Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Electronic patient records research to aid diagnostic reasoning for possible cancer in primary care

Georgios Lyratzopoulos
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (674): 408-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X698585
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London and THIS (The Health Improvement Studies) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Roles: Professor of Cancer Epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue of the BJGP, Koshiaris and colleagues present a primary care electronic health records study that examines the combined predictive value for multiple myeloma of presenting symptoms and blood tests commonly used in primary care.1 Building on previous related research,2 this study reports important new evidence that could help doctors to both shorten diagnostic intervals in patients with this (very hard-to-suspect) cancer and minimise the need for specialist assessment in those unlikely to have the disease. A key finding is that in patients with persistent back or bone pain the combination of normal full-blood count and normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate/plasma viscosity can help to reasonably rule out the risk of multiple myeloma.1

THE CURRENT EVIDENCE BASE

Research about the prognostic value of presenting symptoms for cancer based on primary care patient records has been accumulating since the mid-2000s.3 Currently (mid-2018) there is a body of about 50 studies from different research groups, chiefly but not solely from England. Much of this expanding evidence base has underpinned the publication of the 2015 NICE guidelines for the referral or investigation of 157 common symptomatic presentations in adults.4 Taken together, these collective research efforts (many of which have been published in the BJGP) represent a commendable achievement that has enhanced medical knowledge very substantially. Certain limitations in the current evidence should nonetheless be considered and addressed by future research.

Most relevant evidence thus far examines the value of presenting symptoms during ‘fixed’ pre-diagnostic periods (typically of 1–3 years) which are considered en bloc, ignoring the fact that the predictive value of a given symptom will vary during different periods before diagnosis. Said differently, most current studies are dominated by ‘picture’ as opposed to ‘video’ evidence, resulting in undesirable loss of valuable information that, if it were available, could better support clinical decision-making, as shown in the present and other studies.1,5,6

With some notable exceptions including the present study,1,7 most evidence thus far does not report negative predictive values or negative likelihood ratios, focusing on positive values/ratios alone. It will be reasonable to suggest that all future studies should aim to report both positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. Such considerations could also inform future revisions of clinical practice guidelines, particularly when presenting symptoms and findings of investigations are considered in combination.4

The timeliness of current evidence on the prognostic value of symptoms is a concern, as it mostly relates to patients who were diagnosed with cancer before 2010. Evidence from these historical cohorts may over-estimate the current predictive values of symptoms as public health awareness campaigns (such as Be Clear on Cancer) are thought to have altered the mix and severity of presenting symptoms and associated levels of cancer risk in patients who seek help for new symptoms. Time trends in symptom coding in primary care and improvements in record completeness are two additional factors that make attempts to replicate (if not update) previous evidence in current cohorts desirable.

Current evidence mostly examines the prognostic value of specific symptoms, often ignoring the value of much other information captured in electronic patient records. As highlighted by Koshiaris and colleagues and other research, this may include the number and pattern of primary or secondary care consultations, the use of primary or secondary care investigations and the use of prescribed medications during different pre-diagnosis periods.1,5,8 However, while all patients will have presenting symptoms, not everyone will have been investigated or prescribed medication, a potential limitation that needs to be born in mind.1 Moreover, with few exceptions,9,10 the available evidence is concentrated on the predictive value of symptoms for cancer ignoring their predictive value for consequential non-neoplastic disease. A perhaps far greater limitation is that most available evidence does not encompass chronic morbidity status, although emerging evidence indicates that specific morbidities variably moderate diagnostic timeliness in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.11 Lastly, there is currently little empirical appreciation of the disease stage (of cancer) associated with different symptomatic presentations.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

All the above considerations indicate that while our understanding of risk levels for cancer among patients presenting to primary care has been radically improved during the past 15 years, the job is far from over. Research efforts are needed to overcome the described limitation of the current evidence.

There are also critical policy and implementation questions. Enabling information governance arrangements for using anonymous primary care data in population health research are paramount, if more evidence of direct patient benefit is to be produced in the coming years. This includes the conduct of validation studies, which may require ethically-assured access to free-text information included in electronic health records. Reliably using the evidence base about the predictive value of symptoms and other pre-diagnostic events during a primary care consultation is not straightforward, and evidence from qualitative studies and randomised controlled trials of decision-support tools are both needed and sparse.12,13 Important improvements in diagnostic timeliness can be obtained by automated regular identification in patients with abnormal investigation findings that are not being acted upon.14 Active communication and engagement with and/or by patients during the consultation is another critical but under-studied aspect of the diagnostic process.15 The same can be said about appropriate help-seeking. One-third of all patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies have not previously seen their GP, and while in some instances this may reflect tumours without appreciable prodromal symptoms, in others it may reflect psychosocial barriers to timely help-seeking.16

CONCLUSION

The study by Koshiaris and colleagues is a worthy addition to the expanding evidence base that quantifies the risk of cancer in patients who present to primary care. In spite of the transformational progress in our understanding of the predictive value of symptoms during the past 15 years, there is a need to amplify the current evidence. This can be achieved by examining symptomatic presentations and related pre-diagnostic events in combination in contemporary patient cohorts, taking into account the evolving natural history of cancer and other disease processes, and the patients’ comorbidity status. Nonetheless, although more diagnostic research based on electronic health records could enable further substantial gains in improving diagnostic quality and safety in primary care, it is unlikely to obviate the need for innovative and disruptive point-of-care diagnostic technologies.

Notes

Funding

This research arises from the CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK [C8640/A23385]. Additionally, Georgios Lyratzopoulos is supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Award [C18081/A18180].

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The author has declared no competing interests.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2018

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Koshiaris C,
    2. van den Bruel A,
    3. Oke J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Br J Gen Pract, Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case control study in primary care. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X698357.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Shephard EA,
    2. Neal RD,
    3. Rose P,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Br J Gen Pract, Quantifying the risk of multiple myeloma from symptoms reported in primary care patients: a large case–control study using electronic health records. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683545.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lawrenson R,
    2. Logie J,
    3. Marks C
    (2006) Risk of colorectal cancer in general practice patients presenting with rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit or anaemia. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 15(3):267–271.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hamilton W,
    2. Hajioff S,
    3. Graham J,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Suspected cancer (part 2—adults): reference tables from updated NICE guidance. BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.h3044.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hansen PL,
    2. Hjertholm P,
    3. Vedsted P
    (2015) Increased diagnostic activity in general practice during the year preceding colorectal cancer diagnosis. Int J Cancer 137(3):615–624.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Renzi C,
    2. Lyratzopoulos G,
    3. Card T,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England. Br J Cancer 115(7):866–875.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hippisley-Cox J,
    2. Coupland C
    (2013) Br J Gen Pract, Symptoms and risk factors to identify men with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660724.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Guldbrandt LM,
    2. Møller H,
    3. Jakobsen E,
    4. Vedsted P
    (2017) General practice consultations, diagnostic investigations, and prescriptions in the year preceding a lung cancer diagnosis. Cancer Med 6(1):79–88.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jones R,
    2. Charlton J,
    3. Latinovic R,
    4. Gulliford MC
    (2009) Alarm symptoms and identification of non-cancer diagnoses in primary care: cohort study. BMJ 339:b3094.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Stapley SA,
    2. Rubin GP,
    3. Alsina D,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, Clinical features of bowel disease in patients aged <50 years in primary care: a large case-control study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690425.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Mounce LTA,
    2. Price S,
    3. Valderas JM,
    4. Hamilton W
    (2017) Comorbid conditions delay diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a cohort study using electronic primary care records. Br J Cancer doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Chiang PP,
    2. Glance D,
    3. Walker J,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Implementing a QCancer risk tool into general practice consultations: an exploratory study using simulated consultations with Australian general practitioners. Br J Cancer 112(Suppl 1):S77–S83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Moore HJ,
    2. Nixon C,
    3. Tariq A,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Evaluating a computer aid for assessing stomach symptoms (ECASS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17:184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Murphy DR,
    2. Wu L,
    3. Thomas EJ,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Electronic trigger-based intervention to reduce delays in diagnostic evaluation for cancer: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 33(31):3560–3567.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Heyhoe J,
    2. Reynolds C,
    3. Dunning A,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Br J Gen Pract, Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review of current interventions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X695045.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Abel GA,
    2. Mendonca SC,
    3. McPhail S,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, Emergency diagnosis of cancer and previous general practice consultations: insights from linked patient survey data. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690869.
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 68 (674)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 68, Issue 674
September 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Electronic patient records research to aid diagnostic reasoning for possible cancer in primary care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Electronic patient records research to aid diagnostic reasoning for possible cancer in primary care
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (674): 408-409. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698585

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Electronic patient records research to aid diagnostic reasoning for possible cancer in primary care
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (674): 408-409. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698585
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • THE CURRENT EVIDENCE BASE
    • FUTURE DIRECTIONS
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • COVID-19 vaccination programme: a central role for primary care
  • Time to reshape our delivery of primary care to vulnerable older adults in social housing?
  • General practice in the years ahead: relationships will matter more than ever
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242