The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review
British Journal of General Practice
Royal College of General Practitioners
Reason for embargo
Under indefinite embargo due to publisher policy. The final version is freely available from publisher via the DOI in this record.
BACKGROUND: Over 37,000 new colorectal cancers are diagnosed in the UK each year. Most present symptomatically to primary care. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic value of symptoms associated with colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched to February 2010, for diagnostic studies of symptomatic adult patients in primary care. Studies of asymptomatic patients, screening, referred populations, or patients with colorectal cancer recurrences, or with fewer than 100 participants were excluded. The target condition was colorectal cancer. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of each symptom or pair of symptoms. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for rectal bleeding from 13 papers ranged from 2.2% to 16%, with a pooled estimate of 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.0% to 11%) in those aged ≥ 50 years. Pooled PPV estimates for other symptoms were: abdominal pain (three studies) 3.3% (95% CI = 0.7% to 16%); and anaemia (four studies) 9.7% (95% CI = 3.5% to 27%). For rectal bleeding accompanied by weight loss or change in bowel habit, pooled positive likelihood ratios (PLRs) were 1.9 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.8) and 1.8 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5) respectively, suggesting higher risk when both symptoms were present. Conversely, the PLR was one or less for abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or constipation accompanying rectal bleeding. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that investigation of rectal bleeding or anaemia in primary care patients is warranted, irrespective of whether other symptoms are present. The risks from other single symptoms are lower, though multiple symptoms also warrant investigation.
This work was undertaken by the authors, who received funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR School for Primary Care Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health. Additionally, William Hamilton is funded through an NIHR postdoctoral fellowship. The study sponsor was the University of Bristol. The authors were independent from the funder and sponsor, who had no role in the conduct, analysis, or decision to publish
Vol. 61, e231 - e243
PubMed Central ID
Place of publication