How to conduct research on overdiagnosis. A keynote paper from the EGPRN May 2016, Tel Aviv

Does point-of-care ultrasound examination by the general practitioner lead to inappropriate care? A follow-up study

BACKGROUND

The use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in general practice increases, but little is known about potential unintended findings and harms to patients. Information regarding such unwanted effects may be obtained by evaluating the medical records of patients who have been scanned by their general practitioner.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize re-consultations related to POCUS use in general practice, potential misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings, and to compare potentially troublesome cases to GPs' scanning competence and type of ultrasound device.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Professors in general practice with extensive experience in both research and quality assurance in general practice did a blinded review of prospectively collected routine electronic medical record data combined with cross-sectional data collected in relation to POCUS examinations.

SUBJECTS

Twenty general practitioners collected data on 564 patients examined with POCUS in primary care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

International standards for the classification of adverse events and incidental findings were used. First, research assistants identified all re-consultations described in the medical records that were related to the primary health complaint at the index consultation. Second, these re-consultations were classified by the medical experts in terms of seriousness and relation to the POCUS examination performed at the index consultation. In addition, the experts identified possible misdiagnosis, possible overdiagnosis, and incidental findings. Finally, identified cases were discussed in terms of appropriateness and described narratively.

RESULTS

Medical records of 564 patients were reviewed. A low risk of possible misdiagnosis (5.3%), potential overdiagnosis (0.7%), and incidental findings (0.7%) were found. Eleven POCUS-related re-consultations were identified and described.

CONCLUSION

POCUS scanning performed by general practitioners was generally safe, but it can result in unnecessary examinations and potential harm in a few cases. Certain areas, e.g. pelvic scans that included the ovaries, may especially be prone to misdiagnosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03375333.

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine X-Rays After Central Venous Catheter Removal: A Value-Based Analysis of Post-Removal Complications

Background: Healthcare systems worldwide are increasingly burdened by rising costs, growing patient demand, and limited resources. In this context, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays a vital role in evaluating the clinical value of medical interventions relative to their costs. Despite the lack of evidence supporting their necessity, routine post-removal chest X-rays for central venous catheters (CVCs) are still performed in some hospitals due to persistent misconceptions about their benefits. This study seeks to address these misconceptions by examining the costs of routine imaging through a cost analysis of complication detection rates in a large inpatient cohort, with the aim of highlighting the inefficiencies of this practice and promoting evidence-based approaches. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed across four university hospitals in Salzburg, Austria, including 984 CVC removals conducted between 2012 and 2021. Comparisons were made between X-rays after primary catheter insertion and post-removal X-rays to isolate complications specifically associated with CVC removal. A simple cost-per-outcome analysis, a subtype of CEA, was chosen to determine the cost per complication detected. The approach incorporated activity-based costing, adjusted to 2024 price levels via the Austrian Consumer Price Index (CPI), to capture real-world resource utilization. Results: Complications related to CVC removal were identified in five cases (0.5%), including one catheter rupture due to self-removal, two failed removals, one hemothorax, and one case of intrathoracic bleeding. Of these, three complications were detected on X-rays, including a retained catheter fragment, signs of intrathoracic bleeding, and a hemothorax. Additionally, one asymptomatic patient had a likely incidental finding of a small pneumothorax, which required no intervention. The cost of routine X-rays was calculated at EUR 38.20 per X-ray, resulting in a total expenditure of EUR 37,588.80 for 984 X-rays. This corresponds to EUR 7517.76 per detected complication (n = 4). The odds of detecting a complication on an X-ray were 193 times higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study confirms that complications following CVC removal are rare with only five detected cases. Routine imaging did not improve clinical decision-making, as complications were significantly more likely to be identified in symptomatic patients through clinical evaluation alone. Given the high financial cost (EUR 37,588.80 for 984 X-rays, EUR 7517.76 per detected complication), routine post-removal X-rays are unnecessary in asymptomatic patients and should be reserved for symptomatic cases based on clinical judgment. Adopting a symptom-based imaging approach would reduce unnecessary healthcare costs, minimize patient radiation exposure, and optimize resource allocation in high-volume procedures such as CVC removal.

How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of lung cancer screening, with its subsequent findings, is anticipated to change the current diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape. This review aimed to identify and present the most updated expert opinion and discuss relevant evidence regarding the impact of lung cancer screening and lung nodule management on the diagnostic and surgical landscape of lung cancer, as well as summarise points for clinical practice.

METHODS

This article is based on relevant lectures and talks delivered during the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Respiratory Society Collaborative Course on Thoracic Oncology (February 2023). Original lectures and talks and their relevant references were included. An additional literature search was conducted and peer-reviewed studies in English (December 2022 to June 2023) from the PubMed/Medline databases were evaluated with regards to immediate affinity of the published papers to the original talks presented at the course. An updated literature search was conducted (June 2023 to December 2023) to ensure that updated literature is included within this article.

RESULTS

Lung cancer screening suspicious findings are expected to increase the number of diagnostic investigations required therefore impacting on current capacity and resources. Healthcare systems already face a shortage of imaging and diagnostic slots and they are also challenged by the shortage of interventional radiologists. Thoracic surgery will be impacted by the wider lung cancer screening implementation with increased volume and earlier stages of lung cancer. Nonsuspicious findings reported at lung cancer screening will need attention and subsequent referrals where required to ensure participants are appropriately diagnosed and managed and that they are not lost within healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of lung cancer screening requires appropriate mapping of existing resources and infrastructure to ensure a tailored restructuring strategy to ensure that healthcare systems can meet the new needs.

Health Inequities in Cancer Incidence According to Economic Status and Regions Are Still Existed Even under Universal Health Coverage System in Korea: A Nationwide Population Based Study Using the National Health Insurance Database

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine the level of health equity in relation to cancer incidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the National Health Insurance claims data of the National Health Insurance Service between 2005 and 2022 and annual health insurance and medical aid beneficiaries between 2011 and 2021 to investigate the disparities of cancer incidence. We calculated age-sex standardized cancer incidence rates by cancer and year according to the type of insurance and the trend over time using the annual percentage change. We also compared the hospital type of the first diagnosis by cancer type and year and cancer incidence rates by cancer type and region in 2021 according to the type of insurance.

RESULTS

The total cancer incidence increased from 255,971 in 2011 to 325,772 cases in 2021. The absolute difference of total cancer incidence rate between the NHI beneficiaries and the medical aid (MA) recipients increased from 510.1 cases per 100,000 population to 536.9 cases per 100,000 population. The odds ratio of total cancer incidence for the MA recipients increased from 1.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.77 to 1.82) to 1.90 (95% CI, 1.88 to 1.93). Disparities in access to hospitals and regional cancer incidence were profound.

CONCLUSION

This study examined health inequities in relation to cancer incidence over the last decade. Cancer incidence was higher in the MA recipients, and the gap was widening. We also found that regional differences in cancer incidence still exist and are getting worse. Investigating these disparities between the NHI beneficiaries and the MA recipients is crucial for implementing of public health policies to reduce health inequities.

Quantification of overdiagnosis in randomised trials of cancer screening: an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews

The degree of overdiagnosis in common cancer screening trials is uncertain due to inadequate design of trials, varying definition and methods used to estimate overdiagnosis. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the risk of overdiagnosis for the most widely implemented cancer screening programmes and assess the implications of design limitations and biases in cancer screening trials on the estimates of overdiagnosis by conducting an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews of cancer screening. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library from their inception dates to November 29, 2021. Eligible studies included systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing cancer screening interventions to no screening, which reported cancer incidence for both trial arms. We extracted data on study characteristics, cancer incidence and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. We included 19 trials described in 30 articles for review, reporting results for the following types of screening: mammography for breast cancer, chest X-ray or low-dose CT for lung cancer, alpha-foetoprotein and ultrasound for liver cancer, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate cancer, and CA-125 test and/or ultrasound for ovarian cancer. No trials on screening for melanoma were eligible. Only one trial (5%) had low risk in all bias domains, leading to a post-hoc meta-analysis, excluding trials with high risk of bias in critical domains, finding the extent of overdiagnosis ranged from 17% to 38% across cancer screening programmes. We conclude that there is a significant risk of overdiagnosis in the included randomised trials on cancer screening. We found that trials were generally not designed to estimate overdiagnosis and many trials had high risk of biases that may draw the estimates of overdiagnosis towards the null. In effect, the true extent of overdiagnosis due to cancer screening is likely underestimated.

Income differences in screening, incidence, postoperative complications, and mortality of thyroid cancer in South Korea: a national population-based time trend study

Background

The incidence of thyroid cancer (TC) has increased rapidly over the past few decades in Korea. This study investigated whether the TC epidemic has been driven by overdiagnosis.

Methods

We calculated the TC screening rate from mid-2008 through mid-2014, and the incidence, postoperative complication, and mortality rates of TC between 2006 and 2015, using data from the Korea Community Health Survey, the National Health Insurance Database, and the cause-of-death data of Statistics Korea. Trends in age-standardized rates of all indicators were examined, along with income gaps therein. Analyses were conducted for lung cancer and stroke as negative control outcomes.

