Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Review

Commentary

Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (571): 127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X483427
Richard D Neal
North Wales Clinical School, Department of Primary Care & Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Gwenfro Unit 5, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham, LL13 7YP. E-mail:
Roles: Senior Lecturer in General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nealrd@cf.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Cancer diagnosis — the role of urgent referral guidelines

This excellent review brings together evidence from primary care that will undoubtedly help clinicians in their quest for earlier cancer diagnoses for their patients.1 It is particularly welcome within the current context of the Department of Health's National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative.2 Recent policy announcements have focused on easier and quicker access to investigations for GPs for suspected cancer symptoms, and the development and implementation of software for GPs to identify early cancer symptoms within 5 years. Such policies are likely to help save the estimated 5000–10 000 lives per year currently lost in the UK because of probable later diagnosis compared with some European countries.3–5 Data from primary care, such as presented in Hamilton's review, will directly inform the development of these policies.

One key policy question is whether urgent referral guidelines are the answer, whatever the quality and quantity of the evidence about the meaning of symptoms. There is a continuing lack of evidence that cancer diagnoses overall are made quicker, and with clinical benefits, through a fast-track system that prioritises some patients over others, based upon their symptoms. Many, quite possibly a majority, of cancers are diagnosed through a more atypical symptomatic presentation, often congruent with symptoms of benign pathology. This is a major challenge for secondary care and for commissioners. Paradoxically, guidelines may prioritise those with least to gain in terms of improved outcomes because they hasten diagnosis of very early tumours that may remain curable and treatable if diagnosed later. They also prioritise those with already established aggressive disease who are beyond curative treatment at the time of diagnosis, although good palliative care for these people may be hastened.6 All patients deserve the earliest diagnosis, whatever their symptoms. Guidelines do focus GPs'attention on potential alarm symptoms for cancer.7 However, there are also still significant concerns about the implementation and use of the urgent cancer referral guidelines in primary care, which is hugely different to their target driven implementation in secondary care.

In policy terms, there are two main conclusions to be drawn. Firstly, Hamilton is correct in stating that GPs may have too high a threshold for investigation. Gatekeeping has been the cornerstone of the UK NHS for decades. However, for suspected cancer, gatekeeping may be inhibiting early diagnosis and it may be that the balance between referral for opinion or investigation, and minimising costs and the risk of iatrogenic illness needs to be shifted. Watching and waiting is no longer acceptable for certain symptom complexes. Secondly, we need faster routes to diagnostic tests and/or specialist opinion (dependent upon the available diagnostic tests for different cancers) for all patients with a suspicious symptom, above a certain, and as yet undetermined, threshold. A stronger evidence base to enhance our understanding of the predictive value of symptoms will facilitate this.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Hamilton W
    (2010) Cancer diagnosis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X483175.
  2. ↵
    1. Richards MA
    (2009) The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence. Br J Cancer 101:s1–s4.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Richards MA
    (2009) The size of the prize for earlier cancer diagnosis of cancer in England. Br J Cancer 101:S125–S129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Abdel-Rahman M,
    2. Stockton D,
    3. Rachet D,
    4. et al.
    (2009) What if cancer survival in Britain were the same as in Europe: how many deaths are avoidable? Br J Cancer 101:S115–S124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Moller H,
    2. Linklater KM,
    3. Robinson D
    (2009) A visual summary of the EUROCARE-4 results: a UK perspective. Br J Cancer 101:S110–S114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Neal RD,
    2. Allgar VL,
    3. Ali N,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes. Br J Gen Pract 57:212–219.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Jones R,
    2. Charlton J,
    3. Latinovic R,
    4. Gulliford MC
    (2009) Alarm symptoms and identification of non-cancer diagnoses in primary care: cohort study. BMJ 339:b3094, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b3094.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (571)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 571
February 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Commentary
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Commentary
Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (571): 127. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X483427

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Commentary
Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (571): 127. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X483427
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Cancer diagnosis — the role of urgent referral guidelines
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Leonardo da Vinci: anatomist
  • How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials
Show more Review

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242