The diagnosis of colorectal cancer in patients with symptoms: finding a needle in a haystack

Patients often see primary care physicians with symptoms that might signal colorectal cancer but are also common in adults without cancer. Physicians and patients must then make a difficult decision about whether and how aggressively to evaluate the symptom. Favoring referral is that missed diagnoses lead to unnecessary testing, prolonged uncertainty, and continuing symptoms; also, the physician will suffer chagrin. It is not clear that diagnostic delay leads to progression to a more advanced stage. Against referral is that proper evaluation includes colonoscopy, with attendant inconvenience, discomfort, cost, and risk. The article by Hamilton et al, published this month in BMC Medicine, provides strong estimates of the predictive value of the various symptoms and signs of colorectal cancer and show how much higher predictive values are with increasing age and male sex. Unfortunately, their results also make clear that most colorectal cancers present with symptoms with low predictive values, < 1.2%. Models that include a set of predictive variables, that is, risk factors, age, sex, screening history, and symptoms, have been developed to guide primary prevention and clinical decision-making and are more powerful than individual symptoms and signs alone. Although screening for colorectal cancer is increasing in many countries, cancers will still be found outside screening programs so primary care physicians will remain at the front line in the difficult task of distinguishing everyday symptoms from life-threatening cancer

Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areas

Stage at diagnosis and survival from cancer vary according to where people live, suggesting some may have delays in diagnosis. The aim of this study was to determine if time from presentation to treatment was longer for colorectal and breast cancer patients living further from cancer centres, and identify other important factors in delay. Data were collected on 1097 patients with breast and 1223 with colorectal cancer in north and northeast Scotland. Women with breast cancer who lived further from cancer centres were treated more quickly than those living closer to cancer centres (P = 0.011). Multilevel modelling found that this was largely due to them receiving earlier treatment at hospitals other than cancer centres. Breast lump, change in skin contour, lymphadenopathy, more symptoms and signs, and increasing age predicted faster treatment. Screen detected cancers and private referrals were treated more quickly. For colorectal cancer, time to treatment was similar for people in rural and urban areas. Quicker treatment was associated with palpable rectal or abdominal masses, tenesmus, abdominal pain, frequent GP consultations, age between 50 and 74 years, tumours of the transverse colon, and iron medication at presentation. Delay was associated with past anxiety or depression. There was variation between general practices and treatment appeared quicker at practices with more female general practitioners

A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bowel symptoms are considered indicators of the presence of colorectal cancer and other bowel diseases. Self administered questionnaires that elicit information about lower bowel symptoms have not been assessed for reliability, although this has been done for upper bowel symptoms. Our aim was to develop a self administered questionnaire for eliciting the presence, nature and severity of lower bowel symptoms potentially related to colorectal cancer, and assess its reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Immediately before consulting a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon, 263 patients likely to have a colonoscopy completed the questionnaire. Reliability was assessed in two ways: by assessing agreement between patient responses and (a) responses given by the doctor at the consultation; and (b) responses given by patients two weeks later.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was more than 75% agreement for 78% of the questions for the patient-doctor comparison and for 92% of the questions for the patient-patient comparison. Agreement for the length of time a symptom was present, its severity, duration, frequency of occurrence and whether or not medical consultation had been sought, all had agreement of greater than 70%. Over all questions, the chance corrected agreement for the patient-doctor comparison had a median kappa of 65% (which represents substantial agreement), interquartile range 57–72%. The patient-patient comparison also showed substantial agreement with a median kappa of 75%, interquartile range 68–81%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This self administered questionnaire about lower bowel symptoms is a useful way of eliciting details of bowel symptoms. It is a reliable instrument that is acceptable to patients and easily completed. Its use could guide the clinical consultation, allowing a more efficient, comprehensive and useful interaction, ensuring that all symptoms are assessed. It will also be a useful tool in research studies on bowel symptoms and their predictive value for colorectal cancer and other diseases. Studies assessing whether bowel symptoms predict the presence of colorectal cancer should provide estimates of the reliability of the symptom elicitation.</p

The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colonoscopy is an invasive and costly procedure with a risk of serious complications. It would therefore be useful to prioritise colonoscopies by identifying people at higher risk of either cancer or premalignant adenomas. The aim of this study is to assess a model that identifies people with colorectal cancer, advanced, large and small adenomas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients seen by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons between April 2004 and December 2006 completed a validated, structured self-administered questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Information was collected on symptoms, demographics and medical history. Multinomial logistic regression was used to simultaneously assess factors associated with findings on colonoscopy of cancer, advanced adenomas and adenomas sized 6 -9 mm, and ≤ 5 mm. The area under the curve of ROC curve was used to assess the incremental gain of adding demographic variables, medical history and symptoms (in that order) to a base model that included only age.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sociodemographic variables, medical history and symptoms (from 8,204 patients) jointly provide good discrimination between colorectal cancer and no abnormality (AUC 0.83), but discriminate less well between adenomas and no abnormality (AUC advanced adenoma 0.70; other adenomas 0.67). Age is the dominant risk factor for cancer and adenomas of all sizes. Having a colonoscopy within the last 10 years confers protection for cancers and advanced adenomas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our models provide guidance about which factors can assist in identifying people at higher risk of disease using easily elicited information. This would allow colonoscopy to be prioritised for those for whom it would be of most benefit.</p

Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care.

Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an 'area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.This is the final version of the article. It was first available from NPG via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.40

Most bowel cancer symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bowel symptoms are often considered an indication to perform colonoscopy to identify or rule out colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. Investigation of bowel symptoms for this purpose is recommended by numerous clinical guidelines. However, the evidence for this practice is unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the evidence about the association between bowel symptoms and colorectal cancer or polyps.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the literature extensively up to December 2008, using MEDLINE and EMBASE and following references. For inclusion in the review, papers from cross sectional, case control and cohort studies had to provide a 2×2 table of symptoms by diagnosis (colorectal cancer or polyps) or sufficient data from which that table could be constructed. The search procedure, quality appraisal, and data extraction was done twice, with disagreements resolved with another reviewer. Summary ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms to detect colorectal cancer and polyps.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Colorectal cancer was associated with rectal bleeding (AUC 0.66; LR+ 1.9; LR- 0.7) and weight loss (AUC 0.67, LR+ 2.5, LR- 0.9). Neither of these symptoms was associated with the presence of polyps. There was no significant association of colorectal cancer or polyps with change in bowel habit, constipation, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Neither the clinical setting (primary or specialist care) nor study type was associated with accuracy.</p> <p>Most studies had methodological flaws. There was no consistency in the way symptoms were elicited or interpreted in the studies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Current evidence suggests that the common practice of performing colonoscopies to identify cancers in people with bowel symptoms is warranted only for rectal bleeding and the general symptom of weight loss. Bodies preparing guidelines for clinicians and consumers to improve early detection of colorectal cancer need to take into account the limited value of symptoms.</p

The effects of the Two-Week Rule on NHS colorectal cancer diagnostic services: a systematic literature review.

Contains fulltext : 49770.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The Two-Week Rule (TWR) was introduced to ensure that all patients with a suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) saw a hospital specialist within 14 days of an urgent GP referral. Guidelines were available to GPs to facilitate the appropriate TWR referral of patients exhibiting high-risk CRC symptoms. METHODS: We aimed to evaluate the TWR and its CRC detection rate on NHS CRC diagnostic services by performing a literature search and critically appraising the peer-reviewed studies. Only 12 studies were eligible for inclusion. Data was collected and overall results were given as weighted averages. RESULTS: The studies identified indicated that only 10.3% of patients referred by the TWR were eventually diagnosed with CRC. When examining the referral origin of all CRC patients diagnosed during the time of the studies, 24% had been referred using the TWR, 24.1% were referred as emergency cases, and 52.4% were referred using alternative routes. No evidence was found to indicate that the TWR had resulted in identifying CRC patients at an earlier, more treatable stage of their disease. CONCLUSION: The TWR referral system needs to be improved to increase the number of CRC patients referred using this fast track method as they present to their GP. The TWR and new NICE Guidelines for the referral of patients with suspected cancer should be independently evaluated

A pesquisa de sangue oculto nas fezes associada a um questionário de sinais e sintomas na prevenção do câncer colo retal Faecal occult blood (FOB) test associated with a questionaire of signs and symptoms in screening for colorectal cancer

OBJETIVO: Determinar a eficácia de um programa de prevenção de Câncer Colo Retal (CCR) através do método da pesquisa de sangue oculto das fezes (PSO), e um questionário clínico (QSA). MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Foi realizada uma triagem através do PSO e do QSA em indivíduos acima de 50 anos, oriundos de uma campanha de prevenção de CCR em Joinville, SC. 387 indivíduos aderiram à campanha e 93 foram excluídos.. Foram definidos 3 grupos: 1- PSO +, com 20 sujeitos, QSA +, com 38 sujeitos e PSO e QSA negativos com 21 sujeitos. Foi definida como colonoscopia positiva aquela que detectou adenomas. RESULTADOS: O grupo 1 apresentou 22% de sensibilidade, 74% de especificidade, likelihood ratio positivo (LR) de 0, 9, acurácia de 56, 9, valor preditivo positivo (VPP) de 31,6 e negativo (VPN) de 64. O grupo 2 apresentou 71,4% de sensibilidade, 45,6 de especificidade, LR de 1,3, acurácia de 52,6, VPP de 32,6 e VPN de 81,3. O método apresentou 95,2% de sensibilidade, 63,2 de especificidade, LR de 2, 6, acurácia de 71, 8, VPP de 48.8 e VPN de 97.3. CONCLUSÃO: O método da PSO e QSA são complementares e efetivos como triagem em programas de prevenção de CCR.<br>The purpose of this study is to verify the efficacy of a strategy to screen colorectal cancer(CCR) and adenomas using the faecal occult blood test(PSO) and a questionnaire (QSA)based in signs and symptoms of CCR. METHODS: A program of prevention was done, and the patients answered the QSA and did the PSO type imunocromatograph. RESULTS: 387 people adhered do the program, 93 were excluded. Three groups were formed: 1: 20 persons, with PSO positive, 2:38 persons with QSA positive, and 3, with 21 persons with PSO and QSA negatives. Group 1 presented a sensibility of 22%, specificity of 74%, Likelihood ratio + of 0,9, accuracy of 56,9, Positive predictive value(VPP) of 31,6 and negative(VPN) of 64. Group 2 presented sensibility of 71,4%, 45,6% of specificity, Likelihood ratio + 1.3, accuracy of 52,6, VPP de 32,6 e VPN de 81,3. The QSA plus PSO method, presented a sensibility of 95,2%, 63,2 of specificity, accuracy of 71,8 ,Likelihood ratio of 2,6, VPP de 48,8 e VPN 81,3. In conclusion the method of PSO and QSA are complementary and seem effective in screening for CCR in preventive programs