Risk prediction models for symptomatic patients with bladder and kidney cancer: a systematic review

Hannah Harrison; Juliet A Usher-Smith; Lanxin Li; Lydia Roberts; Zhiyuan Lin; Rachel E Thompson; Sabrina H Rossi; Grant D Stewart; Fiona M Walter; Simon Griffin; Yin Zhou

doi:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0319

Abstract

Background Timely diagnosis of bladder and kidney cancer is key to improving clinical outcomes. Given the challenges of early diagnosis, models incorporating clinical symptoms and signs may be helpful to primary care clinicians when triaging at-risk patients.

Aim To identify and compare published models that use clinical signs and symptoms to predict the risk of undiagnosed prevalent bladder or kidney cancer.

Design and setting Systematic review.

Method A search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of bladder or kidney cancer in MEDLINE and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, data were extracted onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using TRIPOD guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.

Results The search identified 20 661 articles. Twenty studies (29 models) were identified through screening. All the models included haematuria (visible, non-visible, or unspecified), and seven included additional signs and symptoms (such as abdominal pain). The models combined clinical features with other factors (including demographic factors and urinary biomarkers) to predict the risk of undiagnosed prevalent cancer. Several models (n = 13) with good discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve >0.8) were identified; however, only eight had been externally validated. All of the studies had either high or unclear risk of bias.

Conclusion Models were identified that could be used in primary care to guide referrals, with potential to identify lower-risk patients with visible haematuria and to stratify individuals who present with non-visible haematuria. However, before application in general practice, external validations in appropriate populations are required.

INTRODUCTION

Bladder and kidney cancer are the ninth and 15th most common cancers worldwide, respectively. In the UK, bladder and kidney cancers each account for approximately 3% of new cancer cases, and 5300 and 4500 annual deaths, with their incidence expected to rise.¹^,² Early-stage diagnosis is strongly correlated with improved survival rates for both bladder and kidney cancer.¹^,²

The majority of bladder and kidney cancers (75% and 59%, respectively) are diagnosed following a referral from primary care in the UK.¹^–³ A prolonged primary care interval (from patient presentation to referral) is associated with worse clinical outcomes.⁴^,⁵ Currently, in England, median diagnosis time for bladder and kidney cancer — after presentation in primary care with a relevant clinical feature — is 51 and 70 days, respectively, with variation seen by symptom.⁶

Visible haematuria (VH) is present in the majority of patients with bladder cancer (53%), however, it is less common in individuals diagnosed with kidney cancer (18%).⁷ Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines advise urgent referral for suspected bladder or kidney cancer for unexplained non-visible haematuria (NVH) or persistent VH in all individuals aged 60 and 45 years, respectively.⁸ Although 5.1% of people with VH in a primary care setting are ultimately diagnosed with urological cancers, the positive predictive value (PPV) of NVH is less certain and may be as low as 1.6% in primary care.⁷ The focus on haematuria may impede early identification of cancers that present atypically or with a number of non-specific symptoms.⁶^,⁹ This could also lead to the over-referral of lower-risk individuals presenting with haematuria.¹⁰

Risk assessment tools have the potential to improve timely diagnosis of cancer by combining multiple clinical features to identify symptomatic patients who would benefit from early referral and reducing investigations in individuals least likely to benefit.⁷^,¹¹ Risk models to guide clinical decision making are becoming more common. For example, the QCancer tool, which estimates the risk of 11 cancers based on symptoms and patient characteristics, has been integrated into primary care software.¹² Although not routinely used to aid referral decisions for suspected cancer, risk assessment tools have been identified as a potential method for improving UK cancer outcomes.¹³

Timely diagnosis of bladder and kidney cancer from primary care is key to improving survival rates, but remains challenging. Risk models have been suggested as a possible tool to guide clinicians in making referral decisions, particularly in individuals who present atypically. This systematic review identified a number of models that may be of interest, in particular, models able to identify low-risk individuals who may not require referral and a model suitable for stratifying risk in individuals with non-visible haematuria. However, only a small number of models included clinical features other than haematuria and there was a lack of external validations.

How this fits in

In this review, published models that incorporate symptoms and signs (referred to as clinical features) and estimate the risk of undiagnosed prevalent bladder or kidney cancer at an individual level were systematically identified and compared. The review focuses on the risk factors included in the models, the performance of the models (discrimination and calibration), and their potential use in primary care.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed following an a priori established study protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018116967).

An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed in November 2018 and updated in December 2020. Literature published 1980–2020 was included, using a combination of subject headings incorporating ‘bladder or renal/kidney or urinary-tract cancer’, ‘risk or risk factor or chance’ and ‘model or prediction or score’ (see Supplementary Table S1 and S2).

Studies were included that fulfil all of the following criteria:

are published, peer-reviewed, primary research;
present a model, which here is considered the use of a combination of ≥2 factors to identify individuals with a higher risk of undiagnosed prevalent bladder or kidney cancer. Studies predicting recurrent or future risk were excluded;
incorporate at least one clinical feature as a risk factor;
include at least one quantitative measure of model performance (discrimination, calibration, or accuracy). Accepted measures include (but are not limited to) area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), R² (goodness of fit), sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, and negative predictive values (NPVs). Graphical measures alone were not accepted; and
are applicable to the general population. Studies including only specific groups — for example, individuals receiving dialysis — were excluded.

One reviewer carried out the search. Reviewers screened titles and abstracts to exclude clearly irrelevant articles. Pilot screening was carried out to ensure consistency between reviewers. The full text was examined, by two reviewers, if a definite decision to exclude could not be made based on the title and abstract alone. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer.

Data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers for all included studies. Where studies included multiple different models all were included separately. Details of model development, validation, and performance were extracted into a standardised form. Included studies were classified according to the TRIPOD guidelines.¹⁴ The PROBAST tool was used to assess risk of bias (RoB) over four domains of interest (population, risk factors, outcomes, and analysis).¹⁵^,¹⁶ Information required for this assessment was extracted by two reviewers, and one reviewer scored the studies. A second reviewer checked the RoB assessment process.

RESULTS

After duplicates were removed, the search identified 20 661 articles. Of these, 19 959 were excluded by title and abstract screening, and 686 after full-text assessment. Twenty studies were identified, describing 29 models that satisfied the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).¹⁰^,¹⁷^–³⁵

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram. UTCa = urinary tract cancer.

Study design and setting

Of the 20 studies, 16 were cohort studies¹⁰^,¹⁷^,¹⁹^–³⁰^,³³^,³⁴ and four were case–control studies¹⁸^,³¹^,³²^,³⁵ (see Supplementary Table S3). Six studies were performed in a UK primary care setting, using routinely coded data.²²^–²⁴^,³¹^,³²^,³⁵ Nine were conducted in secondary (or specialist) care settings, including hospital outpatient clinics and urology departments.¹⁰^,¹⁸^,²¹^,²⁶^–²⁸^,³⁰^,³³^,³⁴ The remaining five studies do not provide enough information about the study setting to be classified as primary or secondary¹⁷^,¹⁹^,²⁰^,²⁵^,²⁹ (for example, referring to recruitment at a ‘clinic’).

Most studies included European (n = 11) or North American populations (n = 8); two studies were based in South East Asia.²¹^,²⁶ The six studies in a primary care setting included a mixture of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.²²^–²⁴^,³¹^,³²^,³⁵ Eleven studies included patients undergoing investigation for haematuria,¹⁰^,¹⁸^–²¹^,²⁶^,²⁷^,²⁸^,³⁰^,³³^,³⁴ in some cases restricted to NVH (n = 2)²⁷^,³⁴ or painless haematuria (n = 4).¹⁸^–²⁰^,²⁶ Three studies included individuals classified as high-risk based on a prior history of haematuria³⁰ or smoking status.¹⁷^,²⁹ One study included all individuals enrolled on a health insurance plan who underwent urinalysis.²⁵

Of the 29 models (Table 1), the outcomes were a diagnosis of bladder cancer (n = 19),¹⁷^–²¹^,²⁹^,³²^–³⁵ kidney cancer (n = 1),³¹ or urological cancer (n = 9) (bladder and kidney cancer, either with¹⁰^,²²^,²⁵ or without²³^,²⁴^,²⁷^,²⁸ cancers of the urothelium). Most models were developed in mixed-sex populations, although a small number were developed specifically for males (n = 2)²²^,²³ and females (n = 2).²²^,²⁴ The majority of the models were developed using logistic regression (n = 22), although other methodologies, including survival models (n = 2), were also found. Internal validation — either bootstrapping¹⁷^–²⁰ or split-sampling (random²²^–²⁴^,³⁴ or nonrandom²⁸^,²⁹) — has been carried out for 22 models. Only eight models have been externally validated.¹⁰^,²⁵^,²⁷^,²⁸

View this table:

Table 1.

Summary of included models

Risk factors

Haematuria was included as a risk factor in all of the included models (see Supplementary Table S4). However, there was significant variation in the type of haematuria included. Four models used only VH,²²^,³¹^,³² four only NVH,²⁵^,²⁸^,³⁴ and 14 included both (as separate risk factors [ n = 2]²⁵^,³⁵ or the degree of haematuria was used as a risk factor [ n = 12]¹⁸^–²¹^,²⁹^,³³). In seven models, the type of haematuria was unspecified.¹⁷^,²³^,²⁴

Most studies (n = 14) reported the association between haematuria and the outcome of interest (see Supplementary Table S5). Frequently the presence of haematuria, either any (n = 3), visible (n = 5), or non-visible (n = 2), was compared with no haematuria. One study reported the odds ratio (OR) separately for both VH (OR 26, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 22 to 30) and NVH (OR 20, 95% CI = 12 to 33) for bladder cancer.³⁵ Four studies, developed in cohorts composed of individuals undergoing investigation for haematuria for suspected bladder cancer, gave ORs for individuals with VH compared with those with NVH.¹⁸^,²⁰^,²¹^,³³ All showed stronger associations with VH than NVH (OR 1.71–3.85 in multivariate analysis).

Seven models included other clinical features in addition to haematuria.²²^–²⁴^,³¹^,³²^,³⁵ These included abdominal pain (n = 7), weight loss (n = 4), anaemia (n = 3), loss of appetite (n = 3), urinary tract infection (UTI) (n = 3), and dysuria (n = 3). In each case, the risk because of haematuria was at least eight times higher than the risk from all other clinical features.

Demographic risk factors, including age (n = 27), sex (n = 20), and ethnic group (n = 9), were used in most models. Modifiable lifestyle risk factors, including smoking (n = 24) and BMI (n = 2), were also considered. Three models included abnormal blood tests;³¹^,³² eight urine biomarkers¹⁷^,¹⁸^,²⁰^,²⁹ and seven urine cytology.¹⁷^,¹⁸^,²⁰^,²⁹

RoB

Most of the 20 studies included in this systematic review were assessed to have a high RoB (n = 17) in both development and validation (Figure 2). The most common issues were seen in domain 4 (analysis), in which 11 of 15 development studies and eight of 12 validation studies were at high RoB. This was frequently because of an insufficient number of cases or incomplete reporting of performance measures (including not reporting calibration of model).

Figure 2.

RoB assessment using PROBAST framework.^a

^aFor each study, RoB is shown for model development and validation separately. RoB is assessed over four domains (D1: population, D2: risk factors, D3: outcome, D4: analysis), the overall results for each study are shown on the right. 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to TRIPOD classification for each identified study.¹⁴ a, b, and c refer to models developed by the same author group. RoB = risk of bias.

Performance measures

Discrimination (the AUROC) was reported for 26 models (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S6). Calibration was reported for 13 internal²⁰^,²²^–²⁴^,²⁹^,³⁴ and three external validations.²¹^,³⁰^,³³

Figure 3.

Model discrimination, AUROC.^a

^aModels are split into groups describing the development population and within each group are ordered by the number of risk factors used. Study type (development, internal and external validation), type of haematuria used in model, and study setting are indicated on the plot. A, b, and c refer to models developed by the same author group. Each model is labelled according to its development study; however, the discrimination measured in several external validations²⁶^,²⁷^,³⁰of these models are also included in this summary plot (see supplementary Table S6 for details). AUROC = area under the receiver operating curve. NVH = non-visible haematuria. RF = risk factor. VH = visible haematuria.

The four Hippisley-Cox and Coupland models, developed in unfiltered population-based cohorts to predict urological cancer, all have AUROC values in the range 0.88–0.96 in a large internal validation (Figure 3, group D).²²^–²⁴ These models report good calibration and relatively high levels of accuracy (sensitivity 0.77–0.71, specificity 0.90–0.91) when using the 90th percentile of risk as a cut-off. They also have high NPV (100%) for PPVs in the range 0.6%–1.6% for this threshold. The two models developed for males have slightly higher discrimination than those for females. Demographic and lifestyle risk factors are combined with clinical features — smoking, haematuria, and abdominal pain feature in all four. Two specified VH as a symptom, whereas the other two did not specify type of haematuria. This did not significantly affect performance; however, other risk factors also differed between these models.

The models by Shephard et al and Price et al predicted the risk of developing kidney³¹ and bladder³²^,³⁵ cancer by combining pairs of symptoms observed in unfiltered population-based cohorts. The combinations of symptoms with the highest accuracy were microcytosis and abdominal pain for kidney cancer (PPV >5%), and VH and raised white blood cell count for bladder cancer (PPV 8.8%). It is shown³⁵ that, even in older age groups (>60 years), the PPV of NVH for bladder cancer is low (0.8%), however, when combined with dysuria, for example, this increases to 4.5%. These symptom combinations are rare (<10 cases out of 3140 in development population), so may have limited impact individually.

The model by Matulewicz et al³⁴ was developed in a population with newly diagnosed NVH and had an AUROC value of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.80) in an internal validation (Figure 3, group A). This model combines a categorical measurement of NVH (red blood cells per high-power field [RBC/hpf]) with age, sex, smoking, and ethnic group to predict a likelihood of a bladder cancer diagnosis. For a threshold (>5% risk) that gives a PPV of 10.4%, reasonable accuracy (sensitivity 68%, specificity 75%) and a high NPV (98%) are demonstrated.

The remaining 20 models report discrimination in populations undergoing investigation for suspected urological cancer, with varying proportions of the populations having VH and NVH (Figure 3, groups B and C). On average, discrimination is higher in models developed only in individuals with haematuria (group B) and in models that incorporate urinary biomarkers. The model with highest discrimination in external validation was Tan et al (2019) (AUROC = 0.77).³³ This model combines type of haematuria with age, sex, and smoking status to predict the risk of a bladder cancer diagnosis. For an optimised cut-off point (>4.015%), the reported accuracy measures indicate high sensitivity (0.99) can be achieved; however, the corresponding specificity was low (0.31). The best performing models incorporating urinary biomarkers are Cha et al (2012) model c and Cha et al (2012) model d (AUROC = 0.9 in internal validation).¹⁹ The degree of haematuria (VH or NVH) is combined with the uCyt assay (an immunocytochemical test that detects markers from malignant urothelial cells in urine)³⁶ and several demographic and lifestyle factors. Cha et al (2012) model d also included the results of cytology as a risk factor; this does not seem to improve model performance. The models by Loo et al ²⁸ include an indication of the severity of NVH (>25 RBC/hpf); Loo et al (2013) model b has high discrimination (AUROC = 0.809) in external validation.²⁷

DISCUSSION

Summary

This review found 13 risk prediction models with good discrimination (>0.8) for urological cancer. All of the models included haematuria and seven incorporated additional clinical signs or symptoms. Most were developed in populations undergoing investigation for suspected urological cancer, with only seven developed in primary care (or unfiltered population-based) cohorts. Only eight of the identified models had been externally validated and around half (n = 14) had no reported measure of calibration.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study, to the authors’ knowledge, to provide a systematic and up-to-date review of the existing risk prediction models for bladder or kidney cancer with application to primary care. The study benefits from a comprehensive search and rigorous screening of studies for inclusion. In total, 29 models were identified in this process, providing a clear overview of the current research in this area. The PROBAST tool was used, a new quality assessment tool for risk prediction models, to perform a robust assessment of the RoB for each model and identify areas where the quality of research is low. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity in the study designs, including differences in study type (development and validation), design (cohort and case–control), setting (primary and secondary care), and recruitment criteria. A further limitation is that several models used coded information from primary care records and may be subject to bias in clinician recording and choice of investigations.

Comparison with existing literature

Recent reviews have examined risk assessment tools for the identification of other undiagnosed cancers, including colorectal³⁷ and ovarian cancer.³⁸ The models identified by those studies had similar discriminative ability to those described in this review. As in this review, a lack of high-quality studies and external validations was noted. There was a wider range of models developed specifically for primary care settings for those cancers, than have been identified in the current study for urological cancer.

Although VH has been widely shown to be associated with urological cancer,³⁹ the association with other clinical factors (including NVH and UTIs) is poorly understood,⁷^,³⁹ with variation between different populations.⁴⁰ In this review, only seven models included clinical factors other than haematuria and only five studies directly compared VH and NVH as risk factors. Additionally, haematuria has a much higher contribution than other clinical risk factors in all models where >1 is used.

Implications for research and practice

The seven models developed in primary care settings²²^–²⁴^,³¹^,³²^,³⁵ are the most applicable to this review question. The excellent performance of the four Hippisley-Cox models, if replicated in an external validation, would make them suitable for use in primary care, in particular, they may enable clinicians to identify lower-risk individuals who do not need referral. However, it is unclear how these models would be used and how this would compare with current practice. For example, it cannot be inferred if any individuals currently eligible for referral (such as those with VH) would be reclassified using these models.

The model developed by Matulewizc,³⁴ in a population with newly identified NVH, could be used in primary care to guide referral decisions in individuals with NVH. Current guidelines for referral for suspected urological cancer in the UK differentiate between types of haematuria (VH and NVH) and age (>45 and >60 years, respectively). There is concern that lower-risk patients, such as younger individuals with NVH, are not managed optimally.⁷ The Matulewizc model, by combining a categorical measure of NVH with demographic factors, identifies both high- and low-risk individuals successfully (PPV 10.4% and NPV 98.2%). This suggests that this model could identify some individuals with NVH who are aged <60 years who would benefit from referral and some aged >60 years who are at lower risk and do not need referral. The high PPVs seen when using this model, and when NVH was combined with other clinical signs in the study by Price et al,³⁵ indicate the need to consider the broader clinical context when making referral decisions in patients with NVH.

In conclusion, haematuria was the strongest clinical risk factor associated with urological cancers and was included in all of the models identified. Several models have been developed in primary care populations that could be used to guide referrals, in particular, identifying those at lower risk least likely to benefit from further investigation. Additionally, one model was identified that could be used to stratify the risk of cancer in individuals presenting with NVH.

Future research in this area should initially focus on carrying out external validations of the identified models in a suitable primary care cohort. Researchers should then consider the impact that implementing these models to support referral decisions would have on both patient outcomes and the healthcare service in their analyses.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Isla Kuhn for her help in developing the search strategy. The authors thank Zhirong Yang and Mila Petrova for their assistance in screening several non-English full texts.

Notes

Funding

Hannah Harrison was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methods Fellowship (reference: RM-SR-2017-09-009) and is now supported by a NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement Award (reference: NIHR301182). Juliet A Usher-Smith was funded by a Cancer Research UK Prevention Fellowship (reference: C55650/A21464). The University of Cambridge has received salary support in respect of Simon Griffin from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. Sabrina H Rossi is funded by a Cancer Research UK Clinical PhD Fellowship. Grant D Stewart is funded by the Renal Cancer Research Fund, Kidney Cancer UK, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre (reference: C9685/A25177), and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (reference: BRC-1215-20014). Fiona M Walter is co-director of the CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK (reference: CC8640/A23385). Yin Zhou is funded by a Wellcome Trust Primary Care Clinician PhD Fellowship (reference: 20391/Z/16/Z). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Data

Templates of data extraction forms and code used to produce graphs are not publicly available, but will be provided on contacting the corresponding author.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Grant D Stewart has received educational grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Intuitive Surgical; consultancy fees from Pfizer, Merck, EUSA Pharma, and CMR Surgical; travel expenses from Pfizer; and speaker fees from Pfizer. All other authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

Received May 19, 2021.
Revision requested July 19, 2021.
Accepted August 25, 2021.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

1.↵
1. UK Cancer Research
Bladder cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bladder-cancer (accessed 17 Nov 2021).
2.↵
1. UK Cancer Research
Kidney cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/kidney-cancer (accessed 17 Nov 2021).
3.↵
1. National Cancer Intelligence Network
(2017) Routes to diagnosis 2006–2015 workbook, http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis (accessed 17 Nov 2021).
4.↵
1. Neal RD,
2. Tharmanathan P,
3. France B,
4. et al.
(2015) Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer 112, Suppl 1, S92–S107.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
5.↵
1. Arhi CS,
2. Burns EM,
3. Bottle A,
4. et al.
(2020) Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X710441.
6.↵
1. Zhou Y,
2. Walter FM,
3. Singh H,
4. et al.
(2021) Prolonged diagnostic intervals as marker of missed diagnostic opportunities in bladder and kidney cancer patients with alarm features: a longitudinal linked data study. Cancers (Basel) 13, 1, 156.
OpenUrl
7.↵
1. Zhou Y,
2. Funston G,
3. Lyratzopoulos G,
4. Walter FM
(2019) Improving the timely detection of bladder and kidney cancer in primary care. Adv Ther 36, 7, 1778–1785.
OpenUrl
8.↵
1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
(2021) Suspected cancer: recognition and referral NG12, http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG12 (accessed 17 Nov 2021).
9.↵
1. Zhou Y,
2. Mendonca SC,
3. Abel GA,
4. et al.
(2018) Variation in ‘fast-track’ referrals for suspected cancer by patient characteristic and cancer diagnosis: evidence from 670 000 patients with cancers of 35 different sites. Br J Cancer 118, 1, 24–31.
OpenUrl
10.↵
1. Georgieva MV,
2. Wheeler SB,
3. Erim D,
4. et al.
(2019) Comparison of the harms, advantages, and costs associated with alternative guidelines for the evaluation of hematuria. JAMA Intern Med 179, 10, 1352–1362.
OpenUrl
11.↵
1. Hamilton W,
2. Green T,
3. Martins T,
4. et al.
(2013) Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 63, 606, e30–e36.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
12.↵
1. Grigore B,
2. Lewis R,
3. Peters J,
4. et al.
(2020) Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 20, 1, 1084.
OpenUrl
13.↵
1. Hamilton W,
2. Green T,
3. Martins T,
4. et al.
(2013) Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660751.
14.↵
1. Moons KG,
2. Altman DG,
3. Reitsma JB,
4. et al.
(2015) Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162, 1, W1–W73.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
15.↵
1. Moons KGM,
2. Wolff RF,
3. Riley RD,
4. et al.
(2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 170, 1, W1–W33.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
16.↵
1. Wolff RF,
2. Moons KGM,
3. Riley RD,
4. et al.
(2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 170, 1, 51–58.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
1. Barbieri CE,
2. Cha EK,
3. Chromecki TF,
4. et al.
(2012) Decision curve analysis assessing the clinical benefit of NMP22 in the detection of bladder cancer: secondary analysis of a prospective trial. BJU Int 109, 5, 685–690.
OpenUrl PubMed
18.↵
1. Beukers W,
2. Kandimalla R,
3. van Houwelingen D,
4. et al.
(2013) The use of molecular analyses in voided urine for the assessment of patients with hematuria. PLoS One 8, 10, e77657.
OpenUrl
19.↵
1. Cha EK,
2. Tirsar LA,
3. Schwentner C,
4. et al.
(2012) Immunocytology is a strong predictor of bladder cancer presence in patients with painless hematuria: a multicentre study. Eur Urol 61, 1, 185–192.
OpenUrl PubMed
20.↵
1. Cha EK,
2. Tirsar LA,
3. Schwentner C,
4. et al.
(2012) Accurate risk assessment of patients with asymptomatic hematuria for the presence of bladder cancer. World J Urol 30, 6, 847–852.
OpenUrl PubMed
21.↵
1. Hee TG,
2. Shah SA,
3. Ann HS,
4. et al.
(2013) Stratifying patients with haematuria into high or low risk groups for bladder cancer: a novel clinical scoring system. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14, 11, 6327–6330.
OpenUrl
22.↵
1. Hippisley-Cox J,
2. Coupland C
(2012) Identifying patients with suspected renal tract cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X636074.
23.↵
1. Hippisley-Cox J,
2. Coupland C
(2013) Symptoms and risk factors to identify men with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660724.
24.↵
1. Hippisley-Cox J,
2. Coupland C
(2013) Symptoms and risk factors to identify women with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660733.
25.↵
1. Jung H,
2. Gleason J,
3. Loo R,
4. et al.
(2010) Association of hematuria on microscopic urinalysis and risk of urinary tract cancer development. Eur Urol Supp doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.414.
OpenUrl CrossRef
26.↵
1. Lee SB,
2. Kim HS,
3. Kim M,
4. Ku JH
(2014) External validation of a clinical scoring system for hematuria. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15, 16, 6819–6822.
OpenUrl
27.↵
1. Lippmann QK,
2. Slezak JM,
3. Menefee SA,
4. et al.
(2017) Evaluation of microscopic hematuria and risk of urologic cancer in female patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216, 2, 146.e1–146.e7.
OpenUrl
28.↵
1. Loo RK,
2. Lieberman SF,
3. Slezak JM,
4. et al.
(2013) Stratifying risk of urinary tract malignant tumors in patients with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. Mayo Clin Proc 88, 2, 129–138.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
29.↵
1. Lotan Y,
2. Capitanio U,
3. Shariat SF,
4. et al.
(2009) Impact of clinical factors, including a point-of-care nuclear matrix protein-22 assay and cytology, on bladder cancer detection. BJU Int 103, 10, 1368–1374.
OpenUrl PubMed
30.↵
1. Lotan Y,
2. Svatek RS,
3. Krabbe LM,
4. et al.
(2014) Prospective external validation of a bladder cancer detection model. J Urol 192, 5, 1343–1348.
OpenUrl
31.↵
1. Shephard E,
2. Neal R,
3. Rose P,
4. et al.
(2013) Clinical features of kidney cancer in primary care: a case-control study using primary care records. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665215.
32.↵
1. Shephard EA,
2. Stapley S,
3. Neal RD,
4. et al.
(2012) Clinical features of bladder cancer in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X654560.
33.↵
1. Tan WS,
2. Ahmad A,
3. Feber A,
4. et al.
(2019) Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer. J Intern Med 285, 4, 436–445.
OpenUrl
34.↵
1. Matulewicz RS,
2. Rademaker A,
3. Meeks JJ
(2020) A simplified nomogram to assess risk of bladder cancer in patients with a new diagnosis of microscopic hematuria. Urol Oncol 38, 4, 240–246.
OpenUrl
35.↵
1. Price SJ,
2. Shephard EA,
3. Stapley SA,
4. et al.
(2014) Non-visible versus visible haematuria and bladder cancer risk: a study of electronic records in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X681409.
36.↵
1. Greene KL,
2. Berry A,
3. Konety BR
(2006) Diagnostic utility of the immunoCyt/uCyt+ test in bladder cancer. Rev Urol 8, 4, 190–197.
OpenUrl PubMed
37.↵
1. Williams TGS,
2. Cubiella J,
3. Griffin SJ,
4. et al.
(2016) Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 16, 1, 63–63.
OpenUrl PubMed
38.↵
1. Funston G,
2. Hardy V,
3. Abel G,
4. et al.
(2020) Identifying ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of clinical tools. Cancers (Basel) 12, 12, 3686.
OpenUrl
39.↵
1. Schmidt-Hansen M,
2. Berendse S,
3. Hamilton W
(2015) The association between symptoms and bladder or renal tract cancer in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X687421.
40.↵
1. Kelly JD,
2. Fawcett DP,
3. Goldberg LC
(2009) Assessment and management of non-visible haematuria in primary care. BMJ 338, a3021.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

In this issue

Download PDF

Download PowerPoint

Email Article

Citation Tools

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Show more Research

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

[1] 1.↵
UK Cancer Research
Bladder cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bladder-cancer (accessed 17 Nov 2021).

[2] UK Cancer Research

[3] 2.↵
UK Cancer Research
Kidney cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/kidney-cancer (accessed 17 Nov 2021).

[4] UK Cancer Research

[5] 3.↵
National Cancer Intelligence Network
(2017) Routes to diagnosis 2006–2015 workbook, http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/routes_to_diagnosis (accessed 17 Nov 2021).

[6] National Cancer Intelligence Network

[7] 4.↵
Neal RD,
Tharmanathan P,
France B,
et al.
(2015) Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer 112, Suppl 1, S92–S107.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[8] Neal RD,

[9] Tharmanathan P,

[10] France B,

[11] et al.

[12] 5.↵
Arhi CS,
Burns EM,
Bottle A,
et al.
(2020) Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X710441.

[13] Arhi CS,

[14] Burns EM,

[15] Bottle A,

[16] et al.

[17] 6.↵
Zhou Y,
Walter FM,
Singh H,
et al.
(2021) Prolonged diagnostic intervals as marker of missed diagnostic opportunities in bladder and kidney cancer patients with alarm features: a longitudinal linked data study. Cancers (Basel) 13, 1, 156.
OpenUrl

[18] Zhou Y,

[19] Walter FM,

[20] Singh H,

[21] et al.

[22] 7.↵
Zhou Y,
Funston G,
Lyratzopoulos G,
Walter FM
(2019) Improving the timely detection of bladder and kidney cancer in primary care. Adv Ther 36, 7, 1778–1785.
OpenUrl

[23] Zhou Y,

[24] Funston G,

[25] Lyratzopoulos G,

[26] Walter FM

[27] 8.↵
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
(2021) Suspected cancer: recognition and referral NG12, http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG12 (accessed 17 Nov 2021).

[28] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

[29] 9.↵
Zhou Y,
Mendonca SC,
Abel GA,
et al.
(2018) Variation in ‘fast-track’ referrals for suspected cancer by patient characteristic and cancer diagnosis: evidence from 670 000 patients with cancers of 35 different sites. Br J Cancer 118, 1, 24–31.
OpenUrl

[30] Zhou Y,

[31] Mendonca SC,

[32] Abel GA,

[33] et al.

[34] 10.↵
Georgieva MV,
Wheeler SB,
Erim D,
et al.
(2019) Comparison of the harms, advantages, and costs associated with alternative guidelines for the evaluation of hematuria. JAMA Intern Med 179, 10, 1352–1362.
OpenUrl

[35] Georgieva MV,

[36] Wheeler SB,

[37] Erim D,

[38] et al.

[39] 11.↵
Hamilton W,
Green T,
Martins T,
et al.
(2013) Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 63, 606, e30–e36.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[40] Hamilton W,

[41] Green T,

[42] Martins T,

[43] et al.

[44] 12.↵
Grigore B,
Lewis R,
Peters J,
et al.
(2020) Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 20, 1, 1084.
OpenUrl

[45] Grigore B,

[46] Lewis R,

[47] Peters J,

[48] et al.

[49] 13.↵
Hamilton W,
Green T,
Martins T,
et al.
(2013) Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660751.

[50] Hamilton W,

[51] Green T,

[52] Martins T,

[53] et al.

[54] 14.↵
Moons KG,
Altman DG,
Reitsma JB,
et al.
(2015) Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162, 1, W1–W73.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[55] Moons KG,

[56] Altman DG,

[57] Reitsma JB,

[58] et al.

[59] 15.↵
Moons KGM,
Wolff RF,
Riley RD,
et al.
(2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 170, 1, W1–W33.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[60] Moons KGM,

[61] Wolff RF,

[62] Riley RD,

[63] et al.

[64] 16.↵
Wolff RF,
Moons KGM,
Riley RD,
et al.
(2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 170, 1, 51–58.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[65] Wolff RF,

[66] Moons KGM,

[67] Riley RD,

[68] et al.

[69] 17.↵
Barbieri CE,
Cha EK,
Chromecki TF,
et al.
(2012) Decision curve analysis assessing the clinical benefit of NMP22 in the detection of bladder cancer: secondary analysis of a prospective trial. BJU Int 109, 5, 685–690.
OpenUrl PubMed

[70] Barbieri CE,

[71] Cha EK,

[72] Chromecki TF,

[73] et al.

[74] 18.↵
Beukers W,
Kandimalla R,
van Houwelingen D,
et al.
(2013) The use of molecular analyses in voided urine for the assessment of patients with hematuria. PLoS One 8, 10, e77657.
OpenUrl

[75] Beukers W,

[76] Kandimalla R,

[77] van Houwelingen D,

[78] et al.

[79] 19.↵
Cha EK,
Tirsar LA,
Schwentner C,
et al.
(2012) Immunocytology is a strong predictor of bladder cancer presence in patients with painless hematuria: a multicentre study. Eur Urol 61, 1, 185–192.
OpenUrl PubMed

[80] Cha EK,

[81] Tirsar LA,

[82] Schwentner C,

[83] et al.

[84] 20.↵
Cha EK,
Tirsar LA,
Schwentner C,
et al.
(2012) Accurate risk assessment of patients with asymptomatic hematuria for the presence of bladder cancer. World J Urol 30, 6, 847–852.
OpenUrl PubMed

[85] Cha EK,

[86] Tirsar LA,

[87] Schwentner C,

[88] et al.

[89] 21.↵
Hee TG,
Shah SA,
Ann HS,
et al.
(2013) Stratifying patients with haematuria into high or low risk groups for bladder cancer: a novel clinical scoring system. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14, 11, 6327–6330.
OpenUrl

[90] Hee TG,

[91] Shah SA,

[92] Ann HS,

[93] et al.

[94] 22.↵
Hippisley-Cox J,
Coupland C
(2012) Identifying patients with suspected renal tract cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X636074.

[95] Hippisley-Cox J,

[96] Coupland C

[97] 23.↵
Hippisley-Cox J,
Coupland C
(2013) Symptoms and risk factors to identify men with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660724.

[98] Hippisley-Cox J,

[99] Coupland C

[100] 24.↵
Hippisley-Cox J,
Coupland C
(2013) Symptoms and risk factors to identify women with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660733.

[101] Hippisley-Cox J,

[102] Coupland C

[103] 25.↵
Jung H,
Gleason J,
Loo R,
et al.
(2010) Association of hematuria on microscopic urinalysis and risk of urinary tract cancer development. Eur Urol Supp doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.414.
OpenUrl CrossRef

[104] Jung H,

[105] Gleason J,

[106] Loo R,

[107] et al.

[108] 26.↵
Lee SB,
Kim HS,
Kim M,
Ku JH
(2014) External validation of a clinical scoring system for hematuria. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15, 16, 6819–6822.
OpenUrl

[109] Lee SB,

[110] Kim HS,

[111] Kim M,

[112] Ku JH

[113] 27.↵
Lippmann QK,
Slezak JM,
Menefee SA,
et al.
(2017) Evaluation of microscopic hematuria and risk of urologic cancer in female patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216, 2, 146.e1–146.e7.
OpenUrl

[114] Lippmann QK,

[115] Slezak JM,

[116] Menefee SA,

[117] et al.

[118] 28.↵
Loo RK,
Lieberman SF,
Slezak JM,
et al.
(2013) Stratifying risk of urinary tract malignant tumors in patients with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. Mayo Clin Proc 88, 2, 129–138.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[119] Loo RK,

[120] Lieberman SF,

[121] Slezak JM,

[122] et al.

[123] 29.↵
Lotan Y,
Capitanio U,
Shariat SF,
et al.
(2009) Impact of clinical factors, including a point-of-care nuclear matrix protein-22 assay and cytology, on bladder cancer detection. BJU Int 103, 10, 1368–1374.
OpenUrl PubMed

[124] Lotan Y,

[125] Capitanio U,

[126] Shariat SF,

[127] et al.

[128] 30.↵
Lotan Y,
Svatek RS,
Krabbe LM,
et al.
(2014) Prospective external validation of a bladder cancer detection model. J Urol 192, 5, 1343–1348.
OpenUrl

[129] Lotan Y,

[130] Svatek RS,

[131] Krabbe LM,

[132] et al.

[133] 31.↵
Shephard E,
Neal R,
Rose P,
et al.
(2013) Clinical features of kidney cancer in primary care: a case-control study using primary care records. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665215.

[134] Shephard E,

[135] Neal R,

[136] Rose P,

[137] et al.

[138] 32.↵
Shephard EA,
Stapley S,
Neal RD,
et al.
(2012) Clinical features of bladder cancer in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X654560.

[139] Shephard EA,

[140] Stapley S,

[141] Neal RD,

[142] et al.

[143] 33.↵
Tan WS,
Ahmad A,
Feber A,
et al.
(2019) Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer. J Intern Med 285, 4, 436–445.
OpenUrl

[144] Tan WS,

[145] Ahmad A,

[146] Feber A,

[147] et al.

[148] 34.↵
Matulewicz RS,
Rademaker A,
Meeks JJ
(2020) A simplified nomogram to assess risk of bladder cancer in patients with a new diagnosis of microscopic hematuria. Urol Oncol 38, 4, 240–246.
OpenUrl

[149] Matulewicz RS,

[150] Rademaker A,

[151] Meeks JJ

[152] 35.↵
Price SJ,
Shephard EA,
Stapley SA,
et al.
(2014) Non-visible versus visible haematuria and bladder cancer risk: a study of electronic records in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X681409.

[153] Price SJ,

[154] Shephard EA,

[155] Stapley SA,

[156] et al.

[157] 36.↵
Greene KL,
Berry A,
Konety BR
(2006) Diagnostic utility of the immunoCyt/uCyt+ test in bladder cancer. Rev Urol 8, 4, 190–197.
OpenUrl PubMed

[158] Greene KL,

[159] Berry A,

[160] Konety BR

[161] 37.↵
Williams TGS,
Cubiella J,
Griffin SJ,
et al.
(2016) Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 16, 1, 63–63.
OpenUrl PubMed

[162] Williams TGS,

[163] Cubiella J,

[164] Griffin SJ,

[165] et al.

[166] 38.↵
Funston G,
Hardy V,
Abel G,
et al.
(2020) Identifying ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of clinical tools. Cancers (Basel) 12, 12, 3686.
OpenUrl

[167] Funston G,

[168] Hardy V,

[169] Abel G,

[170] et al.

[171] 39.↵
Schmidt-Hansen M,
Berendse S,
Hamilton W
(2015) The association between symptoms and bladder or renal tract cancer in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X687421.

[172] Schmidt-Hansen M,

[173] Berendse S,

[174] Hamilton W

[175] 40.↵
Kelly JD,
Fawcett DP,
Goldberg LC
(2009) Assessment and management of non-visible haematuria in primary care. BMJ 338, a3021.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[176] Kelly JD,

[177] Fawcett DP,

[178] Goldberg LC

Main menu

User menu

Search

Risk prediction models for symptomatic patients with bladder and kidney cancer: a systematic review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

RESULTS

Study design and setting

Risk factors

RoB

Performance measures

DISCUSSION

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for research and practice

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Data

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US

Main menu

User menu

Search

Risk prediction models for symptomatic patients with bladder and kidney cancer: a systematic review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

RESULTS

Study design and setting

Risk factors

RoB

Performance measures

DISCUSSION

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for research and practice

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Data

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US