Radiographer involvement in mammography image interpretation: a survey of United Kingdom practice

Breast cancer is most often diagnosed using x-ray mammography. Traditionally mammography images have been interpreted and reported by medically qualified practitioners - radiologists. Due to radiologist workforce shortages in recent years some nonmedical practitioners, radiographers, now interpret and report mammography images. The aims of this survey were to describe the characteristics and practices of radiographers who interpret and report mammography images in NHS hospitals in the UK, and in particular to establish the extent of their practice beyond low-risk asymptomatic screening cases. This service evaluation demonstrated that UK radiographers are interpreting and reporting images across the full spectrum of clinical indications for mammography including: low-risk population screening, symptomatic, annual surveillance, family history and biopsy / surgical cases. The survey revealed that radiographers are involved in a diverse range of single and double reading practices where responsibility for diagnostic decision making is shared or transferred between radiologists and / or other radiographers. Comparative analysis of subgroup data suggested that there might be differences in the characteristics and practices of radiographers who interpret only low-risk screening mammograms and those who interpret and report a wider range of cases. The findings of this survey provide a platform for further research to investigate how and why the roles and responsibilities of radiographers who interpret and report mammograms vary between organisations, between practitioners and across different examinations. Further research is also needed to explore the implications of variation in practice for patients, practitioners and service providers

Demographic trends in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: A population-based study

Background: Evidence is emerging that the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in young adults, but the descriptive epidemiology required to better understand these trends is currently lacking. Methods: A population-based cohort study was carried out including all adults aged 20–49 years diagnosed with colorectal cancer in England between 1974 and 2015. Data were extracted from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database using ICD-9/10 codes for colorectal cancer. Temporal trends in age-specific incidence rates according to sex, anatomical subsite, index of multiple deprivation quintile and geographical region were analysed using Joinpoint regression.Results: A total of 56 134 new diagnoses of colorectal cancer were analysed. The most sustained increase in incidence rate was in the group aged 20–29 years, which was mainly driven by a rise in distal tumours. The magnitude of incident rate increases was similar in both sexes and across Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles, although the most pronounced increases in incidence occurred in the southern regions of England.Conclusion: Colorectal cancer should no longer be considered a disease of older people. Changes in incidence rates should be used to inform future screening policy, preventative strategies and research agendas, as well as increasing public understanding that younger people need to be aware of the symptoms of colorectal cancer

Intervention against Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Primary Health Care: A Survey of GPs' Attitudes and Practices in England 10 Years On

To ascertain the views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prevention and management of alcohol-related problems in practice, together with perceived barriers and incentives for this work; to compare our findings with a comparable survey conducted 10 years earlier. In total, 282 (73%) of 419 GPs surveyed in East Midlands, UK, completed a postal questionnaire, measuring practices and attitudes, including the Shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire (SAAPPQ). GPs reported lower levels of post-graduate education or training on alcohol-related issues (<4 h for the majority) than in 1999 but not significantly so (P = 0.031). In the last year, GPs had most commonly requested more than 12 blood tests and managed 1–6 patients for alcohol. Reports of these preventive practices were significantly increased from 1999 (P < 0.001). Most felt that problem or dependent drinkers' alcohol issues could be legitimately (88%, 87%) and adequately (78%, 69%) addressed by GPs. However, they had low levels of motivation (42%, 35%), task-related self-esteem (53%, 49%) and job satisfaction (15%, 12%) for this. Busyness (63%) and lack of training (57%) or contractual incentives (48%) were key barriers. Endorsement for government policies on alcohol was very low. Among GPs, there still appears to be a gap between actual practice and potential for preventive work relating to alcohol problems; they report little specific training and a lack of support. Translational work on understanding the evidence-base supporting screening and brief intervention could incentivize intervention against excessive drinking and embedding it into everyday primary care practice

VivaScope® 1500 and 3000 systems for detecting and monitoring skin lesions: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with suspicious skin lesions are first examined with a dermoscope. After examination, those with non-cancerous lesions are discharged, but lesions that are still considered clinically suspicious are surgically removed. VivaScope® is a non-invasive technology designed to be used in conjunction with dermoscopy to provide a more accurate diagnosis, leading to fewer biopsies of benign lesions or to provide more accurate presurgical margins reducing the risk of cancer recurrence. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VivaScope® 1500 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA; Lucid Inc., Rochester, NY, USA; or Lucid Inc., MAVIG GmbH, Munich, Germany) and VivaScope® 3000 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA) in the diagnosis of equivocal skin lesions, and VivaScope 3000 in lesion margin delineation prior to surgical excision of lesions. Data sources: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched on 14 October 2014, reference lists of included papers were assessed and clinical experts were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies. Methods: A systematic review was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating dermoscopy plus VivaScope, or VivaScope alone, with histopathology as the reference test. A probabilistic de novo economic model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs and clinical outcomes from the UK NHS perspective. All costs were expressed as 2014 prices. Results: Sixteen studies were included in the review, but they were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis. One of two diagnostic studies that were deemed most representative of UK clinical practice reported that dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 was significantly more sensitive than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of melanoma (97.8% vs. 94.6%; p = 0.043) and significantly more specific than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of non-melanoma (92.4% vs. 26.74%; p  5 mm beyond the dermoscopically identified margin. Using ‘optimistic’ diagnostic data, the economic model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8877 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (£9362 per QALY), while the ‘less favourable’ diagnostic data resulted in an ICER of £19,095 per QALY (£25,453 per QALY) in the diagnosis of suspected melanomas. VivaScope was also shown to be a dominant strategy when used for the diagnostic assessment of suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Regarding margin delineation of LM, mapping with VivaScope was cost-effective, with an ICER of £10,241 per QALY (£11,651 per QALY). However, when VivaScope was used for diagnosis as well as mapping of LM, then the intervention cost was reduced and VivaScope became a dominant strategy. Limitations: There is an absence of UK data in the included studies and, therefore, generalisability of the results to the UK population is unclear. Conclusions: The use of VivaScope appears to be a cost-effective strategy in the diagnostic assessment of equivocal melanomas and BCCs, and in margin delineation of LM prior to surgical treatment. Future work: High-quality RCTs are required in a UK population to assess the diagnostic accuracy of VivaScope in people with equivocal lesions. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014433. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme