Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 May;61(586):e231-43.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X572427.

The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

Margaret Astin  1 , Tom Griffin, Richard D Neal, Peter Rose, William Hamilton
Affiliations

The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

Margaret Astin et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2011 May.

Abstract

Background: Over 37,000 new colorectal cancers are diagnosed in the UK each year. Most present symptomatically to primary care.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic value of symptoms associated with colorectal cancer.

Design: Systematic review.

Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched to February 2010, for diagnostic studies of symptomatic adult patients in primary care. Studies of asymptomatic patients, screening, referred populations, or patients with colorectal cancer recurrences, or with fewer than 100 participants were excluded. The target condition was colorectal cancer. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of each symptom or pair of symptoms. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool.

Results: Twenty-three studies were included. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for rectal bleeding from 13 papers ranged from 2.2% to 16%, with a pooled estimate of 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.0% to 11%) in those aged ≥ 50 years. Pooled PPV estimates for other symptoms were: abdominal pain (three studies) 3.3% (95% CI = 0.7% to 16%); and anaemia (four studies) 9.7% (95% CI = 3.5% to 27%). For rectal bleeding accompanied by weight loss or change in bowel habit, pooled positive likelihood ratios (PLRs) were 1.9 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.8) and 1.8 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5) respectively, suggesting higher risk when both symptoms were present. Conversely, the PLR was one or less for abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or constipation accompanying rectal bleeding.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that investigation of rectal bleeding or anaemia in primary care patients is warranted, irrespective of whether other symptoms are present. The risks from other single symptoms are lower, though multiple symptoms also warrant investigation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Positive predictive values of rectal bleeding in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer in primary care. Random effects pooled estimate (diamond) is based on a subgroup (B) aged ≥50 years.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Positive likelihood ratios (LRs) of rectal bleeding and another symptom:A, abdominal pain;Bweight loss; C, change in bowel habit.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Methodological quality of studies
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Diagram of information flow.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Goodyear S, Stallard N, Gaunt A, et al. Local impact of the English arm of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot study. Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1172–1179. - PubMed
    1. Hamilton W, Sharp D. Diagnosis of colorectal cancer in primary care: the evidence base for guidelines. Fam Pract. 2004;21(1):99–106. - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health, Clinical Excellence. London: NICE; 2005. Referral guidelines for suspected cancer.
    1. Ford AC, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, et al. Diagnostic utility of alarm features for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta analysis. Gut. 2008;57(11):1545–1553. - PubMed
    1. Jellema P, van der Windt DAWM, Bruinvels DJ, et al. Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340(313):c1269. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types