Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

Antonieta Medina-Lara, Bogdan Grigore, Ruth Lewis, Jaime Peters, Sarah Price, Paolo Landa, Sophie Robinson, Richard Neal, William Hamilton, Anne E Spencer
Record ID 32018000900
English
Authors' objectives: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival. The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.
Authors' results and conclusions: Systematic review 1 – five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 – 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.
Authors' methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools’ clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored. There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.
Authors' identified further reserach: Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools’ impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2020
URL for published report: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24660
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Full HTA
Country: England
DOI: 10.3310/hta24660
MeSH Terms
  • Colonoscopy
  • Decision Making
  • Colorectal Neoplasms
  • Decision Support Techniques
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • United Kingdom
Keywords
  • COLONOSCOPY
  • DECISION-MAKING
  • DIAGNOSTIC PREDICTION TOOLS
  • SUSPECTED CANCERS
  • COLORECTAL CANCER
  • GP SURVEY
  • DIAGNOSTIC INTERVAL
  • REFERRAL INTERVAL
  • DECISION ANALYSIS
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Contact
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Copyright: Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.