View
44
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Early Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: The evolving evidence. Thomas Round GP XX Place Tower Hamlets Academic Clinical Fellow KCL thomasround@nhs.net / thomas.round@kcl.ac.uk. Or “Spotting the needle in the haystack”. Thomas Round. The UK Cancer Context. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Early Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care:
The evolving evidenceThomas RoundGP XX Place Tower Hamlets
Academic Clinical Fellow KCLthomasround@nhs.net / thomas.round@kcl.ac.uk
Presented by 2
Or “Spotting the needle in the haystack”
Thomas Round
Presented by
Presented by
The UK Cancer Context• More than 331,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2011
in the UK (CRUK 2014)• Overall cancer incidence rates in the UK have increased by more
than a third since the mid-1970s• By 2030 the incidence is expected to rise by 45% (Mistry 2011).• By 2020 almost 1 in 2 will get cancer in their lifetime (Macmillan
2013).• Cancer causes more than one in four of all deaths (159,000) in
the UK• Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive for at least 10
years• Cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years
(CRUK 2014)
Presented by
Presented by
The UK Cancer Context• UK cancer survival rates are lower than many European
countries (De Angelis 2013).• 5,000-10,000 deaths per annum (within 5 years of diagnosis)
might be avoided if survival rates matched the best in Europe (Abdel-Rahman 2009).
• Parts of the UK have achieved outcomes comparable to the best in Europe (Round 2013).
• Within the UK, and even London itself, there is a difference in survival rates (CRUK 2011).
• Late diagnosis is a major contributing factor to poor cancer survival rates in the UK (DoH 2007)
• It is estimated that about half of the difference in survival is due to ‘late diagnosis’ (Neal 2014)
Presented by
1995-99 2000-02 2005-0750
55
60
65
70
75
80
AUS CAN NOR DEN UK
NOR
DEN
UK
AUSCAN
1995-99 2000-02 2005-0790
92
94
96
98
100
AUS CAN SWE NOR DEN UK
SWE
NOR
DEN
UK
AUS
CAN
1995-99 2000-02 2005-0765
70
75
80
85
90
AUS CAN SWE NOR DEN UKAUS
NOR
DEN
UK
CAN
SWE
1995-99 2000-02 2005-0720
25
30
35
40
45SWE
NOR
DEN
UK
AUS
CAN
Colorectal Cancer 1yr RS Lung Cancer 1yr RS
Breast Cancer 1yr RS Ovarian Cancer 1yr RS
ICBP: 1 year relative survival Coleman et al, Lancet 2011
Presented by
Presented by 9
The Tower Hamlets Context
Thomas Round
Emergency route diagnosis Cancer survival rates
Cancer diagnosis and survival rates in Tower Hamlets and Kensington and Chelsea.
Presented by
The primary care cancer context
• The diagnosis of cancer in general practice is not straightforward (Hamilton 2004).
• A GP is likely to see 8 - 9 new cancer cases per year, and possibly 1000s with symptoms potentially of cancer (Richards 2009)
• Even for the commonest of cancers (eg lung, colorectal, breast) an individual GP is likely to see on average about one new cases per annum.
• For rarer cancers a GP will see a new case of ovarian cancer once every 5 years and a new case of testicular cancer every 20 years.
• Patient, doctor and system related factors can all contribute to delayed cancer diagnosis (Hansen 2008).
• Concerns about cancer diagnostic delay led to urgent suspected cancer referral routes, such as 2 week wait (2ww) in England (DoH 2000).
• For all urgent suspected cancer referrals (2ww) from GPs 10% will have cancer (PPV).
Presented by
Presented by 12
The Symptom Iceberg (McAteer 2010)
Thomas Round
Presented by
Cancer Policy Initiatives
Urgent referral pathways for suspected cancer (2000)NICE guidelines for urgent referral (2005). (Being re-visited due
2015)
Cancer Reform Strategy (2007)• Identifies early diagnosis as key to improving outcomes• National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI)
Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer (Jan 2011)• Sets out Government’s ambition to save an additional 5000 lives
p.a.
Presented by
NAEDI (Richards 2009)
Presented by
Delays in cancer diagnosis(Olesen 2009)
Presented by 16
Cancer Diagnosis Pathway and Delays(Walter 2012)
Presented by
Does delay make a difference to outcome?
• Intuitive answer is ‘yes’• Remarkably difficult to confirm• Differences in definitions, measurement of delay, outcome
measures• Failure to account for differences in aggressiveness• Lead time bias
• Delays of 3-6m for breast cancer result in 7% lower 5-year survival than delays of <3m (Richards Lancet 1999)
• Diagnostic delays in cancer do matter, but it is hard to quantify their impact on survival or mortality. (Neal BJC 2009)
Presented by
NAEDI (Richards 2009)
Presented by
Patient awareness of cancer symptoms (Robb 2009)
• Using standardised cancer awareness measures (CAMs)
• Awareness lower in BME groups
Presented by
International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) (Forbes 2013)
• Symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries.
