» Articles » PMID: 29632004

Weight Loss As a Predictor of Cancer in Primary Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal Br J Gen Pract
Specialty Public Health
Date 2018 Apr 11
PMID 29632004
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Weight loss is a non-specific cancer symptom for which there are no clinical guidelines about investigation in primary care.

Aim: To summarise the available evidence on weight loss as a clinical feature of cancer in patients presenting to primary care.

Design And Setting: A diagnostic test accuracy review and meta-analysis.

Method: Studies reporting 2 × 2 diagnostic accuracy data for weight loss (index test) in adults presenting to primary care and a subsequent diagnosis of cancer (reference standard) were included. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, and positive predictive values were calculated, and a bivariate meta-analysis performed.

Results: A total of 25 studies were included, with 23 (92%) using primary care records. Of these, 20 (80%) defined weight loss as a physician's coding of the symptom; the remainder collected data directly. One defined unexplained weight loss using objective measurements. Positive associations between weight loss and cancer were found for 10 cancer sites: prostate, colorectal, lung, gastro-oesophageal, pancreatic, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovarian, myeloma, renal tract, and biliary tree. Sensitivity ranged from 2% to 47%, and specificity from 92% to 99%, across cancer sites. The positive predictive value for cancer in male and female patients with weight loss for all age groups ≥60 years exceeded the 3% risk threshold that current UK guidance proposes for further investigation.

Conclusion: A primary care clinician's decision to code for weight loss is highly predictive of cancer. For such patients, urgent referral pathways are justified to investigate for cancer across multiple sites.

Citing Articles

Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study (update).

Nicholson B, Virdee P, Aveyard P, Price S, Hobbs F, Koshiaris C BMJ. 2024; 387:e080199.

PMID: 39414353 PMC: 11480917. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-080199.


Investigating the Obesity Paradox in Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Prospectively Collected Data in a Diverse Cohort.

Kumar S, Blandon C, Sikorskii A, Kaplan D, Mehta S, Su G Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(17).

PMID: 39272808 PMC: 11394385. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16172950.


A scoping review of unexpected weight loss and cancer: risk, guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up in primary care.

Martinez-Gutierrez J, De Mendonca L, Ly P, Lee A, Hunter B, Manski-Nankervis J BJGP Open. 2024; 8(4).

PMID: 39054298 PMC: 11687243. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0025.


Association between obesity and cancer risk in adults with HIV in Korea.

Jang Y, Kim T, Choi Y, Ahn K, Kim J, Seong H AIDS. 2024; 38(9):1386-1394.

PMID: 38597513 PMC: 11216375. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003904.


Cancer Diagnoses After Recent Weight Loss.

Wang Q, Babic A, Rosenthal M, Lee A, Zhang Y, Zhang X JAMA. 2024; 331(4):318-328.

PMID: 38261044 PMC: 10807298. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.25869.


References
1.
Stapley S, Peters T, Neal R, Rose P, Walter F, Hamilton W . The risk of oesophago-gastric cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer. 2012; 108(1):25-31. PMC: 3553533. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.551. View

2.
Ewing M, Naredi P, Zhang C, Mansson J . Identification of patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care: a case-control study. Br J Gen Pract. 2016; 66(653):e880-e886. PMC: 5198653. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X687985. View

3.
Collins G, Altman D . Identifying women with undetected ovarian cancer: independent and external validation of QCancer(®) (Ovarian) prediction model. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012; 22(4):423-9. DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12015. View

4.
Reitsma J, Glas A, Rutjes A, Scholten R, Bossuyt P, Zwinderman A . Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(10):982-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022. View

5.
Riley R, Ahmed I, Debray T, Willis B, Noordzij J, Higgins J . Summarising and validating test accuracy results across multiple studies for use in clinical practice. Stat Med. 2015; 34(13):2081-103. PMC: 4973708. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6471. View