Background:Strategies for the involvement of primary care in the management of patients with presumed or diagnosed dementia are heterogeneous across Europe. We wanted to explore attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) when managing dementia: (i) the most popular cognitive tests, (ii) who had the right to initiate or continue cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine treatment, and (iii) the relationship between the permissiveness of these rules/guidelines and PCP's approach in the dementia investigations and assessment.Methods:Key informant survey. Setting: Primary care practices across 25 European countries. Subjects: Four hundred forty-five PCPs responded to a self-administered questionnaire. Two-step cluster analysis was performed using characteristics of the informants and the responses to the survey. Main outcome measures: Two by two contingency tables with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the association between categorical variables. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables (age class, gender, and perceived prescription rules) with the PCPs’ attitude of “trying to establish a diagnosis of dementia on their own.”Results:Discrepancies between rules/guidelines and attitudes to dementia management was found in many countries. There was a strong association between the authorization to prescribe dementia drugs and pursuing dementia diagnostic work-up (odds ratio, 3.45; 95% CI 2.28–5.23).Conclusions:Differing regulations about who does what in dementia management seemed to affect PCP's engagement in dementia investigations and assessment. PCPs who were allowed to prescribe dementia drugs also claimed higher engagement in dementia work-up than PCPs who were not allowed to prescribe.

ObjectivesCancer survival and stage of disease at diagnosis and treatment vary widely across Europe. These differences may be partly due to variations in access to investigations and specialists. However, evidence to explain how different national health systems influence primary care practitioners’ (PCPs’) referral decisions is lacking.This study analyses health system factors potentially influencing PCPs’ referral decision-making when consulting with patients who may have cancer, and how these vary between European countries.DesignBased on a content-validity consensus, a list of 45 items relating to a PCP’s decisions to refer patients with potential cancer symptoms for further investigation was reduced to 20 items. An online questionnaire with the 20 items was answered by PCPs on a five-point Likert scale, indicating how much each item affected their own decision-making in patients that could have cancer. An exploratory factor analysis identified the factors underlying PCPs’ referral decision-making.SettingA primary care study; 25 participating centres in 20 European countries.Participants1830 PCPs completed the survey. The median response rate for participating centres was 20.7%.Outcome measuresThe factors derived from items related to PCPs’ referral decision-making. Mean factor scores were produced for each country, allowing comparisons.ResultsFactor analysis identified five underlying factors: PCPs’ ability to refer; degree of direct patient access to secondary care; PCPs’ perceptions of being under pressure; expectations of PCPs’ role; and extent to which PCPs believe that quality comes before cost in their health systems. These accounted for 47.4% of the observed variance between individual responses.ConclusionsFive healthcare system factors influencing PCPs’ referral decision-making in 20 European countries were identified. The factors varied considerably between European countries. Knowledge of these factors could assist development of health service policies to produce better cancer outcomes, and inform future research to compare national cancer diagnostic pathways and outcomes.

Malignant mesothelioma is a deadly tumor whose diagnosis and treatment remain very challenging. There is an urgent need to advance our understanding of mesothelioma biology and to identify new molecular markers for improving management of patients. CD157 is a membrane glycoprotein linked to ovarian cancer progression and mesenchymal differentiation. The common embryonic origin of ovarian epithelial cells and mesothelial cells and the evident similarities between ovarian and mesothelial cancer prompted us to investigate the biological role and clinical significance of CD157 in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).CD157 mRNA and protein were detected in four of nine MPM cell lines of diverse histotype and in 85.2% of MPM surgical tissue samples (32/37 epithelioid; 37/44 biphasic). CD157 expression correlated with clinical aggressiveness in biphasic MPM. Indeed, high CD157 was a negative prognostic factor and an independent predictor of poor survival for patients with biphasic MPM by multivariate survival analysis (HR = 2.433, 95% CI 1.120-5.284; p = 0.025). In mesothelioma cell lines, CD157 gain (in CD157-negative cells) or knockdown (in CD157-positive cells) affected cell growth, migration, invasion and tumorigenicity, most notably in biphasic MPM cell lines. In these cells, CD157 expression was associated with increased activation of the mTOR signaling pathway, resulting in decreased platinum sensitivity. Moreover, a trend towards reduced survival was observed in patients with biphasic MPM receiving postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy. These findings indicate that CD157 is implicated in multiple aspects of MPM progression and suggest that CD157 expression could be used to stratify patients into different prognostic groups or to select patients that might benefit from particular chemotherapeutic approach.

BackgroundNational European cancer survival rates vary widely. Prolonged diagnostic intervals are thought to be a key factor in explaining these variations. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) frequently play a crucial role during initial cancer diagnosis; their knowledge could be used to improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer diagnosis.ObjectivesThis study sought the views of PCPs from across Europe on how they thought the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved.DesignIn an online survey, a final open-ended question asked PCPs how they thought the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.SettingA primary care study, with participating centres in 20 European countries.ParticipantsA total of 1352 PCPs answered the final survey question, with a median of 48 per country.ResultsThe main themes identified were: patient-related factors, including health education; care provider-related factors, including continuing medical education; improving communication and interprofessional partnership, particularly between primary and secondary care; factors relating to health system organisation and policies, including improving access to healthcare; easier primary care access to diagnostic tests; and use of information technology. Re-allocation of funding to support timely diagnosis was seen as an issue affecting all of these.ConclusionsTo achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, health systems need to facilitate earlier patient presentation through education and better access to care, have well-educated clinicians with good access to investigations and better information technology, and adequate primary care cancer diagnostic pathway funding.

Background: A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT) is a brief test that can identify cognitive impairment. AQT has been validated in Arabic, English, Greek, Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish, and Swedish. The aim of this study was to develop Italian criterion-referenced norms for AQT. Methods: AQT consists of three test plates where the patient shall rapidly name (1) the color of 40 blue, red, yellow, or black squares (AQT color), (2) the form of 40 black figures (circles, squares, triangles, or rectangles; AQT form), (3) the color and form of 40 figures (consisting of previous colors and forms; AQT color-form). The AQT test was administered to 121 Italian cognitively healthy primary care patients (age range: 45-90 years). Their mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score was 28.8 ± 0.9 points (range 26-30 points). AQT naming times in seconds were used for developing preliminary criterion cut-off times for different age groups. Results: Age was found to have a significant moderate positive correlation with AQT naming times color (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), form (r = 0.53, p < 0.001), color-form (r = 0.63, p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with MMSE score (r = -0.44, p < 0.001) and AQT naming times differed significantly between younger (45-55 years old), older (56-70 years old), and the oldest (71-90 years old) participants. Years of education correlated positively but weakly with MMSE score (r = 0.27, p = 0.003) and negatively but weakly with AQT color (r = -0.16, p = ns), form (r = -0.24, p = 0.007), and color-form (r = -0.19, p = 0.005). We established preliminary cut-off times for the AQT test based on +1 and +2 standard deviations according to the approach in other languages and settings. Conclusions: This is the first Italian normative AQT study. Future studies of AQT - a test useful for dementia screening in primary care - will eventually refine cut-off times for normality balancing sensitivity and specificity in cognitive diagnostics.