Acceptability of text messages for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms: a qualitative study

Background: Safety netting is an important diagnostic strategy for patients presenting to primary care with potential (low-risk) cancer symptoms. Typically, this involves asking patients to return if symptoms persist. However, this relies on patients re-appraising their symptoms and making follow-up appointments, which could contribute to delays in diagnosis. Text messaging is increasingly used in primary care to communicate with patients, and could be used to improve safety netting. / Aim: To explore the acceptability and feasibility of using text messages to safety net patients presenting with low-risk cancer symptoms in GP primary care (txt-netting). / Design and setting: Qualitative focus group and interview study with London-based GPs. / Method: Participants were identified using convenience sampling methods. Five focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 22 GPs between August and December 2016. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. / Results: GPs were amenable to the concept of using text messages in cancer safety netting, identifying it as an additional tool that could help manage patients and promote symptom awareness. There was wide variation in GP preferences for text message content, and a number of important potential barriers to txt-netting were identified. Concerns were raised about the difficulties of conveying complex safety netting advice within the constraints of a text message, and about confidentiality, widening inequalities, and workload implications. / Conclusion: Text messages were perceived to be an acceptable potential strategy for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms. Further work is needed to ensure it is cost-effective, user friendly, confidential, and acceptable to patients

Consultation rates in cervical screening non-attenders: opportunities to increase screening uptake in GP primary care

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of cervical screening non-attenders presenting to general practice (GP) primary care over one year.SETTING: 137 practices in East London, UK.METHODS: Anonymous primary care records were downloaded using EMIS web (clinical software). Cervical screening nonattendance was defined as no recorded smear in the last 3.5 years (women aged 25-49) or 5.5 years (women aged 50-64). The last three consultation entries were used to estimate the proportion of non-attenders who consulted in GP over 3 months and 1 year using the Kaplan-Meier method. Newly registered women were assessed separately. Results were calculated for each practice and the median and interquartile range (IQR) across practices are presented. Heterogeneity was assessed using funnel plots.RESULTS: Of 261,810 women, 224,313 (86%) had been registered for &gt;1 year. The proportion classified as non-attenders differed between those registered for &gt;1 year (30%, IQR 27%--35%) and within the last year (49%, IQR 40%--57%), suggesting that screening records were less up-to-date in newly registered women. A median of 32% (IQR: 27%--37%) of non-attenders presented over 3 months, and 60% (IQR: 52%--67%) over 1 year. Funnel plots of the proportion of non-attenders presenting by the number of non-attenders showed substantial variation between practices.CONCLUSIONS: Over half of cervical screening non-attenders present to their GP at least once a year, in over 75% of practices. This represents a good opportunity for improving coverage by offering an alternative form of screening, such as self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing.</p

Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from 01/January/2012 to 06/December/2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodological differences which could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case-control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodological differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardise exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus-based screening and to allow comparisons between programmes

Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: What are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?

This is the final version of the article. Available from Cancer Research UK via the DOI in this record.Background: Individuals with undiagnosed lung and colorectal cancers present with non-specific symptoms in primary care more often than matched controls. Increased access to diagnostic services for patients with symptoms generates more early-stage diagnoses, but the mechanisms for this are only partially understood. Methods: We re-analysed a UK-based case-control study to estimate the Symptom Lead Time (SLT) distribution for a range of potential symptom criteria for investigation. Symptom Lead Time is the time between symptoms caused by cancer and eventual diagnosis, and is analogous to Lead Time in a screening programme. We also estimated the proportion of symptoms in lung and colorectal cancer cases that are actually caused by the cancer. Results: Mean Symptom Lead Times were between 4.1 and 6.0 months, with medians between 2.0 and 3.2 months. Symptom Lead Time did not depend on stage at diagnosis, nor which criteria for investigation are adopted. Depending on the criteria, an estimated 27-48% of symptoms in individuals with as yet undiagnosed lung cancer, and 12-32% with undiagnosed colorectal cancer are not caused by the cancer. Conclusions: In most cancer cases detected by a symptom-based programme, the symptoms are caused by cancer. These cases have a short lead time and benefit relatively little. However, in a significant minority of cases cancer detection is serendipitous. This group experiences the benefits of a standard screening programme, a substantial mean lead time and a higher probability of early-stage diagnosis.This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme, RP-PG-0608-10045

Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders in primary care

Objectives To assess the feasibility and acceptability of offering self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing to cervical screening non-attenders when they consult primary care for any reason. Methods In a pilot implementation study, six general practices in London, UK, offered self-sampling kits during consultation to women aged 25–64 who were at least six months overdue for cervical screening (no cytology test recorded in the past 3.5 years if aged 25–49, or 5.5 years if aged 50–64). Eligible women were identified using an automated real-time search (during consultation) of the general practice electronic medical record system. Women collected samples either in clinic or at home (dry flocked swabs analysed using Roche Cobas®4800). Results Of approximately 5000 eligible women, 3131 consulted primary care between January and December 2014 (mean recruitment period 9.5 months). Of these, 21% (652) were offered kits, 14% (443) accepted, and 9% (292) returned a self-sample. The proportion of eligible women offered kits varied considerably among practices (11–36%). Sample return rates increased with kit offered rates ( r = 0.8, p = 0.04). Of 39 HPV positive women 85% (33) attended follow-up, including two with invasive cancers (stage 2A1 and 1A1). Conclusions Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders opportunistically in primary care is feasible. Return rates could be increased if more women were offered kits. A large trial is needed to identify how self-sampling is best integrated into the national screening programme, and to identify determinants of uptake. </jats:sec

Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial

BackgroundCervical cancer disproportionately affects women aged 65 years and older, especially those with inadequate previous screening. Speculum use is a key deterrent to screening attendancein older women.AimTo assess whether offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increase uptake among lapsed attenders aged 50-64.Design and settingPragmatic randomised control trial conducted between August 2018 and November 2019 at 10 general practices in East London, UK.MethodParticipants were 784 women aged 50-64 last screened 6-15years before randomisation.Intervention women received a letter offering the choice of a self-sampling kit or a clinician taken non-speculum sample. Control women received usual care. Main outcome measure: uptake within 4 months.ResultsScreening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (N=80/393) vs 4.9% (N=19/391, absolute difference=15.5%, 95%CI: 11.0%-20.0%, p&lt;0.001). This was maintained at 12 months; 30.5% (N=120/393) vs 13.6% (N=53/391), respectively (absolute difference=17.0%, 95%CI: 11.3%-22.7%, p&lt;0.001).Conventional screening attendance within 12 months was very similar for both arms (intervention: 12.7% (N=50/393) vs control: 13.6% (N=53/391)). Ethnic differences were observed in screening modality preference. More white women opted for self-sampling (50.7%, N=38/75) while most Asian and Black women opted for conventional screening. ConclusionsOffering non-speculum clinician-sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older women with lapsed screening attendance. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but prefer a clinician to take their sample and who lack confidence in self-sampling. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake

Characteristics and screening history of women diagnosed with cervical cancer aged 20-29 years

This work is supported by Cancer Research UK (C8162/10406 and C8162/12537)

Cervical cytology and the diagnosis of cervical cancer in older women

Objectives Most non-screen-detected cervical cancers are advanced stage. We assess the potential for cytology to expedite diagnosis when used outside of routine call and recall screening for cervical cancer. Methods Two cohorts of women with cytology that did not appear to have been taken as part of routine screening, nested within a census of cervical cytology, in England between April 2007 and March 2010 were studied: 93,322 women aged 40–69 at first cytology, and 14,668 women aged ≥70. The diagnostic performance of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse cytology was estimated. We also estimated case-fatality from stage distribution in women aged ≥66 with and without cytology in the year prior to diagnosis. Results There were 259 cancers diagnosed in women aged 40–69 at first cytology, and 78 in women aged ≥70. The sensitivity of cytology ≥ HSIL for cancer was 89% and 83% respectively, and the number of women needed to test to identify one cancer was 404 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 355–462) and 226 (95% CI: 177–292) respectively. Women aged ≥66 with cytology within a year of diagnosis had earlier stage cancers than those without, corresponding to a 17–22% reduction in case fatality. Conclusions Cervical cytology is an excellent identifier of cancer among women tested outside routine screening call and recall. Its use as a triage tool, for instance in women with vague gynaecological symptoms, could facilitate earlier stage diagnosis and reduce cervical cancer mortality. </jats:sec

