Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31530591›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Incidentally diagnosed cancer and commonly preceding clinical scenarios: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of English audit data.

Minjoung Monica Koo, Greg Rubin, Sean McPhail, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Integrated Clinicogenomic Risk Modeling for Metachronous Second Primary Cancers.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Identifying opportunities for timely diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer via abnormal blood tests: a longitudinal linked data study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Negotiating the risks of computed tomography in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Minjoung Monica KooEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College of London, London, UK monica.koo@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9832-9872
Greg RubinInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sean McPhailEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College of London, London, UK.
Georgios LyratzopoulosEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2873-7421
London Cancer · GBPublic Health England · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK C18081/A18180Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCancer can be diagnosed in the absence of tumour-related symptoms, but little is known about the frequency and circumstances preceding such diagnoses which occur outside participation in screening programmes. We aimed to examine incidentally diagnosed cancer among a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed in England.

designCross-sectional study of national primary care audit data on an incident cancer patient population.

settingWe analysed free-text information on the presenting features of cancer patients aged 15 or older included in the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (2009-2010). Patients with screen-detected cancers or prostate cancer were excluded. We examined the odds of incidental cancer diagnosis by patient characteristics and cancer site using logistic regression, and described clinical scenarios leading to incidental diagnosis.

resultsAmong the studied cancer patient population (n=13 810), 520 (4%) patients were diagnosed incidentally. The odds of incidental cancer diagnosis increased with age (p<0.001), with no difference between men and women after adjustment. Incidental diagnosis was most common among patients with leukaemia (23%), renal (13%) and thyroid cancer (12%), and least common among patients with brain (0.9%), oesophageal (0.5%) and cervical cancer (no cases diagnosed incidentally). Variation in odds of incidental diagnosis by cancer site remained after adjusting for age group and sex.There was a range of clinical scenarios preceding incidental diagnoses in primary or secondary care. These included the monitoring or management of pre-existing conditions, routine testing before or after elective surgery, and the investigation of unrelated acute or new conditions.

conclusionsOne in 25 patients with cancer in our population-based cohort were diagnosed incidentally, through different mechanisms across primary and secondary care settings. The epidemiological, clinical, psychological and economic implications of this phenomenon merit further investigation.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsLeukemiaLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsThyroid Neoplasmshealth services administration & managementoncologypathologyprimary carepublic healthradiology & imaging

Identifiers

PMID31530591
PMCPMC6756358
OpenAlexW2973957163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.