ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024
Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study (update).
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Body mass index and gastric cancer risk: results from the Stomach Cancer Pooling Project Consortium.International journal of epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Blood test trend versus single threshold abnormality to discriminate cancer from non-cancer in patients with unexpected weight loss: A retrospective cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Cancer risk in patients with recurrent or persistent symptoms: a systematic review.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Clinical Decision Support Tool for Early Pancreatic Cancer Detection in Primary Care: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Risk Assessment in Primary Care: Simulation Study of Unintended Weight Loss.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic testing patterns for lung cancer-related symptoms in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
- RETRACTION: Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Characteristics of Optimal Cancer Referrals Made by Primary Care Clinicians: Scoping Review.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.