Esophageal cancer is associated with poor prognosis. Diagnosis is often delayed, resulting in presentation with advanced disease. We developed a clinical score to predict the risk of a malignant diagnosis in symptomatic patients prior to any diagnostic tests.

We analyzed data from patients referred to a regional esophageal diagnostic assessment program between May 2013 and August 2016. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of malignancy based on patient characteristics and symptoms. Predicted probabilities were used to develop a score from 0 to 10 which was weighted according to beta coefficients for predictors in the model. Score accuracy was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and internally validated using bootstrapping techniques. Patients were classified into low (0–2 points), medium (3–6 points), and high (7–10 points) risk groups based on their scores. Pathologic tissue diagnosis was used to assess the effectiveness of the developed score in predicting the risk of malignancy in each group.

Of 530 patients, 363 (68%) were diagnosed with malignancy. Factors predictive of malignancy included male sex, family history of cancer and esophageal cancer, fatigue, chest/throat/back pain, melena and weight loss. These factors were allocated 1–2 points each for a total of 10 points. Low-risk patients had 70% lower chance of malignancy (RR =0.28, 95% CI: 0.21–0.38), medium-risk had 50% higher chance of malignancy (RR =1.5, 95% CI: 1.26–1.77), and high-risk patients were 8 times more likely to be diagnosed with malignancy (RR =8.2, 95% CI: 2.60–25.86). The area under the ROC curve for malignancy was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77–0.87).

A simple score using patient characteristics and symptoms reliably distinguished malignant from benign diagnoses in a population of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This score might be useful in expediting investigations, referrals and eventual diagnosis of malignancy.

• Esophageal cancer
• diagnostic assessment program
• dysphagia
• esophageal cancer screening

Clinical assessment of swallowing disorders (dysphagia) requires accurate and comprehensive medical history-taking to further tailor the diagnostic work-up, but functional health care questionnaires show a large variability and various limitations. The aim of this study was to assess the way in which international swallowing experts from various disciplines asses swallowing problems in order to improve the radiologist´s ability to take a thorough medical history in this specific patient group.

A two-step Delphi method was used to collect swallowing experts’ ways of taking the medical history in patients with swallowing disorders. The questions obtained in a first interview round were pooled and structured by dividing them into general and specific questions, including several subcategories, and these were scored by the experts in a second step based on to their clinical relevance.

Eighteen experts provided 25 different questions categorized as general questions and 34 dimension-specific questions (eight attributed to ‘suspicion of aspiration,’ 13 to ‘dysphagia,’ six to ‘globus sensation,’ four to ‘non-cardiac chest pain,’ and three to ‘effect of life.’) In the second interview round, the experts´ average predictive values attributed to those questions showed the varying importance of the presented items. Seven general and 13 specific questions (six of them attributed to ‘effect on life’ and seven ‘others’) were also added.

This collection of questions reflects the fact that a multidisciplinary approach when obtaining the medical history in patients with swallowing disorders may contribute to an improved technique for performing a symptom-oriented medical history-taking for radiologists of all training levels.

• Deglutition
• Deglutition disorders
• Medical history-taking
• Questionnaire

• Deglutition Disorders/diagnostic imaging
• Deglutition Disorders/physiopathology
• Delphi Technique
• Female
• Humans
• Male
• Medical History Taking/statistics & numerical data
• Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data
• Surveys and Questionnaires

• Dysphagia
• Endoscopy
• Health Service Research
• Oesophageal Cancer

AIM: To determine which features of history and demographics predict a diagnosis of malignancy or peptic stricture in patients presenting with dysphagia.

METHODS: A prospective case-control study of 2000 consecutive referrals (1031 female, age range: 17-103 years) to a rapid access service for dysphagia, based in a teaching hospital within the United Kingdom, over 7 years. The service consists of a nurse-led telephone triage followed by investigation (barium swallow or gastroscopy), if appropriate, within 2 wk. Logistic regression analysis of demographic and clinical variables was performed. This includes age, sex, duration of dysphagia, whether to liquids or solids, and whether there are associated features (reflux, odynophagia, weight loss, regurgitation). We determined odds ratio (OR) for these variables for the diagnoses of malignancy and peptic stricture. We determined the value of the Edinburgh Dysphagia Score (EDS) in predicting cancer in our cohort. Multivariate logistic regression was performed and P < 0.05 considered significant. The local ethics committee confirmed ethics approval was not required (audit).

