Search

Background: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal and endometrial cancer the most common gynaecological cancer in the UK, yet neither have a screening program in place to facilitate early disease detection. The aim is to evaluate whether online search data can be used to differentiate between individuals with malignant and benign gynaecological diagnoses. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study evaluating online search data in symptomatic individuals (Google user) referred from primary care (GP) with a suspected cancer to a London Hospital (UK) between December 2020 and June 2022. Informed written consent was obtained and online search data was extracted via Google takeout and anonymised. A health filter was applied to extract health-related terms for 24 months prior to GP referral. A predictive model (outcome: malignancy) was developed using (1) search queries (terms model) and (2) categorised search queries (categories model). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to evaluate model performance. 844 women were approached, 652 were eligible to participate and 392 were recruited. Of those recruited, 108 did not complete enrollment, 12 withdrew and 37 were excluded as they did not track Google searches or had an empty search history, leaving a cohort of 235. Results: The cohort had a median age of 53 years old (range 20–81) and a malignancy rate of 26.0%. There was a difference in online search data between those with a benign and malignant diagnosis, noted as early as 360 days in advance of GP referral, when search queries were used directly, but only 60 days in advance, when queries were divided into health categories. A model using online search data from patients (n = 153) who performed health-related search and corrected for sample size, achieved its highest sample-corrected AUC of 0.82, 60 days prior to GP referral. Conclusions: Online search data appears to be different between individuals with malignant and benign gynaecological conditions, with a signal observed in advance of GP referral date. Online search data needs to be evaluated in a larger dataset to determine its value as an early disease detection tool and whether its use leads to improved clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and test a novel instrument to assess public awareness of endometrial cancer symptoms and risk factors in a UK population., Methods: A 36-item questionnaire was developed through literature review and extraction from cancer awareness materials. The Womb Cancer Awareness Measure (WCAM) was tested for content validity in 65 self-identified female research participants and 10 endometrial cancer experts prior to UK-wide field testing using social media. Test-retest reliability was assessed over 2 weeks, construct validity was assessed by comparing womb cancer experts and non-medical academics, and sensitivity to change was assessed by comparing scores of participants who read an endometrial cancer leaflet with those given a control leaflet., Results: Fifty-two percent of the items in the test-retest reliability showed >80% agreement. Construct validity was demonstrated; endometrial cancer experts achieved higher scores (median 79 (IQR 18)) than non-medical academics (median 50 (IQR 18)) (p<0.001). The WCAM was sensitive to change; volunteers who read an endometrial cancer leaflet showed greater awareness (median 73 (IQR 9)) than those who read the control leaflet (median 59 (IQR 9)) (p<0.001). Knowledge of endometrial cancer red flag symptoms and risk factors was poor in the 847 UK-based participants., Conclusions: Our findings support the validity and reliability of the Womb Cancer Awareness Measure in assessing public awareness of endometrial cancer. In a UK population sample, knowledge of warning symptoms and risk factors was low, highlighting the need for public awareness campaigns., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Risk stratification has resulted in patient-initiated follow-up being introduced for low-risk endometrial cancer in place of routine hospital follow-up. The financial benefit to the patient and the healthcare economy of patient-initiated follow-up, as compared with hospital follow-up, has yet to be explored. In this study, we explored the potential impact for both the healthcare economy and patients of patient-initiated follow-up., Methods: Women diagnosed with low-risk endometrial cancer enrolled on a patient-initiated follow-up scheme between November 2014 and September 2018 were included. Data on the number of telephone calls to the nurse specialists and clinic appointments attended were collected prospectively. The number of clinic appointments that would have taken place if the patient had continued on hospital follow-up, rather than starting on patient-initiated follow-up, was calculated and costs determined using standard National Health Service (NHS) reference costs. The time/distance traveled by patients from their home address to the hospital clinic was calculated and used to determine patient-related costs., Results: A total of 187 patients with a median of 37 (range 2-62) months follow-up after primary surgery were enrolled on the scheme. In total, the cohort were scheduled to attend 1673 appointments with hospital follow-up, whereas they only attended 69 clinic appointments and made 107 telephone contacts with patient-initiated follow-up. There was a 93.5% reduction in costs from a projected £194 068.00 for hospital follow-up to £12 676.33 for patient-initiated follow-up. The mean patient-related costs were reduced by 95.6% with patient-initiated follow-up. The total mileage traveled by patients for hospital follow-up was 30 891.4 miles, which was associated with a mean traveling time per patient of 7.41 hours and clinic/waiting time of 7.5 hours compared with 1165.8 miles and 0.46 hours and 0.5 hours, respectively, for patient-initiated follow-up., Conclusion: The introduction of a patient self-management follow-up scheme for low-risk endometrial cancer was associated with financial/time saving to both the patient and the healthcare economy as compared with hospital follow-up., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ELM has been awarded research grants from Cancer Research UK, Hope Against Cancer, and Intuitive Surgical Ltd for projects unrelated to this work., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To explore differences in the background knowledge of Endometrial Cancer (EC), its risk factors, symptoms and prognosis of Endometrial Cancer (EC) between British White (BW) and British South Asian (BSA) women who had undergone treatment for stage I endometrial cancer within the past 3-years., Study Design: Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews exploring knowledge; diagnosis; treatment; follow-up; and survivorship were undertaken and analysed using Thematic Analysis., Results: Twenty-one women were interviewed (13 BW and 8 BSA). BW and BSA women reported similar views, experiences and concerns with regards to EC. Knowledge appeared to differ amongst the two groups with BSA women reporting being more aware that unscheduled vaginal bleeding could be associated with a malignancy but having lower levels of knowledge of the risk factors that can lead to EC, compared to BW women. There was a lack of understanding of the difference between cervical cancer and EC and as a result, many women reported taking reassurance from negative cervical cytology as excluding EC. There was also the misconception amongst some of the women that there was a link between sexual behaviour and EC. Women from both groups used the lay healthcare system to discuss their situation/symptoms, however BSA women reported to have specifically sought out women within their social network who had previously undergone treatment for EC., Conclusions: Greater effort is needed to raise awareness in both the BW/BSA communities of the symptoms associated with EC that should prompt medical review. Educational efforts are required to overcome the reported perception that EC is synonymous with cervical cancer and cannot be detected by cervical screening., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)