Cited by 208Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments

Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm

Open access
Hippisley-Cox, Julia, Coupland, Carol·2012·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Earlier diagnosis of renal tract cancer could help improve survival so better tools are needed to help this. AIM: To derive and validate an algorithm to estimate the absolute risk of renal tract cancer in patients with and without symptoms in primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study using data from 375 UK QResearch® general practices for development and 189 for validation. METHOD: Included patients were aged 30-84 years free at baseline of a diagnosis of renal tract cancer (bladder, kidney, ureter, or urethra) and without haematuria, abdominal pain, appetite loss, or weight loss in previous 12 months. The primary outcome was incident diagnosis of renal tract cancer recorded in the next 2 years. Risk factors examined were age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, deprivation, treated hypertension, renal stones, structural kidney problems, diabetes, previous diagnosis of cancer apart from renal tract cancer, haematuria, abdominal pain, appetite loss, weight loss, diarrhoea, constipation, tiredness, and anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to develop separate risk equations in males and females. Measures of calibration and discrimination assessed performance in the validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 2878 incident cases of renal tract cancer from 4.1 million person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors in both males and females were age, smoking status, haematuria, abdominal pain, weight loss, and anaemia. A history of prior cancer other than renal tract cancer, and appetite loss were predictors for females only. On validation, the algorithms explained 75% of the variation in females and 76% in males. The receiver operating curve statistics were 0.91 (females) and 0.95 (males). The D statistic was 3.53 (females) and 3.60 (males). The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks contained 87% of all renal tract cancers diagnosed over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The algorithm has good discrimination and calibration and could potentially be used to identify those at highest risk of renal tract cancer, to facilitate more timely referral and investigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp12x616355

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Up to 85% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have cancers that are not surgically resectable when identified.

    “Unfortunately, up to 85% of patients have cancers that are not surgically resectable when identified, and over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after a non-specific disease course leading to emergency hospital admission.

    “over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Other high-risk groups for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma include individuals with new-onset diabetes, modifiable risk factors, non-modifiable risk factors, specific comorbidities, or early symptoms.

    “Other high-risk groups have been identified, such as individuals with new-onset diabetes (as discussed above), modifiable risk factors (eg, smoking, obesity), non-modifiable risk factors (eg, age), specific comorbidities (eg, obesity, chronic pancreatitis), or early symptoms (some of which are present for more than 1 year before diagnosis).10,12,13,56”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Combining risk factors through cancer decision support tools can reach the 5% risk threshold in some individuals, defining a further group suitable for screening.

    “However, by combining these factors through cancer decision support tools, the 5% risk threshold can be reached in some individuals, defining a further group suitable for screening.10,12,13”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Patients often show symptoms that suggest pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at repeated primary care consultations before diagnosis, but they often encounter delays in the workup process.

    “Although patients often show symptoms that suggest pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at repeated primary care consultations before diagnosis,12,13,63 they often encounter delays in the workup process.64”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hippisley-Cox, J., & Coupland, C.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2012-01
Volume
62
Issue
594
Pages
e38-e45
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2080344756
Cited by
208
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 16
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Keywords
bladder cancer, kidney cancer, ureteral cancer, urethral cancer, primary care, hematuria, abdominal pain, weight loss, anemia, smoking, risk factors, cancer screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Wales, Incidence, Age Distribution, Risk Assessment, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review