Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414353›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024

Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study (update).

Brian D Nicholson, Pradeep Virdee, Paul Aveyard, Sarah J Price, F D Richard Hobbs, Constantinos Koshiaris, Willie Hamilton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-7362
Pradeep VirdeeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah J PriceMedical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Constantinos KoshiarisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Willie HamiltonMedical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify the predictive value of unexpected weight loss for cancer according to patient's age, sex, smoking status, and concurrent clinical features (symptoms, signs, and abnormal blood test results).

designDiagnostic accuracy study (update).

settingData from Clinical Practice Research Datalink electronic health records linked to the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in primary care, England.

participants326 240 adults (≥18 years) with a code for unexpected weight loss from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019.

main outcome measuresCancer diagnosis in the six months after the earliest weight loss code (index date). Codes for additional clinical features were identified in the three months before to one month after the index date. Diagnostic accuracy measures included positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratios.

resultsOf 326 240 adults with unexpected weight loss, 184 270 (56.5%) were women, 176 508 (54.1%) were aged ≥60 years, and 176 053 (54.0%) were ever smokers. 15 624 (4.8%) had a diagnosis of cancer within six months of the index date, of whom 15 051 (96.3%) were aged ≥50 years. The positive predictive value for cancer was above the 3% threshold recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for urgent investigation in men aged ≥50 years and women aged ≥60 years. 17 additional clinical features were associated with cancer in younger men with unexpected weight loss, and eight in women. Positive likelihood ratios in men ranged from 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 1.58) for fatigue to 21.00 (8.59 to 51.37) for rectal mass, and in women from 1.28 (1.16 to 1.41) for back pain to 19.46 (12.69 to 29.85) for pelvic mass. Abnormal blood test results associated with cancer included low albumin (positive likelihood ratio 3.24, 3.13 to 3.35) and raised platelets (3.48, 3.35 to 3.62), total white cell count (3.01, 2.89 to 3.14), and C reactive protein (3.13, 3.05 to 3.20). However, no normal blood test result in isolation ruled out cancer. Clinical features co-occurring with unexpected weight loss were associated with multiple cancer sites.

conclusionThe risk of cancer in younger adults with unexpected weight loss presenting to primary care is <3% and does not merit investigation under current UK guidelines. However, in men aged ≥50 years, women aged ≥60 years, and younger patients with concurrent clinical features, the risk of cancer warrants referral for invasive investigation. Clinical features typically associated with specific cancer sites are markers of several cancer types when they occur with unexpected weight loss. READERS' NOTE: This article is an updated version of a previously published BMJ paper that has since been retracted.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPrimary Health CareWeight LossAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsSmokingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39414353
PMCPMC11480917

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.