Concordance with urgent referral guidelines in patients presenting with any of six 'alarm' features of possible cancer: a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care records

Hematuria Cancer Risk Score with Ultrasound Informs Cystoscopy Use in Patients with Hematuria

BACKGROUND

Hematuria is a cardinal symptom of urinary tract cancer and would require further investigations.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the ability of renal bladder ultrasound (RBUS) with the Hematuria Cancer Risk Score (HCRS) to inform cystoscopy use in patients with hematuria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The development cohort comprised 1984 patients with hematuria from 40 UK hospitals (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) who received RBUS. An independent validation cohort comprised 500 consecutive patients referred to secondary care for a suspicion of bladder cancer.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Sensitivity and true negative of the HCRS and RBUS were assessed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 134 (7%) and 36 (8%) patients in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, had a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer. Validation of the HCRS achieves good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.727 (95% confidence interval 0.648-0.800) in the validation cohort with sensitivity of 95% for the identification of cancer. Utilizing the cutoff of 4.500 derived from the HCRS in combination with RBUS in the development cohort, 680 (34%) patients would have been spared cystoscopy at the cost of missing a G1 Ta bladder cancer and a urinary tract cancer patient, while 117 (25%) patients would have avoided cystoscopy at the cost of missing a single patient of G1 Ta bladder cancer with sensitivity for the identification of cancer of 97% in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCRS with RBUS offers good discriminatory ability in identifying patients who would benefit from cystoscopy, sparing selected patient cohorts from an invasive procedure.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The hematuria cancer risk score with renal bladder ultrasound allows for the triage of patients with hematuria who would benefit from visual examination of the bladder (cystoscopy). This resulted in 25% of patients safely omitting cystoscopy, which is an invasive procedure, and would lead to health care cost savings.

The effect of local hospital waiting times on GP referrals for suspected cancer

INTRODUCTION

Reducing waiting times is a major policy objective in publicly-funded healthcare systems. However, reductions in waiting times can produce a demand response, which may offset increases in capacity. Early detection and diagnosis of cancer is a policy focus in many OECD countries, but prolonged waiting periods for specialist confirmation of diagnosis could impede this goal. We examine whether urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer patients are responsive to local hospital waiting times.

METHOD

We used annual counts of referrals from all 6,667 general practices to all 185 hospital Trusts in England between April 2012 and March 2018. Using a practice-level measure of local hospital waiting times based on breaches of the two-week maximum waiting time target, we examined the relationship between waiting times and urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer. To identify whether the relationship is driven by differences between practices or changes over time, we estimated three regression models: pooled linear regression, a between-practice estimator, and a within-practice estimator.

RESULTS

Ten percent higher rates of patients breaching the two-week wait target in local hospitals were associated with higher volumes of referrals in the pooled linear model (4.4%; CI 2.4% to 6.4%) and the between-practice estimator (12.0%; CI 5.5% to 18.5%). The relationship was not statistically significant using the within-practice estimator (1.0%; CI -0.4% to 2.5%).

CONCLUSION

The positive association between local hospital waiting times and GP demand for specialist diagnosis was caused by practices with higher levels of referrals facing longer local waiting times. Temporal changes in waiting times faced by individual practices were not related to changes in their referral volumes. GP referrals for diagnostic cancer services were not found to respond to waiting times in the short-term. In this setting, it may therefore be possible to reduce waiting times by increasing supply without consequently increasing demand.

What would primary care practitioners do differently after a delayed cancer diagnosis? Learning lessons from their experiences

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosis of cancer is challenging in primary care due to the low incidence of cancer cases in primary care practice. A prolonged diagnostic interval may be due to doctor, patient or system factors, or may be due to the characteristics of the cancer itself. The objective of this study was to learn from Primary Care Physicians' (PCP) experiences of incidents when they had failed to think of, or act on, a cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN

A qualitative, online survey eliciting PCP narratives. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

A primary care study, with narratives from 159 PCPs in 23 European countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PCPs' narratives on the question 'If you saw this patient with cancer presenting in the same way today, what would you do differently?

RESULTS

The main themes identified were: thinking broadly; improvement in communication and clinical management; use of other available resources and 'I wouldn't do anything differently'.

CONCLUSION (IMPLICATIONS)

To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, PCPs need to provide a long-term, holistic and active approach with effective communication, and to ensure shared decision-making, follow-up and continuing re-assessment of the patients' clinical conditions.

Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation.

METHODS

We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status.

RESULTS

In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%).

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis.

