非特异性腹部症状初级保健患者的异常血液检测对癌症检测的预测价值:对英格兰 477,870 名患者进行的人群队列研究。

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-30 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004426
Meena Rafiq, Cristina Renzi, Becky White, Nadine Zakkak, Brian Nicholson, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Matthew Barclay
{"title":"非特异性腹部症状初级保健患者的异常血液检测对癌症检测的预测价值:对英格兰 477,870 名患者进行的人群队列研究。","authors":"Meena Rafiq, Cristina Renzi, Becky White, Nadine Zakkak, Brian Nicholson, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Matthew Barclay","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Identifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"21 7","pages":"e1004426"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive value of abnormal blood tests for detecting cancer in primary care patients with nonspecific abdominal symptoms: A population-based cohort study of 477,870 patients in England.\",\"authors\":\"Meena Rafiq, Cristina Renzi, Becky White, Nadine Zakkak, Brian Nicholson, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Matthew Barclay\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Identifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":\"21 7\",\"pages\":\"e1004426\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288431/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004426\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004426","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴别出现非特异性腹部症状的患者是否患有潜在癌症是一项挑战。在初级医疗中,常见的血液化验被广泛用于调查这些症状,但它们对在这种情况下检测癌症的预测价值尚不清楚。我们量化了 19 项异常血液化验结果对检测两种非特异性腹部症状患者潜在癌症的预测价值:我们利用英国临床实践研究数据链接(CPRD)中与国家癌症登记、医院病例统计和多重贫困指数相关联的数据,对 2007 年 1 月至 2016 年 10 月间因腹痛或腹胀到英国全科诊所就诊的年龄≥30 岁的患者进行了一项基于人群的队列研究。针对腹痛或腹胀就诊后 3 个月内在基层医疗机构同时出现的 19 项异常血液检测结果,计算了癌症诊断的阳性和阴性预测值(PPV 和 NPV)、灵敏度和特异性(总体和癌症部位)。共有9,427/425,549(2.2%)名腹痛患者和1,148/52,321(2.2%)名腹胀患者在就诊后12个月内被确诊为癌症。对于这两种症状,在年龄≥60 岁的男性和女性中,癌症的 PPV 都超过了英国国家健康与护理卓越研究所建议紧急癌症专科转诊时使用的 3% 风险阈值。三分之二的患者(64%的腹痛患者和70%的腹胀患者)同时进行了血液化验。在 30 至 59 岁的患者中,有几种血液异常将患者的癌症风险提高到了 3% 的临界值以上:例如,在 50 至 59 岁腹胀的女性患者中,血液检测前的癌症风险从 1.6% 上升到:铁蛋白升高时为 10%,铁蛋白升高时为 9%:铁蛋白升高时为 10%,白蛋白降低时为 9%,血小板升高时为 8%,炎症指标升高时为 6%,贫血时为 4%。与仅根据主诉症状、年龄和性别进行风险评估相比,每 1000 名腹胀患者中,如果评估纳入了血液化验结果信息,则可增加 63 例紧急疑似癌症转诊,并通过这一途径多发现 3 名癌症患者(癌症诊断率相对增加 16%)。研究的局限性包括对初级医疗记录中症状编码完整性的依赖,以及如果推断血液化验使用率较高或较低的医疗机构,PPV 可能存在差异:结论:对于有非特异性腹部症状的就诊者,仅根据症状、年龄和性别进行癌症风险评估,可通过考虑常见血液化验结果中的额外信息大大提高评估结果的准确性。≥60岁的男性和女性患者因腹痛或腹胀到初级保健机构就诊时,应考虑进行紧急癌症转诊或调查。30 至 59 岁的患者如果同时出现血液化验异常,也应考虑进一步的癌症评估。这种方法可通过快速转诊途径发现更多潜在癌症患者,并可指导针对不同癌症部位的专科转诊和检查策略决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictive value of abnormal blood tests for detecting cancer in primary care patients with nonspecific abdominal symptoms: A population-based cohort study of 477,870 patients in England.

Background: Identifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms.

Methods and findings: Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use.

Conclusions: In patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
期刊最新文献
The critical need for a robust research agenda on ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk. The NOVA system can be used to address harmful foods and harmful food systems. Identification and outcomes of acute kidney disease in patients presenting in Bolivia, Brazil, South Africa, and Nepal. The association of bearing surface materials with the risk of revision following primary total hip replacement: A cohort analysis of 1,026,481 hip replacements from the National Joint Registry. Impact of active case finding for tuberculosis with mass chest X-ray screening in Glasgow, Scotland, 1950-1963: An epidemiological analysis of historical data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1