Evaluating cytology for the detection of invasive cervical cancer

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity, the number needed to screen (NNS) and the positive predictive value (PPV) of cervical cytology for the diagnosis of cancer by age in a screening population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of women with invasive cervical cancer nested within a census of cervical cytology. All (c. 8 million) women aged 20-64 years with cervical cytology (excluding tests after an earlier abnormality). From April 2007 to March 2010, 3372 women had cervical cancer diagnosed within 12 months of such cytology in England. The sensitivity of cervical cytology to cancer, NNS to detect one cancer and predictive values of cytology were calculated for various 'referral' thresholds. These were calculated for ages 20-24, 25-34, 35-49 and 50-64 years. RESULTS: The sensitivity of at least moderate dyskaryosis [equivalent to a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse] for cancer of 89.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.3-90.4%] in women offered screening was independent of age. At all ages, women with borderline-early recall or mild dyskaryosis on cytology (equivalent to ASC-US and LSIL, respectively, in the Bethesda system) had a similar risk of cervical cancer to the risk in all women tested. The PPV of severe dyskaryosis/?invasive and ?glandular neoplasia cytology (equivalent to squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma/adenocarcinoma in situ, respectively, in the Bethesda System) were 34% and 12%, respectively; the PPV of severe dyskaryosis (HSIL: severe dysplasia) was 4%. The NNS was lowest when the incidence of cervical cancer was highest, at ages 25-39 years, but the proportion of those with abnormal cytology who have cancer was also lowest in younger women. CONCLUSIONS: The PPV of at least severe dyskaryosis (HSIL: severe dysplasia) for cancer was 4-10% of women aged 25-64 years, justifying a 2-week referral to colposcopy and demonstrating the importance of failsafe monitoring for such patients. The sensitivity of cytology for cervical cancer was excellent across all age groups.This work was supported by Cancer Research UK [C8162/10406 and C8162/12537]

Opportunistic offering of self-sampling to non-attenders within the English cervical screening programme: a pragmatic, multicentre, implementation feasibility trial with randomly allocated cluster intervention start dates (YouScreen)

Background: Self-sampling has game-changing potential to tackle the declining participation and inequities seen in many organised cervical screening programmes. Wide variation in uptake between settings and mode of kit offer highlight the importance of local piloting. Furthermore, harnessing the benefits of self-sampling in real-world settings has been surprisingly challenging. The YouScreen study estimated the impact of offering self-sampling to non-attenders within the English Programme and evaluated large-scale opportunistic offering of self-sampling in primary care. Methods: A pragmatic modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial with randomly-allocated cluster intervention start dates at primary care practices in England (133 participating, 62 non-participating). Eligible women were aged 25–64 years and ≥6 months overdue for screening (“non-attenders”). Between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021 self-sampling kits were distributed to non-attenders via an opportunistic offer in primary care when they consulted for any reason and direct mailout to those unscreened 15-months after routine invitation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of non-attenders screened each month; change in coverage; and uptake (90 days). YouScreen is registered with ISRCTN:12759467. Findings: 8338 women provided self-samples following recruitment between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021. Self-samples were returned from 65.5% (6061/9248) who accepted an opportunistically offered kit and 12.9% (2777/17,604) directly-mailed kits. Responders were representative of the ethnically diverse and deprived underlying non-attendee population (64% ethnic minority groups, 60% from the two most deprived national quintiles). The self-sampling intervention resulted in a 22% (95% CI 18–26) increase in non-attenders screened per month (per-protocol analysis) and 12% (95% CI 9–15) (intention-to-treat analysis). Change in coverage at participating (mean intervention duration 7.5 months) vs non-participating practices was 1.6% (95% CI 0.4–2.8). Adverse effects were not formally collected. Interpretation: Opportunistically offering self-sampling to under-screened women in primary care could increase coverage in England and potentially reach underserved populations. Funding: North Central London and North East London Cancer Alliance