Helen Morris

Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett's oesophagus in primary care: cohort study

Objectives To determine the accuracy and acceptability to patients of non-endoscopic screening for Barrett’s oesophagus, using an ingestible oesophageal sampling device (Cytosponge) coupled with immunocytochemisty for trefoil factor 3. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting 12 UK general practices, with gastroscopies carried out in one hospital endoscopy unit. Participants 504 of 2696 eligible patients (18.7%) aged 50 to 70 years with a previous prescription for an acid suppressant (H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) for more than three months in the past five years. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity estimates for detecting Barrett’s oesophagus compared with gastroscopy as the ideal method, and patient anxiety (short form Spielberger state trait anxiety inventory, impact of events scale) and acceptability (visual analogue scale) of the test. Results 501 of 504 (99%) participants (median age 62, male to female ratio 1:1.2) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge. No serious adverse events occurred. In total, 3.0% (15/501) had an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus (≥1 cm circumferential length, median circumferential and maximal length of 2 cm and 5 cm, respectively) with intestinal metaplasia. Compared with gastroscopy the sensitivity and specificity of the test was 73.3% (95% confidence interval 44.9% to 92.2%) and 93.8% (91.3% to 95.8%) for 1 cm or more circumferential length and 90.0% (55.5% to 99.7%) and 93.5% (90.9% to 95.5%) for clinically relevant segments of 2 cm or more. Most participants (355/496, 82%, 95% confidence interval 78.9% to 85.1%) reported low levels of anxiety before the test, and scores remained within normal limits at follow-up. Less than 4.5% (2.8% to 6.1%) of participants reported psychological distress a week after the procedure. Conclusions The performance of the Cytosponge test was promising and the procedure was well tolerated. These data bring screening for Barrett’s oesophagus into the realm of possibility. Further evaluation is recommended.

Symptoms and other factors associated with time to diagnosis and stage of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background:This prospective cohort study aimed to identify symptom and patient factors that influence time to lung cancer diagnosis and stage at diagnosis.Methods:Data relating to symptoms were collected from patients upon referral with symptoms suspicious of lung cancer in two English regions; we also examined primary care and hospital records for diagnostic routes and diagnoses. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to investigate associations between symptoms and patient factors with diagnostic intervals and stage.Results:Among 963 participants, 15.9% were diagnosed with primary lung cancer, 5.9% with other thoracic malignancies and 78.2% with non-malignant conditions. Only half the cohort had an isolated first symptom (475, 49.3%); synchronous first symptoms were common. Haemoptysis, reported by 21.6% of cases, was the only initial symptom associated with cancer. Diagnostic intervals were shorter for cancer than non-cancer diagnoses (91 vs 124 days, P=0.037) and for late-stage than early-stage cancer (106 vs 168 days, P=0.02). Chest/shoulder pain was the only first symptom with a shorter diagnostic interval for cancer compared with non-cancer diagnoses (P=0.003).Conclusions:Haemoptysis is the strongest symptom predictor of lung cancer but occurs in only a fifth of patients. Programmes for expediting earlier diagnosis need to focus on multiple symptoms and their evolution.

Effect of adding a diagnostic aid to best practice to manage suspicious pigmented lesions in primary care: randomised controlled trial.

Objectives To assess whether adding a novel computerised diagnostic tool, the MoleMate system (SIAscopy with primary care scoring algorithm), to current best practice results in more appropriate referrals of suspicious pigmented lesions to secondary care, and to assess its impact on clinicians and patients. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 general practices in eastern England. Participants 1297 adults with pigmented skin lesions not immediately diagnosed as benign. Interventions Patients were assessed by trained primary care clinicians using best practice (clinical history, naked eye examination, seven point checklist) either alone (control group) or with the MoleMate system (intervention group). Main outcome measures Appropriateness of referral, defined as the proportion of referred lesions that were biopsied or monitored. Secondary outcomes related to the clinicians (diagnostic performance, confidence, learning effects) and patients (satisfaction, anxiety). Economic evaluation, diagnostic performance of the seven point checklist, and five year follow-up of melanoma incidence were also secondary outcomes and will be reported later. Results 1297 participants with 1580 lesions were randomised: 643 participants with 788 lesions to the intervention group and 654 participants with 792 lesions to the control group. The appropriateness of referral did not differ significantly between the intervention or control groups: 56.8% (130/229) v 64.5% (111/172); difference −8.1% (95% confidence interval −18.0% to 1.8%). The proportion of benign lesions appropriately managed in primary care did not differ (intervention 99.6% v control 99.2%, P=0.46), neither did the percentage agreement with an expert decision to biopsy or monitor (intervention 98.5% v control 95.7%, P=0.26). The percentage agreement with expert assessment that the lesion was benign was significantly lower with MoleMate (intervention 84.4% v control 90.6%, P<0.001), and a higher proportion of lesions were referred (intervention 29.8% v control 22.4%, P=0.001). Thirty six histologically confirmed melanomas were diagnosed: 18/18 were appropriately referred in the intervention group and 17/18 in the control group. Clinicians in both groups were confident, and there was no evidence of learning effects, and therefore contamination, between groups. Patients in the intervention group ranked their consultations higher for thoroughness and reassuring care, although anxiety scores were similar between the groups. Conclusions We found no evidence that the MoleMate system improved appropriateness of referral. The systematic application of best practice guidelines alone was more accurate than the MoleMate system, and both performed better than reports of current practice. Therefore the systematic application of best practice guidelines (including the seven point checklist) should be the paradigm for management of suspicious skin lesions in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79932379.

