ABSTRACT
Background Cancer risk calculators were introduced to clinical practice in the last decade, but they remain underused. We aimed to test their potential to improve risk assessment and 2-week-wait referral decisions.
Methods 157 GPs were presented with 23 vignettes describing patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms. GPs gave their intuitive risk estimate and inclination to refer. They then saw the risk score of an algorithm (QCancer was not named) and could update their responses. Half of the sample was given information about the algorithm’s derivation, validation, and accuracy. At the end, we measured their algorithm disposition.
Results GPs changed their inclination to refer 26% of the time and switched decisions entirely 3% of the time. Post-algorithm decisions improved significantly vis-à-vis the 3% NICE threshold (OR 1.45 [1.27, 1.65], p<.001). The algorithm’s impact was greater where GPs had underestimated risk. GPs who received information about the algorithm had more positive disposition towards it. A learning effect was observed: GPs’ intuitive risk estimates became better calibrated over time, i.e., moved closer to QCancer.
Conclusions Cancer risk calculators have the potential to improve 2-week-wait referral decisions. Their use as learning tools to improve intuitive risk estimates is promising and should be further investigated.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by a Cancer Research UK grant awarded to Olga Kostopoulou. Funding Scheme: Population Research Committee - Project Award, Reference A28634.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study approval was provided by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health & Care Research Wales (HCRW), REC reference 20/HRA/2418.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 dataset will be deposited on Dryad and will be publicly available upon acceptance for journal publication.
