Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31932296›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020

Rapid cancer diagnosis for patients with vague symptoms: a cost-effectiveness study.

Bernadette Sewell, Mari Jones, Helen Gray, Heather Wilkes, Catherine Lloyd-Bennett, Kim Beddow, Martin Bevan, Deborah Fitzsimmons

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05876676 (Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05876676 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustRan2023 to 2032Enrolled1,000ConditionsCancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  18. Rapid Diagnostic Centres and early cancer diagnosis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Bernadette SewellSwansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Mari JonesSwansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Helen GrayRapid Diagnosis Centre.
Heather WilkesDr Wilkes & Partners, Briton Ferry Health Centre, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Neath, Wales.
Catherine Lloyd-BennettRapid Diagnosis Centre.
Kim BeddowNeath Port Talbot Hospital, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Neath, Port Talbot, Wales.
Martin BevanNeath Port Talbot Hospital, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Neath, Port Talbot, Wales.
Deborah FitzsimmonsSwansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week.

aimTo explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice. DESIGN AND

settingCost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Hospital, Wales.

methodDiscrete-event simulation modelled a cohort of 1000 patients from referral to radiological diagnosis based on routine RDC and hospital data. Control patients were those referred to a USC pathway but then downgraded. Published sources provided estimates of patient quality of life (QoL) and pre-diagnosis anxiety. The model calculates time to diagnosis, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and estimates the probability of the RDC being a cost-effective strategy.

resultsThe RDC reduces mean time to diagnosis from 84.2 days in usual care to 5.9 days if a diagnosis is made at clinic, or 40.8 days if further investigations are booked during RDC. RDC provision is the superior strategy (that is, less costly and more effective) compared with standard clinical practice when run near or at full capacity. However, it is not cost-effective if capacity utilisation drops below 80%.

conclusionAn RDC for patients presenting with vague or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer in primary care reduces time to diagnosis and provides excellent value for money if run at ≥80% capacity.

Indexed as

AdultCost-Benefit AnalysisCritical PathwaysEarly Detection of CancerGeneral PracticeHumansNeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationSymptom AssessmentTime FactorsUnited Kingdomcancer diagnosiscost-effectivenessearly detection of cancergeneral practicenon-specific symptomsrapid diagnosis centre

Identifiers

PMID31932296
PMCPMC6960004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.