Developing and Validating a Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.

Lung cancer can be challenging to diagnose in the early stages, where treatment options are optimal. We aimed to develop 1-year prediction models for the individual risk of incident lung cancer for all individuals aged 40 or above living in Denmark on 1 January 2017. The study was conducted using population-based registers on health and sociodemographics from 2007-2016. We applied backward selection on all variables by logistic regression to develop a risk model for lung cancer and applied the models to the validation cohort, calculated receiver-operating characteristic curves, and estimated the corresponding areas under the curve (AUC). In the populations without and with previously confirmed cancer, 4274/2,826,249 (0.15%) and 482/172,513 (0.3%) individuals received a lung cancer diagnosis in 2017, respectively. For both populations, older age was a relevant predictor, and the most complex models, containing variables related to diagnoses, medication, general practitioner, and specialist contacts, as well as baseline sociodemographic characteristics, had the highest AUC. These models achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.0127 (0.006) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.989 (0.997) with a 1% cut-off in the population without (with) previous cancer. This corresponds to 1.2% of the screened population experiencing a positive prediction, of which 1.3% would be incident with lung cancer. We have developed and tested a prediction model with a reasonable potential to support clinicians and healthcare planners in identifying patients at risk of lung cancer.

Can National Registries Contribute to Predict the Risk of Cancer? The Cancer Risk Assessment Model (CRAM).

PURPOSE: To develop a predictive model based on Danish administrative registers to facilitate automated identification of individuals at risk of any type of cancer. METHODS: A nationwide register-based cohort study covering all individuals in Denmark aged +20 years. The outcome was all-type cancer during 2017 excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. Diagnoses, medication, and contact with general practitioners in the exposure period (2007-2016) were considered for the predictive model. We applied backward selection to all variables by logistic regression to develop a risk model for cancer. We applied the models to the validation cohort, calculated the receiver operating characteristic curves, and estimated the corresponding areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The study population consisted of 4.2 million persons; 32,447 (0.76%) were diagnosed with cancer in 2017. We identified 39 predictive risk factors in women and 42 in men, with age above 30 as the strongest predictor for cancer. Testing the model for cancer risk showed modest accuracy, with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.82) for men and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.75) for women. CONCLUSION: We have developed and tested a model for identifying the individual risk of cancer through the use of administrative data. The models need to be further investigated before being applied to clinical practice.

Predictive values of lung cancer alarm symptoms in the general population: a nationwide cohort study.

We aimed to firstly determine the 1-year predictive values of lung cancer alarm symptoms in the general population and to analyse the proportion of alarm symptoms reported prior to diagnosis, and secondly analyse how smoking status and reported contact with general practitioners (GPs) regarding lung cancer alarm symptoms influence the predictive values. The study was a nationwide prospective cohort study of 69,060 individuals aged ≥40 years, randomly selected from the Danish population. Using information gathered in a survey regarding symptoms, lifestyle and healthcare-seeking together with registry information on lung cancer diagnoses in the subsequent year, we calculated the predictive values and likelihood ratios of symptoms that might be indicative of lung cancer. Furthermore, we analysed how smoking status and reported contact with GPs regarding the alarm symptoms affected the predictive values. We found that less than half of the patients had reported an alarm symptom six months prior to lung cancer diagnosis. The positive predictive values of the symptoms were generally very low, even for patients reporting GP contact regarding an alarm symptom. The highest predictive values were found for dyspnoea, hoarseness, loss of appetite and for current heavy smokers. The negative predictive values were high, all close to 100%. Given the low positive predictive values, our findings emphasise that diagnostic strategies should not focus on single, specific alarm symptoms, but should perhaps focus on different clusters of symptoms. For patients not experiencing alarm symptoms, the risk of overlooking lung cancer is very low.

Prescribing of proton-pump inhibitors: auditing the management and reasons for prescribing in Danish general practice.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing of proton-pump inhibitors has substantially increased. Information from clinical settings is warranted to gain insight into reasons for prescribing. AIM: To investigate Danish General Practitioners' management and reasons for prescribing of proton-pump inhibitors and to identify areas for quality improvement. METHODS: All general practitioners in the Region of Southern Denmark and their staff were invited to participate in a 4-week audit on all contacts with patients prescribed proton-pump inhibitors. For each contact, patient characteristics, treatment duration, dose and causes of treatment, previous gastroscopy, Helicobacter pylori test, and decision about future treatment were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 51 general practitioners and 47 staff members sampled information about 1101 and 741 patients, respectively. Proton-pump inhibitors had been taken for more than 2 years in 58% of the cases, and 64% of the patients used it daily. Treatment was based on an appropriate reason in three of the four patients, most often due to acid-related symptoms. No gastroscopy had been performed in 46% of the patients, and one of four had had a consultation with the general practitioner regarding proton-pump inhibitor within the last year. CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with proton-pump inhibitors are treated daily, on a long-term basis, and due to symptoms. Few consultations led to alterations in treatment, and only 25% of patients had a consultation regarding proton-pump inhibitor treatment with their general practitioner within the last year. Substantial variability between general practitioners with regard to management was detected.

Barriers to contacting general practice with alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer: a population-based study.

Background: A prerequisite for general practitioners (GPs) being able to refer patients with cancer alarm symptoms for further investigations is that individuals present to the GP. Knowledge of barriers to help-seeking is, however, sparse. Objectives. The aim of this study was to analyse associations between the experience of recent-onset alarm symptom of colorectal cancer and four different barriers towards GP contact. Methods: A nationwide web-based cohort survey was conducted in 100000 individuals aged 20 years or above, randomly selected from the Danish Civil Registration System. Items regarding experience of four predefined alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer (rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, change in stool texture and change in stool frequency), decisions about contact to GPs and barriers towards GP contact were included. Results: A total of 37455 respondents over 40 years (51.8%) completed the questionnaire. The proportion of individuals with no contact to the GP varied between 69.8% and 79.8% for rectal bleeding and change in stool frequency, respectively. The most widely reported barriers were being worried about wasting the doctor's time and being too busy to make time to visit the doctor. Men with rectal bleeding significantly more often reported being worried about what the doctor might find. The proportion of individuals who reported barriers was, in general, higher among the youngest age group. Conclusion: Barriers to contacting the GP were frequent when experiencing alarm symptoms of colorectal cancer. Reporting the different barriers was significantly associated with gender and age.