Presented by
International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) (Forbes 2013)
• The UK had the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation
Presented by
Cancer awareness campaigns
Presented by
Increasing public awareness: impact on lung cancer• National awareness campaign for symptoms
of lung cancer; 6 weeks in 2012• Public awareness of symptoms increased from
41% to 50%• Urgent referrals for suspected lung cancer
increased by 30%May-June 2011
May-June 2012
Cases 7639 8335Early stage (1 or 2) 23.4% 26.9%Late stage (3B or 4) 62.5% 59.6%Surgical resection 13.7% 16.0%CRUK analysis of LUCADA data 2013
Presented by
NAEDI (Richards 2009)
Presented by
Cancer Diagnosis Pathway and Delays(Walter 2012)
25
Presented by
Lung Cancer: Reported avoidable delays(Rubin/RCGP 2013)
Presented by
GP consultations prior to referral
Comparison of crude (unadjusted) proportion of patients with three or more general practitioner consultations before hospital referral between the NHS Cancer Patient Survey 2010 and the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care
Lyratzopoulos Lancet Oncology 2012
010
2030
4050
% M
ultipl
e mye
loma
Panc
reat
ic O
vary
Sto
mac
h Lu
ng Ly
mph
oma
Ren
al C
olore
ctal
Leuk
aem
ia O
esop
hage
al Pr
osta
te B
ladde
r En
dom
etria
l M
elano
ma
Bre
ast
National primary care audit 2009
CPES 2010
Presented by
Box plot for primary care interval by category of number of pre-referral consultations (1, 2, 3, 4 and ‘5+’) for patients with any of 18 cancers (n=13 035).
Lyratzopoulos BJC 2013
Promptness of cancer diagnosisAmongst 13 035 patients with any of 18 different cancers, most (82%) were referred after 1 (58%) or 2 (25%) consultations (median intervals 0 and 15 days, respectively) while 9%, 4% and 5% patients required 3, 4 or 5+ consultations (median intervals 34, 47 and 97 days, respectively) (Spearman’s r=0.70).
Presented by
Change in diagnostic intervals2001/02-2007/08 (Neal 2013)
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v110/n3/full/bjc2013791a.html
Presented by
NAEDI (Richards 2009)
Presented by
Routes to DiagnosisAll cancers in England 2007
Presented by
Routes to Diagnosis: Comparing different studies
NCIN 2012. All cancers in England 2007
Presented by
Routes to Diagnosis: Survival
Presented by
The waiting time paradoxTorring BJC 2011
Presented by
2ww Referrals- variation between practices
Presented by
Correlation between Conversion rate and Detection Rate(with lines plotting the median detection rate within deciles of conversion rate and the median conversion rate within deciles of detection rate)
2ww referrals: conversion and detection rates (Meechan 2012)
Meechan BJGP 2012
Presented by
NCIN Practice Cancer Profiles
Presented by
Any potential solutions?
Presented by
Any potential solutions?Re-establish relational continuity of care:• Small GP teams – Relational continuity of care• Continuity vs access?• Longer consultations – These tend to enable the GP and patient to
address the wider patient care agenda and contribute to improved outcomes
Current primary care funding crisis makes this ever more difficult
Information gathering, dissemination and continuity of information• Recognition of the potential for bias/diagnostic error, and strategies
to reduce this• Information technology and coding (eg reason for encounter)• Improved safety netting to patients, included documenting in the
notes and ensure patient understanding
Audit/feedback• Including SEAs and review of cancer profiles
Presented by
Risk Assessment Tools (Hamilton 2009)
Presented by
Risk Assessment Tools (Hamilton 2009)
Presented by
Risk Assessment Tools: Qcancer
Presented by
Change in referral patterns with Risk Assessment Tools (Ablett-Spence et al. Report to NCAT 2012)
Year to March 2010 (CI) (Pre)
Year to July 2012 (CI) (Post) Change (CI)
2WW Referral rate (per 100,000) (England)
206.9 (205.8,208.0) 280.3 (279.1,281.6) 73.4 (35.5%)
RAT
190.5 (187.6,193.4) 283.9 (280.4,287.5)
93.4 (49.1%
(46.1, 52.0))
No RAT
203.0 (201.7,204.2) 285.3 (283.8,286.8)
82.3 (40.5%
(39.4, 41.7))
Conversion rate (%) (England)
8.6 (8.5,8.7) 6.0 (5.9,6.1) -2.6
RAT 8,9 (8.5,9.4) 6.1 (5.9,6.4) -2.8 (-3.3, -2.3)
No RAT 8.7 (8.5,8.9) 6.0 (5.9,6.1) -2.7 (-2.9, -2.5)
Detection rate (%) (England)
37.2 (36.7,37.7) 40.1 (39.5,40.6) 2.8
RAT 38.0 (36.6,39.5) 41.9 (40.4,43.5) 3.9 (1.7, 6.0)
No RAT 37.7 (37.1,38.3) 40.1 (39.5,40.7) 2.4 (1.5, 3.2)
Colorectal Cancer
Presented by 44
Any practice interventionOf the 8134 practices in England, 1160 were removed because of small list size (<1000) or significant change in list size between the two periods. 2129 practices (30% of the England total) participated in one or more of four specified NAEDI initiatives – use of Risk Assessment Tools, criterion based audit, significant event analysis, development of practice plans.
Presented by
Conclusions• Early cancer diagnosis is complex• Patient, doctor and system factors can all contribute to delay• There remains variation in process and outcomes
– In the UK– Between comparable countries
• Use of investigations• Gatekeeping and GP/specialist interface• Available pathways for assessment
• Variation in practice and quality of care has improved, but there is more to do
• Relational continuity of care and information• Further work on risk assesssment tools
• NICE 2ww guidelines (2005) often based on “red flag” symptoms: being revisited – due for publication 2015
• Continuing CRUK NAEDI and other related research programmes
Early Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care:
The evolving evidenceThomas RoundGP XX Place Tower Hamlets
Academic Clinical Fellow KCLthomasround@nhs.net / thomas.round@kcl.ac.uk
Recommended