Abstract
Background Breast cancer clinics across the UK have long been struggling to cope with high demand. Novel risk prediction tools – such as the PinPoint test – could help to reduce unnecessary clinic referrals. Using early data on the expected accuracy of the test, we explore the potential impact of PinPoint on: (a) the percentage of patients meeting the two-week referral target, and (b) the number of clinic ‘overspill’ appointments generated.
Methods A simulation model was built to reflect the annual flow of patients through a single UK clinic. Due to current uncertainty around the exact impact of PinPoint testing on standard care, two primary scenarios were assessed. Scenario 1 assumed complete GP adherence to testing, with only non-referred cancerous cases returning for delayed referral. Scenario 2 assumed GPs would overrule 20% of low-risk results, and that 10% of non-referred non-cancerous cases would also return for delayed referral. A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key uncertainties on the model results. Service reconfiguration scenarios, removing individual weekly clinics from the clinic schedule, were also explored.
Results Under standard care, 66.3% (95% CI: 66.0 to 66.5) of patients met the referral target, with 1,685 (1,648 to 1,722) overspill appointments. Under both PinPoint scenarios, >98% of patients met the referral target, with overspill appointments reduced to between 727 (707 to 746) [Scenario 1] and 886 (861 to 911) [Scenario 2]. The reduced clinic demand was sufficient to allow removal of one weekly low-capacity clinic [N=10], and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions The findings from this early analysis indicate that risk prediction tools could have the potential to alleviate pressure on cancer clinics, and are expected to have increased utility in the wake of heightened pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is required to validate these findings with real world evidence; evaluate the broader clinical and economic impact of the test; and to determine outcomes and risks for patients deemed to be low-risk on the PinPoint test and therefore not initially referred.
Competing Interest Statement
AS, SF, RN and BS work at the University of Leeds. NS and LH work at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT). Both the University of Leeds and the LTHT have a royalty agreement with PinPoint Data Science Ltd, meaning that those institutions are likely to benefit financially in the event of the PinPoint test being commercially successful.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by an Innovate UK Digital Health Technology Catalyst grant, as part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge fund (project number: 105411). AS, SF, RN, LH and BS are supported by the NIHR In-Vitro Diagnostics Evidence Co-operative (MIC). RN and BS are supported by the CRUK CanTest Collaborative (grant number: C8640/A23385).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The simulation model generated during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
List of abbreviations
- BC =
- breast cancer
- CCG =
- Clinical Commissioning Group
- CI =
- confidence interval
- DES =
- discrete event simulation
- LTHT =
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust
- GP =
- General practitioner
- MDT =
- multi-disciplinary team
- NP =
- nurse practitioner
- PA =
- physician associate
- PLICS =
- Patient Level Information and Costing System
- TWW =
- two-week wait
- UK =
- United Kingdom