Results

The incidence rate of TC increased from 46.6 per 100,000 to 115.0 per 100,000 between 2006 and 2012, and then decreased to 63.5 per 100,000 in 2015. Despite these remarkable changes in incidence, mortality did not fluctuate during the same period. High income was associated with high rates of screening, incidence, and postoperative complications, while low income showed an association with a high mortality rate. Analyses using negative control outcomes showed that high income was associated with low rates of both incidence and mortality, which contrasted with the patterns of TC. The recent decreases in TC incidence and postoperative complications, which reflect societal concerns about the overdiagnosis of TC, were more pronounced in high-income individuals than in low-income individuals.

Conclusions

The time trends in income gaps in screening, incidence, postoperative complications, and mortality of TC, as well as negative control outcomes, provided corroborating evidence of TC overdiagnosis in Korea.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-020-07597-4.

Challenges for clinical practice and research in family medicine in reducing the risk of chronic diseases. Notes on the EGPRN Spring Conference 2017 in Riga

Chronic diseases in most cases belong to the category of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which are the main cause of mortality globally. Cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer are the four NCDs responsible for 82% of NCD deaths. Prevention of NCDs implies health promotion activities that encourage healthy lifestyle and limit the initial onset of chronic diseases. Prevention also includes early detection activities, such as screening at-risk populations, as well as strategies for appropriate management of existing diseases and related complications. Early intervention, reducing morbidity and mortality rates could be an appealing idea for patients, physicians and governmental institutions but could also cause harm. Healthcare is undergoing profound changes, and the role of technology in diagnostics and management of chronic diseases in primary healthcare (PHC) is increasing remarkably. However, studies show that the standards of care for chronic diseases and preventive care are met by less than 50%. We still lack clear standards for patients with multiple chronic diseases. The applicability of a single evidence-based guideline to multimorbid patients is limited and can be problematic. Well-designed PHC studies focusing on the impact of medical interventions on morbidity, mortality and quality of life in the fields of early diagnosis, early treatment and multimorbidity are still needed.

Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions

Overdiagnosis, is defined as the diagnosis of a condition that, if unrecognized, would not cause symptoms or harm a patient during his or her lifetime, and it is increasingly acknowledged as a consequence of screening for cancer and other conditions. Because preventive care is a crucial component of primary care, which is delivered to the broad population, overdiagnosis in primary care is an important problem from a public health perspective and has far reaching implications. The scope of overdiagnosis as a result of services delivered in primary care is unclear, though overdiagnosis of indolent breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung cancers is well described and overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is also recognized. However, overdiagnosis is a known consequence of all screening and can be assumed to occur in many more clinical contexts. Overdiagnosis can harm patients by leading to overtreatment (with associated potential toxicities), diagnosis related anxiety or depression, and labeling, or through financial burden. Many entrenched factors facilitate overdiagnosis, including the growing use of advanced diagnostic technology, financial incentives, a medical culture that encourages greater use of tests and treatments, limitations in the evidence that obscure the understanding of diagnostic utility, use of non-beneficial screening tests, and the broadening of disease definitions. Efforts to reduce overdiagnosis are hindered by physicians' and patients' lack of awareness of the problem and by confusion about terminology, with overdiagnosis often conflated with related concepts. Clarity of terminology would facilitate physicians' understanding of the problem and the growth in evidence regarding its prevalence and downstream consequences in primary care. It is hoped that international coordination regarding diagnostic standards for disease definitions will also help minimize overdiagnosis in the future.

Overdiagnosis: An Unrecognised and Growing Worldwide Problem in Healthcare

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of deviations, abnormalities, risk factors, and pathologies that in themselves would never cause symptoms (this applies only to risk factors and pathology), would never lead to morbidity, and would never be the cause of death. Therefore, treating an overdiagnosed condition (deviation, abnormality, risk factor, pathology) cannot, by definition, improve the patient's prognosis, and can therefore only be harmful. Overdiagnosis is an extremely harmful and big problem all over the world, and the problem is increasing. This is especially the case in high-income countries, where more sensitive tests, more testing, more screening and earlier diagnosis is in focus, and more of the same will be implemented in the future. Moreover, disease definitions have been and are still being widened, plus thresholds for treating, e.g. risk factors, have been and are still being lowered. Finally, disease mongering is growing, because it is cheaper and faster to invent new "diseases" than new pharmaceutical drugs. From the definition of overdiagnosis it can be reasoned that a patient who has been correctly diagnosed and a person who has been overdiagnosed can have the same kind of pathologies. Therefore, at the level of the individual person or patient it can never be verified whether he or she has in fact been correctly diagnosed or overdiagnosed. Therefore, the complexity, dilemmas and pitfalls in understanding what overdiagnosis really is so succinctly captured by this quote from the Danish philosopher S⊘ren Kirkegaard (1813-55): 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards'.