Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39078806›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2024

Predictive value of abnormal blood tests for detecting cancer in primary care patients with nonspecific abdominal symptoms: A population-based cohort study of 477,870 patients in England.

Meena Rafiq, Cristina Renzi, Becky White, Nadine Zakkak, Brian Nicholson, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Matthew Barclay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Decision support tools for pancreatic cancer detection: external validation in Australian primary care - a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Meena RafiqEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1837-1542
Cristina RenziEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3845-9493
Becky WhiteEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0643-7890
Nadine ZakkakEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4155-7756
Brian NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Georgios LyratzopoulosEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2873-7421
Matthew BarclayEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care (IEHC), UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1148-1922

Funding

Cancer Research UK C18081/A18180Cancer Research UK C18081/A31373Cancer Research UK CRUK EDDAPA-2022/100002Cancer Research UK EDDCPJT\100018Cancer Research UK RCCPDF/100005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying patients presenting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms who have underlying cancer is a challenge. Common blood tests are widely used to investigate these symptoms in primary care, but their predictive value for detecting cancer in this context is unknown. We quantify the predictive value of 19 abnormal blood test results for detecting underlying cancer in patients presenting with 2 nonspecific abdominal symptoms. METHODS AND

findingsUsing data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to the National Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and Index of Multiple Deprivation, we conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged ≥30 presenting to English general practice with abdominal pain or bloating between January 2007 and October 2016. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), sensitivity, and specificity for cancer diagnosis (overall and by cancer site) were calculated for 19 abnormal blood test results co-occurring in primary care within 3 months of abdominal pain or bloating presentations. A total of 9,427/425,549 (2.2%) patients with abdominal pain and 1,148/52,321 (2.2%) with abdominal bloating were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months post-presentation. For both symptoms, in both males and females aged ≥60, the PPV for cancer exceeded the 3% risk threshold used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for recommending urgent specialist cancer referral. Concurrent blood tests were performed in two thirds of all patients (64% with abdominal pain and 70% with bloating). In patients aged 30 to 59, several blood abnormalities updated a patient's cancer risk to above the 3% threshold: For example, in females aged 50 to 59 with abdominal bloating, pre-blood test cancer risk of 1.6% increased to: 10% with raised ferritin, 9% with low albumin, 8% with raised platelets, 6% with raised inflammatory markers, and 4% with anaemia. Compared to risk assessment solely based on presenting symptom, age and sex, for every 1,000 patients with abdominal bloating, assessment incorporating information from blood test results would result in 63 additional urgent suspected cancer referrals and would identify 3 extra cancer patients through this route (a 16% relative increase in cancer diagnosis yield). Study limitations include reliance on completeness of coding of symptoms in primary care records and possible variation in PPVs if extrapolated to healthcare settings with higher or lower rates of blood test use.

conclusionsIn patients consulting with nonspecific abdominal symptoms, the assessment of cancer risk based on symptoms, age and sex alone can be substantially enhanced by considering additional information from common blood test results. Male and female patients aged ≥60 presenting to primary care with abdominal pain or bloating warrant consideration for urgent cancer referral or investigation. Further cancer assessment should also be considered in patients aged 30 to 59 with concurrent blood test abnormalities. This approach can detect additional patients with underlying cancer through expedited referral routes and can guide decisions on specialist referrals and investigation strategies for different cancer sites.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainHematologic TestsNeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID39078806
PMCPMC11288431

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.