Using the 7-point checklist as a diagnostic aid for pigmented skin lesions in general practice: A diagnostic validation study

BACKGROUND GPs need to recognise significant pigmented skin lesions, given rising UK incidence rates for malignant melanoma. The 7-point checklist (7PCL) has been recommended by NICE (2005) for routine use in UK general practice to identify clinically significant lesions which require urgent referral. AIM To validate the Original and Weighted versions of the 7PCL in the primary care setting. DESIGN AND SETTING Diagnostic validation study, using data from a SIAscopic diagnostic aid randomised controlled trial in eastern England. METHOD Adults presenting in general practice with a pigmented skin lesion that could not be immediately diagnosed as benign were recruited into the trial. Reference standard diagnoses were histology or dermatology expert opinion; 7PCL scores were calculated blinded to the reference diagnosis. A case was defined as a clinically significant lesion for primary care referral to secondary care (total 1436 lesions: 225 cases, 1211 controls); or melanoma (36). RESULTS For diagnosing clinically significant lesions there was a difference between the performance of the Original and Weighted 7PCLs (respectively, area under curve: 0.66, 0.69, difference = 0.03, P<0.001). For the identification of melanoma, similar differences were found. Increasing the Weighted 7PCLs cut-off score from recommended 3 to 4 improved detection of clinically significant lesions in primary care: sensitivity 73.3%, specificity 57.1%, positive predictive value 24.1%, negative predictive value 92.0%, while maintaining high sensitivity of 91.7% and moderate specificity of 53.4% for melanoma. CONCLUSION The Original and Weighted 7PCLs both performed well in a primary care setting to identify clinically significant lesions as well as melanoma. The Weighted 7PCL, with a revised cut-off score of 4 from 3, performs slightly better and could be applied in general practice to support the recognition of clinically significant lesions and therefore the early identification of melanoma.

Symptoms and patient factors associated with longer time to diagnosis for colorectal cancer: results from a prospective cohort study

Background:The objective of this study is to investigate symptoms, clinical factors and socio-demographic factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and time to diagnosis.Methods:Prospective cohort study of participants referred for suspicion of CRC in two English regions. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses examined associations between symptoms and patient factors with total diagnostic interval (TDI), patient interval (PI), health system interval (HSI) and stage.Results:A total of 2677 (22%) participants responded; after exclusions, 2507 remained. Participants were diagnosed with CRC (6.1%, 56% late stage), other cancers (2.0%) or no cancer (91.9%). Half the cohort had a solitary first symptom (1332, 53.1%); multiple first symptoms were common. In this referred population, rectal bleeding was the only initial symptom more frequent among cancer than non-cancer cases (34.2% vs 23.9%, P=0.004). There was no evidence of differences in TDI, PI or HSI for those with cancer vs non-cancer diagnoses (median TDI CRC 124 vs non-cancer 138 days, P=0.142). First symptoms associated with shorter TDIs were rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, ‘feeling different’ and fatigue/tiredness. Anxiety, depression and gastro-intestinal co-morbidities were associated with longer HSIs and TDIs. Symptom duration-dependent effects were found for rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit.Conclusions:Doctors and patients respond less promptly to some symptoms of CRC than others. Healthcare professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of CRC in patients with relevant symptoms and mental health or gastro-intestinal comorbidities.

The Cost-Effectiveness of a Novel SIAscopic Diagnostic Aid for the Management of Pigmented Skin Lesions in Primary Care: A Decision-Analytic Model

OBJECTIVES Pigmented skin lesions are commonly presented in primary care. Appropriate diagnosis and management is challenging because the vast majority are benign. The MoleMate system is a handheld SIAscopy scanner integrated with a primary care diagnostic algorithm aimed at improving the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care. METHODS This decision-model-based economic evaluation draws on the results of a randomized controlled trial of the MoleMate system versus best practice (ISRCTN79932379) to estimate the expected long-term cost and health gain of diagnosis with the MoleMate system versus best practice in an English primary care setting. The model combines trial results with data from the wider literature to inform long-term prognosis, health state utilities, and cost. RESULTS Results are reported as mean and incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis. Over a lifetime horizon, the MoleMate system is expected to cost an extra £18 over best practice alone, and yield an extra 0.01 QALYs per patient examined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is £1,896 per QALY gained, with a 66.1% probability of being below £30,000 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information is £43.1 million. CONCLUSIONS Given typical thresholds in the United Kingdom (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY), the MoleMate system may be cost-effective compared with best practice diagnosis alone in a primary care setting. However, there is considerable decision uncertainty, driven particularly by the sensitivity and specificity of MoleMate versus best practice, and the risk of disease progression in undiagnosed melanoma; future research should focus on reducing uncertainty in these parameters.