IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207686.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is symptom-based diagnosis of lung cancer possible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of symptomatic lung cancer prior to diagnosis for comparison with real-time data from routine general practice

Author

Listed:
  • Grace N Okoli
  • Olga Kostopoulou
  • Brendan C Delaney

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer is a good example of the potential benefit of symptom-based diagnosis, as it is the commonest cancer worldwide, with the highest mortality from late diagnosis and poor symptom recognition. The diagnosis and risk assessment tools currently available have been shown to require further validation. In this study, we determine the symptoms associated with lung cancer prior to diagnosis and demonstrate that by separating prior risk based on factors such as smoking history and age, from presenting symptoms and combining them at the individual patient level, we can make greater use of this knowledge to create a practical framework for the symptomatic diagnosis of individual patients presenting in primary care. Aim: To provide an evidence-based analysis of symptoms observed in lung cancer patients prior to diagnosis. Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of primary and secondary care data. Method: Seven databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science, British Nursing Index and Cochrane Library). Thirteen studies were selected based on predetermined eligibility and quality criteria for diagnostic assessment to establish the value of symptom-based diagnosis using diagnosistic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. In addition, routinely collated real-time data from primary care electronic health records (EHR), TransHis, was analysed to compare with our findings. Results: Haemoptysis was found to have the greatest diagnostic value for lung cancer, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 6.39 (3.32–12.28), followed by dyspnoea 2.73 (1.54–4.85) then cough 2.64 (1.24–5.64) and lastly chest pain 2.02 (0.88–4.60). The use of symptom-based diagnosis to accurately diagnose lung cancer cases from non-cases was determined using the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, the area under the curve (AUC) was consistently above 0.6 for each of the symptoms described, indicating reasonable discriminatory power. The positive predictive value (PPV) of diagnostic symptoms depends on an individual’s prior risk of lung cancer, as well as their presenting symptom pattern. For at risk individuals we calculated prior risk using validated epidemiological models for risk factors such as age and smoking history, then combined with the calculated likelihood ratios for each symptom to establish posterior risk or positive predictive value (PPV). Conclusion: Our findings show that there is diagnostic value in the clinical symptoms associated with lung cancer and the potential benefit of characterising these symptoms using routine data studies to identify high-risk patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Grace N Okoli & Olga Kostopoulou & Brendan C Delaney, 2018. "Is symptom-based diagnosis of lung cancer possible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of symptomatic lung cancer prior to diagnosis for comparison with real-time data from routine general practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207686
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207686
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207686&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207686?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.