE Programme Key messages from the evaluation of the multidisciplinary diagnostic centres (MDC): a new approach to the diagnosis of cancer, 2019. Available:
    1. Weller D, Vedsted P, Rubin G, et al. . The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1262–7. 10.1038/bjc.2012.68
    1. Public Health England Cancer outcomes and services data set. pathology user guide, V. 4.0, 2019. Available: [Accessed 16 Sep 2019].
    1. Lyratzopoulos G, Abel GA, McPhail S, et al. . Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers. Br J Cancer 2013;108:686–90. 10.1038/bjc.2013.1
    1. Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, et al. . The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012;106:1940–4. 10.1038/bjc.2012.190
    1. Taylor A, Stapley S, Hamilton W. Jaundice in primary care: a cohort study of adults aged >45 years using electronic medical records. Fam Pract 2012;29:416–20. 10.1093/fampra/cmr118
    1. Koo MM, von Wagner C, Abel GA, et al. . The nature and frequency of abdominal symptoms in cancer patients and their associations with time to help-seeking: evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis. J Public Health (Oxf) 2018;40:e388–95. 10.1093/pubmed/fdx188
    1. Walter FM, Emery JD, Mendonca S, et al. . Symptoms and patient factors associated with longer time to diagnosis for colorectal cancer: results from a prospective cohort study. Br J Cancer 2016;115:533–41. 10.1038/bjc.2016.221
    1. Walter FM, Rubin G, Bankhead C, et al. . Symptoms and other factors associated with time to diagnosis and stage of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study. Br J Cancer 2015;112(Suppl 1):S6–13. 10.1038/bjc.2015.30
    1. Walter FM, Mills K, Mendonça SC, et al. . Symptoms and patient factors associated with diagnostic intervals for pancreatic cancer (symptom pancreatic study): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;1:298–306. 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30079-6
    1. Din NU, Ukoumunne OC, Rubin G, et al. . Age and gender variations in cancer diagnostic intervals in 15 cancers: analysis of data from the UK clinical practice research Datalink. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127717 10.1371/journal.pone.0127717
    1. Redaniel MT, Martin RM, Ridd MJ, et al. . Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the clinical practice research Datalink. PLoS One 2015;10:e0126608 10.1371/journal.pone.0126608
    1. Guldbrandt LM, Fenger-Grøn M, Rasmussen TR, et al. . The role of general practice in routes to diagnosis of lung cancer in Denmark: a population-based study of general practice involvement, diagnostic activity and diagnostic intervals. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:21 10.1186/s12913-014-0656-4
    1. Lyratzopoulos G, Saunders CL, Abel GA, et al. . The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers. Br J Cancer 2015;112(Suppl 1):S35–40. 10.1038/bjc.2015.40
    1. Baughan P, O'Neill B, Fletcher E. Auditing the diagnosis of cancer in primary care: the experience in Scotland. Br J Cancer 2009;101(Suppl 2):S87–91. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605397
    1. Rubin G, Berendsen A, Crawford SM, et al. . The expanding role of primary care in cancer control. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1231–72. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00205-3
    1. Green T, Atkin K, Macleod U. Cancer detection in primary care: insights from general practitioners. Br J Cancer 2015;112(Suppl 1):S41–9. 10.1038/bjc.2015.41

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner