%0 Journal Article %A Sarah J Price %A Niamh Gibson %A William T Hamilton %A Angela King %A Elizabeth A Shephard %T Intra-abdominal cancer risk with abdominal pain: a prospective cohort primary care study %D 2022 %R 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0552 %J British Journal of General Practice %P e361-e368 %V 72 %N 718 %X Background Quantifying cancer risk in primary care patients with abdominal pain informs diagnostic strategies.Aim To quantify oesophagogastric, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, ovarian, uterine, kidney, and bladder cancer risks associated with newly reported abdominal pain with or without other symptoms, signs, or abnormal blood tests (that is, features) indicative of possible cancer.Design and setting This was an observational prospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records with English cancer registry linkage.Method The authors studied 125 793 patients aged ≥40 years with newly reported abdominal pain in primary care between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013. The 1-year cumulative incidence of cancer, and the composite 1-year cumulative incidence of cancers with shared additional features, stratified by age and sex are reported.Results With abdominal pain, overall risk was greater in men and increased with age, reaching 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0 to 3.7, predominantly colorectal cancer 1.9%, 95% CI = 1.6 to 2.1) in men ≥70 years, compared with their expected incidence of 0.88% (95% CI = 0.87 to 0.89). Additional features increased cancer risk; for example, for men, colorectal or pancreatic cancer risk with abdominal pain plus diarrhoea at 60–69 years of age was 3.1% (95% CI = 1.9 to 4.9) predominantly colorectal cancer (2.2%, 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.8).Conclusion Abdominal pain increases intra-abdominal cancer risk nearly fourfold in men aged ≥70 years, exceeding the 3% threshold warranting investigation. This threshold is surpassed for the >60 years age group only with additional features. These results will help direct appropriate referral and testing strategies for patients based on their demographic profile and reporting features. The authors suggest non-invasive strategies first, such as faecal immunochemical testing, with safety-netting in a shared decision-making framework. %U https://bjgp.org/content/bjgp/72/718/e361.full.pdf