RESULTS: The commonest diagnosis is gastro-esophageal reflux disease (41.3%). Malignancy (11.0%) and peptic stricture (10.0%) were also relatively common. Malignancies were diagnosed by histology (97%) or on radiological criteria, either sequential barium swallows showing progression of disease or unequivocal evidence of malignancy on computed tomography. The majority of malignancies were esophago-gastric in origin but ear, nose and throat tumors, pancreatic cancer and extrinsic compression from lung or mediastinal metastatic cancer were also found. Malignancy was statistically more frequent in older patients (aged >73 years, OR 1.1-3.3, age < 60 years 6.5%, 60-73 years 11.2%, > 73 years 11.8%, P < 0.05), males (OR 2.2-4.8, males 14.5%, females 5.6%, P < 0.0005), short duration of dysphagia (≤ 8 wk, OR 4.5-20.7, 16.6%, 8-26 wk 14.5%, > 26 wk 2.5%, P < 0.0005), progressive symptoms (OR 1.3-2.6: progressive 14.8%, intermittent 9.3%, P < 0.001), with weight loss of ≥ 2 kg (OR 2.5-5.1, weight loss 22.1%, without weight loss 6.4%, P < 0.0005) and without reflux (OR 1.2-2.5, reflux 7.2%, no reflux 15.5%, P < 0.0005). The likelihood of malignancy was greater in those who described true dysphagia (food or drink sticking within 5 s of swallowing than those who did not (15.1% vs 5.2% respectively, P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the EDS were 98.4%, 9.3%, 11.8% and 98.0% respectively. Three patients with an EDS of 3 (high risk EDS ≥ 3.5) had malignancy. Unlike the original validation cohort, there was no difference in likelihood of malignancy based on level of dysphagia (pharyngeal level dysphagia 11.9% vs mid sternal or lower sternal dysphagia 12.4%). Peptic stricture was statistically more frequent in those with longer duration of symptoms (> 6 mo, OR 1.2-2.9, ≤ 8 wk 9.8%, 8-26 wk 10.6%, > 26 wk 15.7%, P < 0.05) and over 60 s (OR 1.2-3.0, age < 60 years 6.2%, 60-73 years 10.2%, > 73 years 10.6%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Malignancy and peptic stricture are frequent findings in those referred with dysphagia. The predictive value for associated features could help determine need for fast track investigation whilst reducing service pressures.

• Dysphagia
• Deglutition disorders
• Esophageal neoplasms
• Esophageal stenosis
• Gastroscopy
• Barium swallow
• Predictive value of tests

Demands on gastroenterology are growing, as a result of the high prevalence of digestive diseases, the impact of colon cancer screening programs and an aging population. Prioritizing referrals to gastroenterology would assist in managing wait times. Our objectives were (1) to assess whether there were consistent criteria to guide referrals from family physicians for gastroenterological outpatient consultation and (2) to determine if there were different levels of urgency or priority in referral criteria.

We conducted a scoping review, searching Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 1997 to 2009, using the terms referral, triage, consultation and at least one from a list of gastroenterology-specific search terms. Of 2978 initial results, 51 papers were retrieved, and 20 were retained after review by two reviewers. Additional publications were identified through hand searches of retained papers, website searches and nomination by a panel of specialists.

Thirty-four papers, reports or websites were retained. No referral criteria covered the spectrum of disorders that might be referred by family physicians to gastroenterologists. Criteria for referral were most commonly listed for suspected colorectal cancer, followed by suspected upper GI cancer, hepatitis, and functional disorders.

A clinical panel comprised of gastroenterologists and primary care providers, informed by this literature review, are completing the work of formulating a Gastroenterology Priority Referral Score, and plan to test the reliability and validity of the tool for determining the relative urgency for referral from primary care to gastroenterology.

• Family physicians
• Gastroenterology
• Gastrointestinal diseases
• Referral and consultation
• Review

• Deglutition Disorders/etiology
• Early Diagnosis
• Epidemiologic Methods
• Esophageal Neoplasms/complications
• Esophageal Neoplasms/prevention & control
• Female
• Gastroesophageal Reflux/etiology
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged

• G0800803 Medical Research Council