Dataset Information

Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients.

ABSTRACT: In patients presenting with peripheral lymphadenopathy, it is critical to effectively identify those with underlying cancer who require urgent specialist care.We analyzed a large dataset of 1000 consecutive patients with unexplained lymphadenopathy referred between 2001 and 2009 to the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) rapid access lymph node diagnostic clinic (LNDC).Cancer was diagnosed in 14% of patients. Factors predictive for malignant disease were male sex, age, supraclavicular and multiple site involvement. Cancer-associated symptoms were present for a median of 8 weeks. The median time from referral to start of cancer therapy was 53 days. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed in 83% of patients with malignancies. Sensitivity and specificity of FNA were limited (50 and 87%, respectively for any malignancy; 30 and 79%, respectively for lymphoma). The vast majority of cancer patients received diagnostic biopsies on the basis of suspicious clinical and ultrasound findings; the FNA result contributed to establishing the diagnosis in only 4 cases.In conclusion, we demonstrate that Oncologist-led rapid access clinics are successful concepts to assess patients with unexplained lymphadenopathy. Our data suggest that a routine use of FNA should be reconsidered in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Kuhnl A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6092787 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients.

Kühnl Andrea A Cunningham David D Hutka Margaret M Peckitt Clare C Rozati Hamoun H Morano Federica F Chong Irene I Gillbanks Angela A Wotherspoon Andrew A Harris Michelle M Murray Tracey T Chau Ian I

BMC hematology 20180814

<h4>Background</h4>In patients presenting with peripheral lymphadenopathy, it is critical to effectively identify those with underlying cancer who require urgent specialist care.<h4>Methods</h4>We analyzed a large dataset of 1000 consecutive patients with unexplained lymphadenopathy referred between 2001 and 2009 to the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) rapid access lymph node diagnostic clinic (LNDC).<h4>Results</h4>Cancer was diagnosed in 14% of patients. Factors predictive for malignant disease we ...[more]

PMID: 30128155

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is no universal screening method for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses yet. Various authors have tried tumor markers, imaging studies, cytology but no one yet is a definite method for screening of cancer ovary, for which a combined diagnostic modality has come to practice in form of RMI. With this background we conducted our study "Evaluation of risk malignancy index and its diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses".The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of risk of malignancy index (RMI-3) in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant masses and also to reveal the most suitable cut off value. We have conducted a prospective study between November 2014 to October 2016. We included the parameters like menopausal status, ultrasound features, and serum levels of tumor marker like CA-125 for calculating RMI 3. Then RMI was compared with the histopathological report which was taken as gold standard.In the present study malignant tumors constitute 54.76% (69/126) & benign tumors 45.24% (57/126). Bilaterality in adnexal masses and multilocularity is higher in malignant tumors than benign tumor, but a P -value >0.005 failed to be proved significant in our study. Solid area is seen in 24.69% (20/81) of benign and 75.30% (61/81) of malignant tumor. Similarly ascites was found in 38.09% (48/126) of cases. Out of which 18.75% (9/48) cases were found to be benign and malignancy was confirmed in 81.25% (39/48) patients. There is statistically significant number of malignant ovarian cancer patients where ascites and solid area is seen in USG findings (p = 0.000). Risk of Malignancy Index compared with individual parameters of Ultrasound score, CA-125 or menopausal score and a cut-off point of 236 shows a very high sensitivity (72.5%), specificity (98.2%), positive predictive value (98.1%), negative predictive value (74.7%) and diagnostic accuracy (84.13%) for discriminating malignant and benign pelvic masses.Simplicity and applicability of the method in the primary evaluation of patients with pelvic masses makes it a good option in daily clinical practice in non-specialized gynecologic departments and also in developing countries where access to a gynaecologist oncologist is limited.

Project description:To conduct a pilot trial of a primary care Symptoms Clinic for patients with medically unexplained symptoms and evaluate recruitment and retention, and acceptability of the intervention and to estimate potential treatment effects for a full trial.Randomised parallel group pilot trial.Primary care in one locality.Primary care database and postal questionnaire were used to identify patients with multiple specialist referrals and multiple physical symptoms unlikely to be explained by disease.General practitioner (GP) with special interest 'Symptoms Clinic' + usual care versus usual care alone. The Symptoms Clinic comprised one long (1 h) and three short (20 min) appointments.Number of patients identified and recruited; acceptability of the intervention (items from Client Satisfaction Questionnaire and interview); Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 12 (SF-12) physical component summary.Automated blocked randomisation accessed by telephone.None. NUMBERS RANDOMIZED: 16 to intervention and 16 to usual care alone.72 patients, from seven GP practices, had repeated specialist referrals and a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-15 score of ?10 indicating a high probability of medically unexplained symptoms. 15 were ineligible and 25 declined to participate. NUMBERS ANALYSED: 26 patients; two patients randomised to the intervention group were incorrectly included, three patients in the intervention group and one control did not complete outcome measures.Most patients randomised to the Symptoms Clinic found the intervention acceptable: eight out of 11 reported the intervention helped them to deal with their problems. The mean difference between groups in SF-12 physical component summary, adjusted for baseline, was 3.8 points (SD 6).No observed harms.Patients with multiple medically unexplained symptoms can be systematically identified in primary care; a randomised trial comparing the Symptoms Clinic with usual care is feasible and has the potential to show clinically meaningful benefit.ISRCTN63083469.

Project description:BackgroundMost people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention.MethodsThis was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale.ResultsTwo hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms.ConclusionsA larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011).

Dataset Information

Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients.

Publications

Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure