Dataset Information

Combining simple blood tests to identify primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: Clinical risk score development, internal validation, and net benefit analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Unexpected weight loss (UWL) is a presenting feature of cancer in primary care. Existing research proposes simple combinations of clinical features (risk factors, symptoms, signs, and blood test data) that, when present, warrant cancer investigation. More complex combinations may modify cancer risk to sufficiently rule-out the need for investigation. We aimed to identify which clinical features can be used together to stratify patients with UWL based on their risk of cancer.

Methods and findings

We used data from 63,973 adults (age: mean 59 years, standard deviation 21 years; 42% male) to predict cancer in patients with UWL recorded in a large representative United Kingdom primary care electronic health record between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012. We derived 3 clinical prediction models using logistic regression and backwards stepwise covariate selection: Sm, symptoms-only model; STm, symptoms and tests model; Tm, tests-only model. Fifty imputations replaced missing data. Estimates of discrimination and calibration were derived using 10-fold internal cross-validation. Simple clinical risk scores are presented for models with the greatest clinical utility in decision curve analysis. The STm and Tm showed improved discrimination (area under the curve ≥ 0.91), calibration, and greater clinical utility than the Sm. The Tm was simplest including age-group, sex, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, haemoglobin, platelets, and total white cell count. A Tm score of 5 balanced ruling-in (sensitivity 84.0%, positive likelihood ratio 5.36) and ruling-out (specificity 84.3%, negative likelihood ratio 0.19) further cancer investigation. A Tm score of 1 prioritised ruling-out (sensitivity 97.5%). At this threshold, 35 people presenting with UWL in primary care would be referred for investigation for each person with cancer referred, and 1,730 people would be spared referral for each person with cancer not referred. Study limitations include using a retrospective routinely collected dataset, a reliance on coding to identify UWL, and missing data for some predictors.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that combinations of simple blood test abnormalities could be used to identify patients with UWL who warrant referral for investigation, while people with combinations of normal results could be exempted from referral.

SUBMITTER: Nicholson BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8407560 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend warfarin use in patients with atrial fibrillation solely on the basis of risk for ischemic stroke without antithrombotic therapy. These guidelines rely on ischemic stroke rates observed in older trials and do not explicitly account for increased risk for hemorrhage.ObjectiveTo quantify the net clinical benefit of warfarin therapy in a cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation.DesignMixed retrospective and prospective cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation between 1996 and 2003.SettingAn integrated health care delivery system.Patients13 559 adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.MeasurementsWarfarin exposure, patient characteristics, CHADS(2) score (1 point for each of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, and diabetes and 2 points for stroke), and outcome events were ascertained from health plan records and databases. Net clinical benefit was defined as the annual rate of ischemic strokes and systemic emboli prevented by warfarin minus intracranial hemorrhages attributable to warfarin, multiplied by an impact weight. The base-case impact weight was 1.5, reflecting the greater clinical impact of intracranial hemorrhage versus thromboembolism.ResultsPatients accumulated more than 66 000 person-years of follow-up. The adjusted net clinical benefit of warfarin for the cohort overall was 0.68% per year (95% CI, 0.34% to 0.87%). Adjusted net clinical benefit was greatest for patients with a history of ischemic stroke (2.48% per year [CI, 0.75% to 4.22%]) and for those 85 years or older (2.34% per year [CI, 1.29% to 3.30%]). The net clinical benefit of warfarin increased from essentially zero in CHADS(2) stroke risk categories 0 and 1 to 2.22% per year (CI, 0.58% to 3.75%) in CHADS(2) categories 4 to 6. The patterns of results were preserved when weighting factors for intracranial hemorrhage of 1.0 and 2.0 were used.LimitationsResidual confounding is a possibility. Some outcome events were probably missed by the screening algorithm or when medical records were unavailable.ConclusionExpected net clinical benefit of warfarin therapy is highest among patients with the highest untreated risk for stroke, which includes the oldest age category. Risk assessment that incorporates both risk for thromboembolism and risk for intracranial hemorrhage provides a more quantitatively informed basis for the decision on antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Aging; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Massachusetts General Hospital.