British Journal of General Practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnostics are challenging in primary care and reliable diagnostic aids are desired. Qualitative faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have been used for suspected CRC in Sweden since the mid-2000s, but evidence regarding their effectiveness is scarce. Anaemia and thrombocytosis are both associated with CRC.

To evaluate the usefulness of qualitative FITs requested for symptomatic patients in primary care, alone and combined with findings of anaemia and thrombocytosis, in the diagnosis of CRC.

A population-based cohort study using electronic health records and data from the Swedish Cancer Register, covering five Swedish regions.

Patients aged ≥18 years in the five regions who had provided FITs requested by primary care practitioners from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 were identified. FIT and blood-count data were registered and all CRC diagnoses made within 2 years were retrieved. Diagnostic measurements were calculated.

In total, 15 789 patients provided FITs (four different brands); of these patients, 304 were later diagnosed with CRC. Haemoglobin levels were available for 13 863 patients, and platelet counts for 10 973 patients. Calculated for the different FIT brands only, the sensitivities for CRC were 81.6%–100%; specificities 65.7%–79.5%; positive predictive values 4.7%–8.1%; and negative predictive values 99.5%–100%. Calculated for the finding of either a positive FIT or anaemia, the sensitivities increased to 88.9–100%. Adding thrombocytosis did not further increase the diagnostic performance.

Qualitative FITs requested in primary care seem to be useful as rule-in tests for referral when CRC is suspected. A negative FIT and no anaemia indicate a low risk of CRC.

Different abdominal symptoms may signal cancer, but their role is unclear.

To examine associations between abdominal symptoms and subsequent cancer diagnosed in the abdominal region.

Prospective cohort study comprising 493 GPs from surgeries in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Over a 10-day period, the GPs recorded consecutive consultations and noted: patients who presented with abdominal symptoms pre-specified on the registration form; additional data on non-specific symptoms; and features of the consultation. Eight months later, data on all cancer diagnoses among all study patients in the participating general practices were requested from the GPs.

Consultations with 61 802 patients were recorded and abdominal symptoms were documented in 6264 (10.1%) patients. Malignancy, both abdominal and non-abdominal, was subsequently diagnosed in 511 patients (0.8%). Among patients with a new cancer in the abdomen (n = 251), 175 (69.7%) were diagnosed within 180 days after consultation. In a multivariate model, the highest sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was for the single symptom of rectal bleeding (HR 19.1, 95% confidence interval = 8.7 to 41.7). Positive predictive values of >3% were found for macroscopic haematuria, rectal bleeding, and involuntary weight loss, with variations according to age and sex. The three symptoms relating to irregular bleeding had particularly high specificity in terms of colorectal, uterine, and bladder cancer.

A patient with undiagnosed cancer may present with symptoms or no symptoms. Irregular bleeding must always be explained. Abdominal pain occurs with all types of abdominal cancer and several symptoms may signal colorectal cancer. The findings are important as they influence how GPs think and act, and how they can contribute to an earlier diagnosis of cancer.

Growing evidence for the role of GPs’ gut feelings in cancer diagnosis raises questions about their origin and role in clinical practice.

To explore the origins of GPs’ gut feelings for cancer, their use, and their diagnostic utility.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of international research on GPs’ gut feelings in primary care.

Six databases were searched from inception to July 2019, and internet searches were conducted. A segregated method was used to analyse, then combine, quantitative and qualitative findings.

Twelve articles and four online resources were included that described varied conceptualisations of gut feelings. Gut feelings were often initially associated with patients being unwell, rather than with a suspicion of cancer, and were commonly experienced in response to symptoms and non-verbal cues. The pooled odds of a cancer diagnosis were four times higher when gut feelings were recorded (OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 7.94); they became more predictive of cancer as clinical experience and familiarity with the patient increased. Despite being included in some clinical guidelines, GPs had varying experiences of acting on gut feelings as some specialists questioned their diagnostic value. Consequently, some GPs ignored or omitted gut feelings from referral letters, or chose investigations that did not require specialist approval.

GPs’ gut feelings for cancer were conceptualised as a rapid summing up of multiple verbal and non-verbal patient cues in the context of the GPs’ clinical knowledge and experience. Triggers of gut feelings not included in referral guidance deserve further investigation as predictors of cancer. Non-verbal cues that trigger gut feelings appear to be reliant on continuity of care and clinical experience; they tend to remain poorly recorded and are, therefore, inaccessible to researchers.