Cargando…

Diagnostic property of direct referral from general practitioners to contrast-enhanced thoracoabdominal CT in patients with serious but non-specific symptoms or signs of cancer: a retrospective cohort study on cancer prevalence after 12 months

OBJECTIVES: To describe the diagnostic properties of thoracoabdominal contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT), when general practitioners (GPs) managed referral to ceCT through the non-specific symptoms or signs of cancer-cancer patient pathway (NSSC-CPP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study including patients f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Møller, Marie, Juvik, Bue, Olesen, Stine Chabert, Sandstrøm, Hanne, Laxafoss, Erling, Reuter, Simon Bertram, Bodtger, Uffe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6955522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31892651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032019
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To describe the diagnostic properties of thoracoabdominal contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT), when general practitioners (GPs) managed referral to ceCT through the non-specific symptoms or signs of cancer-cancer patient pathway (NSSC-CPP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study including patients from a part of Denmark. SETTING: Department of Internal Medicine at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 529 patients underwent ceCT. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our primary objective was to estimate the negative and positive likelihood ratios for being diagnosed with cancer within 1 year after ceCT. Our secondary outcomes were prevalence and final diagnoses of malignancy (including temporal trends since implementation of NSSC-CPP in 2012), the prevalence of revision of CT scans and referral patterns based on ceCT results. RESULTS: In total, 529 subjects underwent ceCT and malignancy was identified in 104 (19.7%) patients; 101 (97.1%) during initial workup and 3 patients during the subsequent 12 months follow-up. Eleven patients had a false-negative ceCT, and revision classified the ceCT as ‘probable/possible malignancy’ in eight (73%) patients. The negative predictive value was 98% and positive predictive value 63%. Negative and positive likelihood ratios for malignancy was 0.1 and 7.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that ceCT as part of GP-coordinated workup has a low negative likelihood ratio for identifying malignancy; this is important since identifying patients for further workup is vital.