A taxonomy of early diagnosis research to guide study design and funding prioritisation

Researchers and research funders aiming to improve diagnosis seek to identify if, when, where, and how earlier diagnosis is possible. This has led to the propagation of research studies using a wide range of methodologies and data sources to explore diagnostic processes. Many such studies use electronic health record data and focus on cancer diagnosis. Based on this literature, we propose a taxonomy to guide the design and support the synthesis of early diagnosis research, focusing on five key questions: Do healthcare use patterns suggest earlier diagnosis could be possible? How does the diagnostic process begin? How do patients progress from presentation to diagnosis? How long does the diagnostic process take? Could anything have been done differently to reach the correct diagnosis sooner? We define families of diagnostic research study designs addressing each of these questions and appraise their unique or complementary contributions and limitations. We identify three further questions on relationships between the families and their relevance for examining patient group inequalities, supported with examples from the cancer literature. Although exemplified through cancer as a disease model, we recognise the framework is also applicable to non-neoplastic disease. The proposed framework can guide future study design and research funding prioritisation.

Colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients: How to improve the diagnostic pathway

Even in countries with national screening programmes for colorectal cancer, most cancers are identified after the patient has developed symptoms. The patients present these symptoms usually to primary care, or in some countries to specialist care. In either healthcare setting, the clinician has to consider cancer to be a possibility, then to perform triage investigations, followed by definitive investigation, usually by colonoscopy. This apparently simple pathway is not simple: most symptoms of colorectal cancer are more likely to represent benign disease than cancer, and each of these stages represents selection of patients into a higher-risk pool. This article summarises a symptom-based approach to selection and initial investigation of such patients in primary care. Some special groups need particular attention, including the younger patient, those with an inherited predisposition to cancer, and those with co-morbidities.

Improving the diagnostic process for patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer: a mixed-methods study to identify potential missed diagnostic opportunities

BACKGROUND

Patients with bladder and kidney cancer may experience diagnostic delays.

AIM

To identify patterns of suboptimal care and contributors of potential missed diagnostic opportunities (MDOs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, mixed-methods study recruiting participants from nine general practices in Eastern England between June 2018 and October 2019.

METHOD

Patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer were identified using eligibility criteria based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for suspected cancer. Primary care records were reviewed at recruitment and at 1 year for data on symptoms, tests, referrals, and diagnosis. Referral predictors were examined using logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients to explore their experiences of the diagnostic process, and these were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 940) were mostly female (n = 657, 69.9%), with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 64-77 years). In total, 268 (28.5%) received a referral and 465 (48.5%) had a final diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). There were 33 (3.5%) patients who were diagnosed with cancer, including prostate (n = 17), bladder (n = 7), and upper urothelial tract (n = 1) cancers. Among referred patients, those who had a final diagnosis of UTI had the longest time to referral (median 81.5 days). Only one-third of patients with recurrent UTIs were referred despite meeting NICE referral guidelines. Qualitative findings revealed barriers during the diagnostic process, including inadequate clinical examination, female patients given repeated antibiotics without clinical reviews, and suboptimal communication of test results to patients.

CONCLUSION

Older females with UTIs might be at increased risk of MDOs for cancer. Targeting barriers during the initial diagnostic assessment and follow-up might improve quality of diagnosis.

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data

BACKGROUND

Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions.

METHODS

English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group.

RESULTS

There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence.

METHODS

A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593.

FINDINGS

Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff.

PATIENT-LEVEL

Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain.

PROVIDER-LEVEL

Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Underlying cancer risk among patients with fatigue and other vague symptoms: a population-based cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Presenting to primary care with fatigue is associated with slightly increased cancer risk, although it is unknown how this varies in the presence of other 'vague' symptoms.

AIM

To quantify cancer risk in patients with fatigue who present with other 'vague' symptoms in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms for cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort study of patients presenting in UK primary care with new-onset fatigue during 2007-2015, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data linked to national cancer registration data.

METHOD

Patients presenting with fatigue without co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia were identified, who were further characterised as having co-occurrence of 19 other 'vague' potential cancer symptoms. Sex- and age-specific 9-month cancer risk for each fatigue-vague symptom cohort were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 285 382 patients presenting with new-onset fatigue, 84% (n = 239 846) did not have co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia. Of these, 38% (n = 90 828) presented with ≥1 of 19 vague symptoms for cancer. Cancer risk exceeded 3% in older males with fatigue combined with any of the vague symptoms studied. The age at which risk exceeded 3% was 59 years for fatigue-weight loss, 65 years for fatigue-abdominal pain, 67 years for fatigue-constipation, and 67 years for fatigue-other upper gastrointestinal symptoms. For females, risk exceeded 3% only in older patients with fatigue-weight loss (from 65 years), fatigue-abdominal pain (from 79 years), or fatigue-abdominal bloating (from 80 years).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of alarm symptoms or anaemia, fatigue combined with specific vague presenting symptoms, alongside patient age and sex, can guide clinical decisions about referral for suspected cancer.

Progress and priorities in reducing the time to cancer diagnosis

Key developments in early diagnosis research and policy since the publication of the highly cited BJC review "Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment associated with poorer outcomes?" by Neal et al. in 2015 are summarised. Progress achieved since 2015 is described and priorities for further research identified.

The Effect of Older Age and Frailty on the Time to Diagnosis of Cancer: A Connected Bradford Electronic Health Records Study

Over 60% of cancer diagnoses in the UK are in patients aged 65 and over. Cancer diagnosis and treatment in older adults is complicated by the presence of frailty, which is associated with lower survival rates and poorer quality of life. This population-based cohort study used a longitudinal database to calculate the time between presentation to primary care with a symptom suspicious of cancer and a confirmed cancer diagnosis for 7460 patients in the Bradford District. Individual frailty scores were calculated using the electronic frailty index (eFI) and categorised by severity. The median time from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis for all patients was 48 days (IQR 21-142). 23% of the cohort had some degree of frailty. After adjustment for potential confounders, mild frailty added 7 days (95% CI 3-11), moderate frailty 23 days (95% CI 4-42) and severe frailty 11 days (95% CI -27-48) to the median time to diagnosis compared to not frail patients. Our findings support use of the eFI in primary care to identify and address patient, healthcare and system factors that may contribute to diagnostic delay. We recommend further research to explore patient and clinician factors when investigating cancer in frail patients.

Mental Health Morbidities and Time to Cancer Diagnosis Among Adults With Colon Cancer in England

Importance

Mental health morbidity (MHM) in patients presenting with possible cancer symptoms may be associated with prediagnostic care and time to cancer diagnosis.

Objective

To compare the length of intervals to cancer diagnosis by preexisting MHM status in patients who presented with symptoms of as-yet-undiagnosed colon cancer and evaluate their risk of emergency cancer diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted using linked primary care data obtained from the population-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which includes primary care practices in England, linked to cancer registry and hospital data. Included participants were 3766 patients diagnosed with colon cancer between 2011 and 2015 presenting with cancer-relevant symptoms up to 24 months before their diagnosis. Data analysis was performed in January 2021 to April 2022.

Exposures

Mental health conditions recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcohol addiction, anorexia, and bulimia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Fast-track (also termed 2-week wait) specialist referral for investigations, time to colonoscopy and cancer diagnosis, and risk of emergency cancer diagnosis.

Results

Among 3766 patients with colon cancer (median [IQR] age, 75 [65-82] years; 1911 [50.7%] women ), 623 patients [16.5%] had preexisting MHM recorded in primary care the year before cancer diagnosis, including 562 patients (14.9%) with preexisting anxiety or depression (accounting for 90.2% of patients with preexisting MHM) and 61 patients (1.6%) with other MHM; 3143 patients (83.5%) did not have MHM. Patients with MHM had records of red-flag symptoms or signs (ie, rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, or anemia) in the 24 months before cancer diagnosis in a smaller proportion compared with patients without MHM (308 patients [49.4%] vs 1807 patients [57.5%]; P < .001). Even when red-flag symptoms were recorded, patients with MHM had lower odds of fast-track specialist referral (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94; P = .01). Among 2115 patients with red-flag symptoms or signs, 308 patients with MHM experienced a more than 2-fold longer median (IQR) time to cancer diagnosis (326 [75-552] days vs 133 [47-422] days) and higher odds of emergency diagnosis (90 patients [29.2%] vs 327 patients [18.1%]; adjusted OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23-2.24; P < .001) compared with 1807 patients without MHM.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that patients with MHM experienced large and prognostically consequential disparities in diagnostic care before a colon cancer diagnosis. These findings suggest that appropriate pathways and follow-up strategies after symptomatic presentation are needed for earlier cancer diagnoses and improved health outcomes in this large patient group.

Ethnic inequalities in routes to diagnosis of cancer: a population-based UK cohort study

BACKGROUND

UK Asian and Black ethnic groups have poorer outcomes for some cancers and are less likely to report a positive care experience than their White counterparts. This study investigated ethnic differences in the route to diagnosis (RTD) to identify areas in patients' cancer journeys where inequalities lie, and targeted intervention might have optimum impact.

METHODS

We analysed data of 243,825 patients with 10 cancers (2006-2016) from the RTD project linked to primary care data. Crude and adjusted proportions of patients diagnosed via six routes (emergency, elective GP referral, two-week wait (2WW), screen-detected, hospital, and Other routes) were calculated by ethnicity. Adjusted odds ratios (including two-way interactions between cancer and age, sex, IMD, and ethnicity) determined cancer-specific differences in RTD by ethnicity.

RESULTS

Across the 10 cancers studied, most patients were diagnosed via 2WW (36.4%), elective GP referral (23.2%), emergency (18.2%), hospital routes (10.3%), and screening (8.61%). Patients of Other ethnic group had the highest proportion of diagnosis via the emergency route, followed by White patients. Asian and Black group were more likely to be GP-referred, with the Black and Mixed groups also more likely to follow the 2WW route. However, there were notable cancer-specific differences in the RTD by ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that, where inequalities exist, the adverse cancer outcomes among Asian and Black patients are unlikely to be arising solely from a poorer diagnostic process.

Pre-diagnostic clinical features and blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective linked data study

Background: The majority of colorectal cancer cases are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation in the United Kingdom. Aim: To identify windows of opportunity for timely investigations or referrals in patients presenting with colon and rectal cancer-relevant symptoms or abnormal blood tests. Design and setting: Retrospective cohort study using linked primary care and cancer registry data of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in England between 2012-2015. Methods: Monthly consultation rates for relevant clinical features (change in bowel habit, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, mass, constitutional symptoms, and other bowel symptoms) and abnormal blood test results (low haemoglobin, high platelets and inflammatory markers) up to 24 months pre-diagnosis were calculated. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and relevant comorbidities was used to estimate the most likely month when consultation rates increased above baseline trend. Results: 5033 colon and 2516 rectal cancer patients were included. Consultations for all examined clinical features and abnormal blood tests increased in the year pre-diagnosis. Rectal bleeding was the earliest clinical feature to increase from baseline rate: 10 months (95%CI 8.3-11.7) pre-diagnosis for colon cancer; 8 months (95%CI 6.1-9.9) for rectal cancer. Low haemoglobin, high platelets and inflammatory markers increased from as early as 9 months pre-diagnosis. Conclusion: Our study found evidence for early increase in rates of consultation for relevant clinical features and abnormal blood tests in patients with colorectal cancer, suggesting that earlier instigation of cancer-specific investigations or referrals may be warranted in some symptomatic patients.

Intra-abdominal cancer risk with abdominal pain: a prospective cohort primary-care study

Background: Quantifying cancer risk in primary-care patients reporting abdominal pain would inform diagnostic strategies. Aim: To quantify oesophagogastric, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, ovarian, uterine, kidney and bladder cancer risks associated with newly reported abdominal pain with or without other symptoms, signs or abnormal blood tests (i.e. features) indicative of possible cancer. Design and setting: Observational prospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records with English cancer registry linkage. Methods: Participants (N=125,793) aged ≥40 years had newly reported abdominal pain in primary care during 01/01/2009-31/12/2013. The outcomes were 1-year cumulative incidence of cancer, and the composite 1-year cumulative incidence of cancers with shared additional features, stratified by age and sex. Results: With abdominal pain, overall risk was greater in men and increased with age, reaching 3.4% (95%CI 3.0–3.7%; predominantly colorectal cancer 1.9%, 1.6–2.1%) in men ≥70 years, compared with their expected incidence of 0.88% (0.87%–0.89%). Additional features increased cancer risk; for example, colorectal or pancreatic cancer risk with abdominal pain plus diarrhoea at 60–69 and ≥70, respectively, was 3.1% (1.9–4.9%) and 4.9% (3.7–6.4%), predominantly colorectal cancer (2.2%, 2–3.8% and 3.3%, 2.0–4.9%). Conclusions: Abdominal pain increases intra-abdominal cancer risk nearly fourfold in men aged ≥70, exceeding the 3% threshold warranting investigation. This threshold is surpassed for the over-60s only with additional features. These results help direct appropriate referral and testing strategies for patients based on their demographic profile and reporting features. We suggest non-invasive strategies first, such as faecal immunochemical testing, with safety-netting in a shared decision-making framework.