Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

Patients from general practice with non-specific cancer symptoms: a retrospective study of symptoms and imaging

BACKGROUND

Patients with non-specific symptoms or signs of cancer (NSSC) present a challenge as they are a heterogeneous population who are not candidates for fast-track work-up in an organ-specific cancer pre-planned pathway (CPP). Denmark has a cancer pre-planned pathway for this population (NSSC-CPP), but several issues remain unclarified, for example, distribution and significance of symptoms and findings, and choice of imaging.

AIM

To investigate symptoms, cancer diagnoses, and diagnostic yield of computed tomography (CT) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in patients on NSSC-CPP to improve the overall diagnostic process.

DESIGN & SETTING

A retrospective medical chart review in a 1-year consecutive cohort (2020).

METHOD

A total of 802 referrals were reviewed for diagnostic imaging in patients with NSSP from general practices, specialist practices, or the local hospital diagnostic centre responsible for NSSC-CPP.

RESULTS

The study included 248 patients; 21% had cancer, most frequently gastrointestinal cancer (27%). The most frequent symptom was weight loss (56%). CT had a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 87%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 65%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%. For 18F-FDG-PET/CT, the numbers were sensitivity 82%, specificity 62%, PPV 33%, and NPV 94%. Patients frequently underwent subsequent examinations following initial imaging.

CONCLUSION

The findings were in accordance with the literature. Patients with NSSC had a cancer prevalence of 21%, most frequently gastrointestinal. The most frequent symptom was weight loss and, even as the only symptom, it is a potential marker for cancer. CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT were sensitive with high NPV, whereas PPV was superior in CT. Better stratification by symptoms or findings is an obvious focus point for future studies to further optimise the NSSC-CPP work-up strategy.

Irish general practitioner (GP) perspectives on impact of direct access radiology on patient care in the community: results from a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Since winter 2020/21, general practitioners (GPs) in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) have been granted access to diagnostic imaging studies on a new publicly funded pathway, expediting access to services previously obtained via hospital-based doctors.

AIMS

Outline GP perspectives on imaging studies obtained via the new "GP Access to Community Diagnostics" initiative.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was employed. Referrals over the first six months of 2019 and 2021 were collated by a private imaging provider, and a randomly selected subset of 2021 studies (maximum 30 referrals per GP) was returned to participating GPs to provide detail on the impact on each patient's care. In-depth qualitative interviews were also conducted with participating GPs.

RESULTS

Eleven GPs supplied detailed information on 81 studies organized through the new initiative. GPs reported that the initiative had led to a large proportion of cases being managed solely in general practice, with an 81% reduction in referrals to acute hospital settings and a 58% reduction in referrals to secondary care clinics. GPs felt imaging studies improved patient care in 86% of cases and increased GP workload in 58% of cases. GP qualitative interviews revealed four key themes: improved patient care, increased GP workload, reduction in hospital referrals, and opinions on ongoing management of such initiatives, including guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs felt enhancing access to diagnostics improved patient care by expediting diagnosis, decision-making, and treatment and by reducing hospital referrals. GPs were generally positive about the initiative and made some suggestions on future management of the initiative.

Impact of enhancing GP access to diagnostic imaging: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Direct access to diagnostic imaging in General Practice provides an avenue to reduce referrals to hospital-based specialities and emergency departments, and to ensure timely diagnosis. Enhanced GP access to radiology imaging could potentially reduce hospital referrals, hospital admissions, enhance patient care, and improve disease outcomes. This scoping review aims to demonstrate the value of direct access to diagnostic imaging in General Practice and how it has impacted on healthcare delivery and patient care.

METHODS

A search was conducted of 'PubMed', 'Cochrane Library', 'Embase' and 'Google Scholar' for papers published between 2012-2022 using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework. The search process was guided by the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

Twenty-three papers were included. The studies spanned numerous geographical locations (most commonly UK, Denmark, and Netherlands), encompassing several study designs (most commonly cohort studies, randomised controlled trials and observational studies), and a range of populations and sample sizes. Key outcomes reported included the level of access to imaging serves, the feasibility and cost effectiveness of direct access interventions, GP and patient satisfaction with direct access initiatives, and intervention related scan waiting times and referral process.

CONCLUSION

Direct access to imaging for GPs can have many benefits for healthcare service delivery, patient care, and the wider healthcare ecosystem. GP focused direct access initiatives should therefore be considered as a desirable and viable health policy directive. Further research is needed to more closely examine the impacts that access to imaging studies have on health system operations, especially those in General Practice. Research examining the impacts of access to multiple imaging modalities is also warranted.

Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care

OBJECTIVES

The largest proportion of general practitioner (GP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is musculoskeletal (MSK), with consistent annual growth. With limited supporting evidence and potential harms from early imaging overuse, we evaluated practice to improve pathways and patient safety.

METHODS

Cohort evaluation of routinely collected diagnostic and general practice data across a UK metropolitan primary care population. We reviewed patient characteristics, results and healthcare utilisation.

RESULTS

Of 306 MSK-MRIs requested by 107 clinicians across 29 practices, only 4.9% (95% CI ±2.4%) appeared clearly indicated and only 16.0% (95% CI ±4.1%) received appropriate prior therapy. 37.0% (95% CI ±5.5%) documented patient imaging request. Most had chronic symptoms and half had psychosocial flags. Mental health was addressed in only 11.8% (95% CI ±6.3%) of chronic sufferers with psychiatric illness, suggesting a solely pathoanatomical approach to MSK care. Only 7.8% (95% CI ±3.0%) of all patients were appropriately managed without additional referral. 1.3% (95% CI ±1.3%) of scans revealed diagnoses leading to change in treatment (therapeutic yield). Most imaged patients received pathoanatomical explanations to their symptoms, often based on expected age or activity-related changes. Only 16.7% (95% CI ±4.2%) of results appeared correctly interpreted by GPs, with spurious overperception of surgical targets in 65.4% (95% CI ±5.3%) who suffered 'low-value' (ineffective, harmful or wasteful) post-MRI referral cascades due to misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Typically, 20%-30% of GP specialist referrals convert to a procedure, whereas MRI-triggered referrals showed near-zero conversion rate. Imaged patients experienced considerable delay to appropriate care. Cascade costs exceeded direct-MRI costs and GP-MSK-MRI potentially more than doubles expenditure compared with physiotherapist-led assessment services, for little-to-no added therapeutic yield, unjustifiable by cost-consequence or cost-utility analysis.

CONCLUSION

Unfettered GP-MSK-MRI use has reached unaccceptable indication creep and disutility. Considerable avoidable harm occurs through ubiquitous misinterpretation and salient low-value referral cascades for two-thirds of imaged patients, for almost no change in treatment. Any marginally earlier procedural intervention for a tiny fraction of patients is eclipsed by negative consequences for the vast majority. Only 1-2 patients need to be scanned for one to suffer mismanagement. Direct-access imaging is neither clinically, nor cost-effective and deimplementation could be considered in this setting. GP-MSK-MRI fuels unnecessary healthcare utilisation, generating nocebic patient beliefs and expectations, whilst appropriate care is delayed and a high burden of psychosocial barriers to recovery appear neglected.

Direct access from general practice to transvaginal ultrasound for early detection of ovarian cancer: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of providing general practitioners (GPs) direct and fast referral access to transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS).

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A total of 232 Danish general practices in parts of the Central Denmark Region.

SUBJECTS

Women aged ≥40 years who consulted their GP for vague and non-specific symptoms (n = 479).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The feasibility assessment included the GPs' referral rate, indications for referral, management of test results, and findings from TVUS.

RESULTS

A total of 479 women were referred to TVUS. The examinations revealed abnormalities in 104 (21.7%) women. Additional investigations were needed in 68 (14.2%) women of whom seven (1.5%) underwent major surgery. No case of ovarian cancer was diagnosed during the study period or the 6-month follow-up. However, three (0.6%) women with an abnormal transvaginal ultrasound were diagnosed with urogynecological cancer; this yielded a PPV of 4.4% (95% confidence interval: 1.5-12.2) and an NPV of 100.0% (95% confidence interval: 96.7-100.0) for urogynecological cancer.

CONCLUSION

Providing GPs with direct access to transvaginal ultrasound was feasible; 80% of the investigated women were referred back to the GP, 14% were further investigated, 0.6% were diagnosed with urogynecological cancer, and 1.5% had major procedures performed without complications.

IMPLICATIONS

Direct access to TVUS could be an important pathway to ensure fast evaluation of women presenting with vague non-specific symptoms of potential ovarian cancer. Future studies should explore the patient experience, cancer outcomes, and health economics issues.KEY POINTS   Current awareness  • GPs have no fast referral option for women presenting with vague non-specific symptoms that could indicate underlying ovarian cancer.   Key findings  • We offered GPs direct and fast referral access to TVUS; 51.7% of practices used the opportunity.  • The GPs referred 479 women to TVUS; 104 had an abnormal TVUS and 68 needed additional investigations.  • Seven women underwent major surgery, leading to three cases of urogynecological cancer. No woman had a false negative TVUS result.

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging—many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

General practitioner referrals to one-stop clinics for symptoms that could be indicative of cancer: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

One-stop clinics provide comprehensive diagnostic testing in one outpatient appointment. They could benefit patients with conditions, such as cancer, whose outcomes are improved by early diagnosis, and bring efficiency savings for health systems.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use and outcomes of one-stop clinics for symptoms where cancer is a possible diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of studies reporting use and outcomes of one-stop clinics in primary care patients.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing one-stop clinics for adults referred after presenting to primary care with any symptom that could be indicative of cancer. Study selection was carried out independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were identified, most were conducted in the UK and observational in design. Few included a comparison arm. A pooled comparison of the cancer conversion rate of one-stop and multi-stop clinics was only possible for breast symptoms, and we found no significant difference. One-stop clinics were associated with significant reductions in the interval from referral to testing (15 versus 75 days) and more patients diagnosed on the same day (79% versus 25%) compared to multi-stop pathways. The majority of patients and GPs found one-stop clinics to be acceptable.

CONCLUSION

This review found one-stop clinics were associated with reduced time from referral to testing, increased same day diagnoses, and were acceptable to patients and GPs. Our conclusions are limited by high levels of heterogeneity, scarcity of comparator groups, and the overwhelmingly observational nature of included studies.