Primary care practitioners' diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: an exploratory vignette study in 20 European countries

Cancer care pathways across seven countries in Europe: What are the current obstacles? And how can artificial intelligence help?

BACKGROUND

Cancer poses significant challenges for healthcare professionals across the disease pathway including cancer imaging. This study constitutes part of the user requirement definition of INCISIVE EU project. The project has been designed to explore the full potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in cancer imaging to streamline diagnosis and management. The study aimed to map cancer care pathways (breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancers) across INCISIVE partner countries, and identify bottle necks within these pathways.

METHODS

Email interviews were conducted with ten oncology specialised healthcare professionals representing INCISIVE partner countries: Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Finland, the United Kingdom (UK) and Serbia. A purposive sampling strategy was employed for recruitment and data was collected between December 2020 and April 2021. Data was entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to allow content examination and comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The analysed pathways all shared a common characteristic: inequalities in relation to delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. All the studied countries, except the UK, lacked official national data about diagnostic and therapeutic delays. Furthermore, a considerable variation was noted regarding the availability of imaging and diagnostic services across the seven countries. Several concerns were also noted for inefficiencies/inequalities with regards to national screening for the four investigated cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment are an ongoing challenge and a source for inequalities. It is important to have systematic reporting of diagnostic and therapeutic delays in all countries to allow the proper estimation of its magnitude and support needed to address it. Our findings also support the orientation of the current policies towards early detection and wide scale adoption and implementation of cancer screening, through research, innovation, and technology. Technologies involving AI can have a great potential to revolutionise cancer care delivery.

POLICY SUMMARY

This study highlights the widespread delay in cancer diagnosis across Europe and supports the need for, systematic reporting of delays, improved availability of imaging services, and optimised national screening programs. The goal is to enhance cancer care delivery, encourage early detection, and implement research, innovation, and AI-based technologies for improved cancer imaging.

Cancer care at the time of the fourth industrial revolution: an insight to healthcare professionals' perspectives on cancer care and artificial intelligence

BACKGROUND

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in cancer care has gained unprecedented global attention over the past few decades. This has impacted the way that cancer care is practiced and delivered across settings. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on cancer treatment and the need for AI. This study is a part of the INCISIVE European Union H2020 project's development of user requirements, which aims to fully explore the potential of AI-based cancer imaging technologies.

METHODS

A mixed-methods research design was employed. HCPs participating in cancer care in the UK, Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, and Serbia were first surveyed anonymously online. Twenty-seven HCPs then participated in semi-structured interviews. Appropriate statistical method was adopted to report the survey results by using SPSS. The interviews were audio recorded, verbatim transcribed, and then thematically analysed supported by NVIVO.

RESULTS

The survey drew responses from 95 HCPs. The occurrence of diagnostic delay was reported by 56% (n = 28/50) for breast cancer, 64% (n = 27/42) for lung cancer, 76% (n = 34/45) for colorectal cancer and 42% (n = 16/38) for prostate cancer. A proportion of participants reported the occurrence of false positives in the accuracy of the current imaging techniques used: 64% (n = 32/50) reported this for breast cancer, 60% (n = 25/42) for lung cancer, 51% (n = 23/45) for colorectal cancer and 45% (n = 17/38) for prostate cancer. All participants agreed that the use of technology would enhance the care pathway for cancer patients. Despite the positive perspectives toward AI, certain limitations were also recorded. The majority (73%) of respondents (n = 69/95) reported they had never utilised technology in the care pathway which necessitates the need for education and training in the qualitative finding; compared to 27% (n = 26/95) who had and were still using it. Most, 89% of respondents (n = 85/95) said they would be opened to providing AI-based services in the future to improve medical imaging for cancer care. Interviews with HCPs revealed lack of widespread preparedness for AI in oncology, several barriers to introducing AI, and a need for education and training. Provision of AI training, increasing public awareness of AI, using evidence-based technology, and developing AI based interventions that will not replace HCPs were some of the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

HCPs reported favourable opinions of AI-based cancer imaging technologies and noted a number of care pathway concerns where AI can be useful. For the future design and execution of the INCISIVE project and other comparable AI-based projects, the characteristics and recommendations offered in the current research can serve as a reference.

Comparison of the Burden Evolution of the Family Caregivers for Patients With Cancer and Nononcological Diseases Who Need Palliative Care: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Background

The family caregiver (FCG) is with the patient from diagnosis till the end of life. The accumulated burden has a negative impact on the caregiver's quality of life and on his physical and emotional well-being.

Objective

To quantify the burden of care for a patient with palliative needs, and to compare the burden experienced by caregivers for nononcological patients with those for cancer patients.

Design

Prospective longitudinal study.

Setting/Participants

One hundred forty patient-primary caregiver pairs participated in the study, which were separated into two groups: those who cared for patients with nononcological diseases (n = 63) and those who cared for patients with cancer (n = 77).

Measurements

The burden measurement was assessed with Burden Scale for FCGs.

Results

The average score of the FCG's burden was significantly higher in the nononcological group (45 ± 14.45 vs. 36.52 ± 15.05; p = 0.001). In the case of caregivers for cancer patients it is noticed that the caregivers' burden decreases after the intervention of the specialized team (45.58 ± 14.11 at T1 vs. 36.65 ± 16.10 at T2; p = 0.001). The burden values for caring for patients with nononcological diseases remained in the plateau, indicating incremental caregiver adaptation, although the rising trend is still present toward the end of the term (47.43 ± 13.32 vs. 56.69 ± 15.44; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The burden dynamics are different depending on the patient's disease, duration of care, degree of dependence, number of comorbidities, and on the intervention of the palliative care team that ensures the support of the caregiver for the palliative patient.

The role of systemic immuno-inflammatory factors in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a cohort retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy, surgery being the only potentially curative treatment. The systemic inflammatory response is an important factor in the development of cancer. There is still controversy regarding its role in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Our study is a retrospective observational cohort study. We included patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), who underwent surgical resection in our hospital, between January 2012 and December 2019. We gathered information from preoperative and postoperative blood tests. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) were determined.

RESULTS

We included 312 patients. All the immune-inflammatory scores assessed significantly changed after the surgery. The impact on overall survival of these markers showed that only some of the postoperative scores predicted survival: high PLR had a negative prognostic impact, while high lymphocyte and PNI values had a positive effect on overall survival.

DISCUSSION

The circulating immune cells and their values integrated in the assessed prognostic scores suffer statistically significant changes after curative pancreatic surgery. Only the postoperative values of lymphocyte count, PLR, and PNI seem to influence the overall survival in PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov-identifier NCT05025371 .

Role of primary care physician factors on diagnostic testing and referral decisions for symptoms of possible cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. 'Gut feeling' predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or 'gut feeling', PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD420191560515.

What factors empower general practitioners for early cancer diagnosis? A 20-country European Delphi Study

Background:

Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses.

Aim:

To identify the factors that affect European GPs’ empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer.

Methods:

This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale.

The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant.

Results:

In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs’ working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas.

Conclusion:

GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis.