Acknowledgements
The introduction of a National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care was a vision shared by Professor
Sir Mike Richards, Director of Cancer Services, and Professor Mayur Lakhani, Chairman of the Royal College
of General Practitioners (RCGP) at the time of the publication of the Cancer Reform Strategy. It could not
have been realised without the support of the RCGP and the National Cancer Action Team (NCAT). The
Department of Health Cancer Policy Team and the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) have played
critical roles in enabling this national report to be produced. Our thanks go to the many Cancer Networks
that participated, for supporting practices as they completed the audit and collating data for the NCIN.
Lastly, this audit would not have happened without the enthusiastic participation of the English general
practice community. Together their efforts have produced a result that few thought could be achieved.
ii
Acknowledgements ii
Foreword 5
Executive summary 6
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.1.1 Diagnosis of cancer in primary care
7
1.1.2 Audit of cancer diagnosis in primary care
7
1.1.3 Previous audits of cancer care
7
1.2 Aims of the audit 8
2 Audit methods 9
2.1 Design of the audit 9
2.2 Conduct of the audit in 2009/10
9
2.2.1 Ethics and Information Governance
9
2.2.2 Local and national analysis
10
2.3 Data collection, cleaning and categorisation
10
2.3.1 Stage 10
2.3.2 Number of times patient attended surgery
10
2.3.3 Investigations Ordered 10
2.3.4 Symptoms at presentation
10
2.3.5 Intervals along the patient pathway
11
2.4 Statistical Methods of Analysis 11
2.4.1 Tools 11
3 Participation and case ascertainment 12
3.1 Participation 12
3.2 Case ascertainment 12
4 Data Quality 13
4.1 Data completeness 13
4.2 Comparison to other data 14
4.2.1 By cancer type 14
4.2.2 By age and sex 14
4.3 Commentary 15
5 Patient characteristics 16
5.1 Demographic features 16
5.2 Cancer site 18
5.3 Commentary 18
6 Diagnostic pathway 19
6.1 Place of presentation 19
6.1.1 By cancer site 19
6.1.2 Association with demographics
19
6.2 GP consultations 21
6.2.1 By cancer type 21
6.2.2 Association with demographics
21
iii
iv
Foreword
I would like to thank all the General Practitioners and practice teams who
have contributed to the collection of audit data that will help to shape our
thoughts on the primary care diagnosis of cancer.
The success around the methodology of this audit has been dependent
not only on the excellent leadership shown by the project lead, Professor
Greg Rubin and the steering group, but also the cancer network GP leads
who have helped to facilitate the collection of the data presented in this
report .
The data show we do well in General Practice in identifying our patients
who have cancer. There are, of course, groups of patients where we do
have difficulty for various reasons in making a rapid diagnosis of cancer. Sometimes these are patient,
practitioner or system factors.
However, the foundations that will enable us to continue to provide a quality service are the attributes
of quality General Practice - continuity of care; patient centredness and shared decision making; clinical
acumen and sound diagnostic skills.
We must also be prepared to evaluate what we do and this audit is an excellent example of how such
evaluation can provide rich messages for the future care of our patients.
Dr Clare Gerada, Chair of Council, RCGP
The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI) is intended to better understand and address
the reasons for later diagnosis of cancer in England. An audit of cancer diagnosis in primary care was
undertaken in 2009/10 as part of this initiative.
An audit template was developed and piloted by an expert group of academic and service GPs, utilising
experience in earlier local audits of cancer diagnosis. Information was collected on patient demographics
and the nature of the assessment process in primary care, including the time taken from first presentation
to referral. Participating cancer networks identified GP leads for the initiative, who also validated practice
returns before acceptance. In addition to the local analyses undertaken by these networks, the data were
collated into a single database by the NCIN. The collated data form the basis of this report.
Data were collected on 18879 patients by 1170 practices in 20 cancer networks. Data quality was high with
most categorical fields (including stage) being close to or over 90% complete. Comparison with cancer
registry data demonstrated that the dataset was representative in respect of age, sex and distribution by
cancer site.
The duration of the primary care and referral intervals showed considerable variation by cancer site.
Emergency presentation, usually associated with worse outcomes, occurred in 12.9% of all cases but ranged
from 3.7% (breast) to 39.3% (brain). In 6.0% of cases the GP believed that better access to investigations
would have reduced delay in diagnosis. This also varied considerably by site, being much greater for brain,
ovary, pancreas and kidney.
This is the largest and most comprehensive study to date of the primary care pathway to cancer diagnosis.
It provides detailed insights into current clinical practice that can direct initiatives to reduce the time to
diagnosis for cancer, as well as raising important questions for future research. It has raised awareness
among GPs of their contribution to timely diagnosis of cancer and has stimulated professional and practice
development. Many individual practices have expressed their intention to use the audit tool to regularly
monitor their performance for the future. Networks have used their involvement as a springboard to wider
engagement with primary care, taking advantage of the other quality improvement approaches that have
been developed alongside this audit.
We recommend:
1. That these findings could inform quality improvement initiatives that address the pathway to cancer
diagnosis.
2. That the findings of this report are used to inform plans to improve access to diagnostics as outlined in
Improving Outcomes: a Strategy for Cancer.
3. The Cancer Diagnosis Audit Tool could be a useful tool for practices, Cancer Networks and Clinical
Commissioning Groups to identify local areas for improvement and to monitor the impact of service
improvements.
4. That the audit of cancer diagnosis could be used systematically at a national level in order to monitor the
impact on primary care outcomes of policy in the area of early diagnosis.
5. That primary care audit could be combined with other data, from secondary care audit or from the
Association of Public Health Observatories Practice Profiles, for example, to generate more detailed
understanding of factors influencing the pathway to diagnosis.
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Diagnosis of cancer in primary care
Over 90% of all patient contacts with health care in the UK occur in primary care. It is the setting in which
symptoms are usually first evaluated and where those people who need further evaluation are identified and
referred to specialist care. There are an estimated 300 million consultations in general practice in England
annually,1 and they represent a major challenge in the sifting of often undifferentiated symptoms in order to
identify those patients with significant disease. For those patients with suspected cancer, clinical guidance
for GPs was produced by Department of Health in 2000 and then revised by NICE in 2005. This provided
information on symptoms and signs that merited urgent referral for further assessment. It was supported
by a referral pathway for suspected cancer that would ensure patients were assessed within two weeks of
referral.
The Cancer Reform Strategy (2007) marked a new direction for improving cancer outcomes in England.
A central theme was that of achieving earlier diagnosis, predicated on the belief that delay in the period
leading up to diagnosis and subsequent treatment contributed significantly to the poor outcomes that
were apparent from the EUROCARE studies. This emphasis on the importance of early diagnosis has been
maintained in Improving Outcomes: a Strategy for Cancer (2011).
A programme of activities spanning the cancer pathway from first suspicion of bodily change to
confirmation of cancer diagnosis, the NAEDI, was launched in 2008 to better understand and address
reasons for late diagnosis in England. One strand of the NAEDI work programme was a national audit of
cancer diagnosis in primary care. This was intended to inform decisions about how best to provide more
support to primary care professionals to ensure the earliest possible diagnosis of cancer and was to be
undertaken in collaboration with the RCGP. Lessons from the audit could inform the education and training
of GPs, including through continuous professional development and appraisal. The audit could also assist
in the development of decision aids to support healthcare professionals in assessing symptoms and making
decisions about further investigation or referral.2
referral pathway but collected additional information about the diagnostic process. In Scotland, where two
rounds of audit were completed, it was possible to discern some consequential changes, notably in relative
use of referral pathways. The experience in these pilot sites provided valuable information about the feasibility of undertaking such an audit, participation and completion rates.
An audit development group was established to develop a model audit template, drawing on the experience
of those involved in the Scottish audit and in the pilot audits in SE London, Manchester and Avon, Somerset
and Wiltshire. The group comprised individuals responsible for these earlier audits, academic GPs active in
cancer diagnosis, primary care leads from cancer networks and other stakeholders (Appendix 1). A model
audit template was piloted by members of the development group before being made openly available.5
A number of complementary actions were undertaken concurrently with this audit. These included a study
of the interval from first presentation to diagnosis for 15 cancers, using the General Practice Research
Database, large-scale significant event audit by general practices of their most recent cases of specified
cancers6, and the development of a support structure for this programme of activity within the RCGP.
2.3.1 Stage
Stage at diagnosis was simplified. We used a three stage grouping, based on the grouped staging which has
previously been employed by cancer registries and which is described by SEER. Thus, stage was described
as confined to organ, local (regional) spread, or distant (metastatic) spread.8,9 These equate to SEER stages
two to four, carcinoma in situ (stage one) being excluded from the audit. Stage was determined by the
practitioner completing the template, based on information available in the practice records, including
hospital correspondence.
10
11
3.1 Participation
In total 20 Cancer Networks participated in the audit. Two networks invited practices from selected localities
within their area, in both cases on the basis of socio-economic deprivation. In a third network five out of the
seven PCTs exercised a selection process for practices wishing to participate. In the remaining networks all
practices were invited to participate and no selection process was applied (Appendix 4).
The audit was conducted between April 2009 and April 2010. Most networks applied a specified time frame
for the selection of cases, which in most cases was 12 months. Participants were required to include all cases
with a date of diagnosis within that period. However, one network applied a quota to the number of cases a
practice was required to submit and in another, the practices were asked to focus on the four most common
cancers (breast, bowel, lung, prostate).
In total 1170 practices from 20 cancer networks participated. This represents 14% of all practices in
England, drawn from nearly three-quarters of the 28 cancer networks.
12
The completeness of data in the final audit is displayed in table 4.1-1. For categorical fields the percentage
of valid entries is shown, along with the percentage of responses that were Not known (or equivalent),
where this was a possible response. For free text fields where validation is not easily possible the percentage
of cases were the field had at least some text present is given.
Most categorical fields had a completion with a valid response of close to or above 90%. Fields for which
the response is conditional have a lower percentage completion, as might be expected.
13
Audit
16%
Registry
Fraction of cases
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Bladder
Brain
Breast
Cervical
Colorectal
Endometrial
Gallbladder
Laryngeal
Leukaemia
Liver
Lung
Lymphoma
Melanoma
Mesothelioma
Myeloma
Oesophageal
Oropharyngeal
Ovarian
Pancreatic
Prostate
Renal
Sarcoma
Small Intestine
Stomach
Testicular
Thyroid
Vulval
Other
Unknown Primary
No Information
0%
Figure 4.2-1, representation of cancers in the audit by cancer type, compared to those in cancer registry data. Data source:
Office of National Statistics. 95% confidence intervals are shown for the proportion of cancers in the audit dataset.
18%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
4%
Audit
Male
12%
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Fraction of cases
14%
16%
Female
Fraction of cases
16%
Registry
Figure 4.2-2, representation of cancers in the audit by age and sex, compared to those in cancer registry data. Breast cancer
cases are excluded. Data source: Office of National Statistics.
14
4.3 Commentary
There was very high data completeness, close to or in excess of 90% for nearly all categorical fields. The
recording of dates in the patient pathway is also close to 90%, except for the date that the patient first
noted signs or symptoms of cancer, which is close to 75%. The fraction of free text fields which were
interpretable is high. For example, it is over 95% for the number of times attending surgery and main
presenting symptom.
15
Patients included in this audit were typically aged over 65 years, men comprised 52% of the total, women
48% and 0.2% were unknown. A communication difficulty was recorded for 6.0% of the total, while 6.9%
of all patients were housebound. 78% of those included were identified as White British. White other was
the second largest identified ethnic group (3.2%) and 12% were unknown. We were not able to identify
socio-economic status at the level of the individual, since this would have necessitated the collection of
patient-identifiable data.
Number of persons
1400
1200
1000
800
Male
600
Female
400
200
0
Age band
Figure 5.1-1, number of cases in the audit by age and sex.
16,000
Number of persons
14,000
14,644
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2,239
225
612
45
16
27
100
326
62
Ethnicity
16
21
101
197
100
18
47
99
18,000
16,876
16,000
Number of persons
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
1,298
2,000
705
0
Not housebound
Housebound
Not Known
20,000
18,000
17,252
Number of persons
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
281
66
251
65
114
44
194
127
485
Figure 5.1-4, number of cases in the audit by the presence of communication difficulties.
17
2912
3000
Number of persons
2566
2500
2014
2000
1500
1000
920
574
435
500
234
152
878
760
70 129
130
596
79
422390
229
252
567
398
319
166126
119 57
76
189
74
No Information
Unknown Primary
Other
Vulval
Thyroid
Stomach
Testicular
Small Intestine
Renal
Sarcoma
Prostate
Ovarian
Pancreatic
Oropharyngeal
Myeloma
Oesophageal
Melanoma
Mesothelioma
Lung
Lymphoma
Liver
Laryngeal
Leukaemia
Gallbladder
Colorectal
Endometrial
Cervical
Brain
Breast
Bladder
5.3 Commentary
Substantial numbers of cases were included for each cancer site, with over 2000 for each of the four main
cancers. Even the very rare cancers (gallbladder, small intestine, vulva) were represented by over 50 cases,
giving a unique opportunity to gain insights into their pathway to diagnosis.
The demographic information collected is useful for understanding inequalities. The audit development
group believed that some features had a particular potential to impact on the diagnostic process in primary
care and are also commonly evident in the GP record. These included being housebound and having a
communication difficulty. However, it was recognised by the group that these are not customary measures
of inequality, and that those used by the National Cancer Equality Initiative are not all routinely recorded in
GP records. There were over 1000 cases in each of our categories, enabling some conclusions to be drawn
about the quality of care provided to them.
18
Practice
82.1%
66.7%
87.1%
88.2%
84.6%
90.6%
81.4%
89.9%
78.2%
69.2%
75.7%
82.9%
90.9%
87.3%
75.0%
89.8%
79.5%
84.8%
85.9%
86.3%
71.4%
79.8%
82.5%
79.6%
83.7%
79.4%
88.2%
79.5%
81.5%
29.7%
83.3%
Out patients
4.1%
2.1%
2.7%
2.0%
3.4%
1.4%
5.7%
3.9%
6.3%
12.3%
4.8%
4.6%
3.6%
2.5%
7.1%
2.7%
4.8%
1.4%
2.3%
4.7%
6.5%
4.2%
1.8%
2.2%
2.4%
10.3%
2.6%
4.6%
1.1%
4.1%
3.9%
A&E
4.6%
20.1%
0.6%
1.3%
5.4%
3.2%
8.6%
0.0%
4.5%
5.4%
9.5%
5.0%
0.6%
6.3%
8.3%
4.0%
3.1%
7.8%
6.4%
2.1%
10.1%
3.4%
5.3%
10.7%
3.6%
0.8%
1.3%
4.9%
11.1%
0.0%
4.5%
Walk-in centre
0.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.8%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.5%
0.2%
0.8%
0.8%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Other
6.3%
7.7%
7.4%
5.3%
4.3%
3.0%
4.3%
3.9%
7.3%
8.5%
7.8%
4.5%
3.6%
3.8%
6.0%
2.0%
9.6%
4.7%
3.6%
4.5%
9.3%
9.2%
8.8%
4.1%
7.8%
7.1%
6.6%
7.6%
4.2%
2.7%
5.7%
Not Known
2.3%
3.4%
2.2%
2.6%
1.9%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
3.3%
3.8%
2.0%
2.5%
1.3%
0.0%
3.6%
1.5%
2.6%
1.2%
1.3%
2.3%
2.0%
2.5%
1.8%
2.2%
2.4%
1.6%
1.3%
3.2%
2.1%
63.5%
2.4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
Practice
82.4%
84.3%
59.3%
83.3%
Out patients
4.6%
3.1%
1.9%
3.9%
A&E
4.9%
4.0%
9.3%
4.5%
Walk-in centre
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
Other
5.3%
6.1%
5.6%
5.7%
Not Known
2.3%
2.3%
24.1%
2.4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
9759
9066
54
18879
19
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
Practice
73.1%
85.7%
81.9%
86.8%
81.2%
84.6%
83.7%
84.1%
83.6%
83.9%
84.6%
82.7%
78.5%
77.9%
82.5%
Out patients
2.8%
1.6%
3.2%
1.6%
3.6%
1.5%
2.9%
3.6%
4.8%
5.3%
4.8%
5.6%
5.8%
3.9%
4.6%
A&E
8.3%
1.6%
6.4%
6.2%
7.1%
6.6%
5.9%
3.7%
3.0%
3.8%
4.6%
4.1%
6.6%
7.3%
4.8%
Walk-in centre
1.9%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.7%
0.9%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
Other
9.3%
6.3%
4.3%
3.9%
6.1%
5.5%
4.2%
5.3%
5.8%
5.0%
4.6%
4.4%
5.7%
7.8%
5.3%
Not Known
4.6%
4.8%
3.2%
1.6%
2.0%
1.5%
2.6%
2.3%
2.4%
1.8%
1.3%
3.0%
3.1%
2.9%
2.3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Walk-in centre
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
Other
Walk-in centre
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
Other
1.1%
4.6%
2.8%
5.3%
3.3%
2.7%
7.8%
7.0%
6.7%
7.5%
3.6%
4.6%
8.1%
10.3%
6.2%
Not Known
5.6%
4.6%
0.9%
2.1%
2.4%
1.6%
1.9%
1.0%
2.9%
3.1%
1.8%
2.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Not Known
1.9%
3.5%
15.9%
2.4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
Not Known
1.9%
3.5%
11.3%
2.4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
16876
1298
705
18879
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9,571
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
Practice
82.2%
84.6%
93.6%
88.1%
90.8%
91.4%
83.8%
85.9%
83.9%
83.6%
85.4%
85.2%
79.6%
77.7%
84.3%
Out patients
1.1%
1.5%
1.8%
2.5%
1.2%
2.2%
3.2%
3.3%
3.3%
2.6%
4.1%
3.1%
3.9%
2.8%
3.1%
A&E
6.7%
4.6%
0.9%
2.1%
2.4%
1.9%
3.2%
2.3%
3.2%
3.0%
4.9%
4.9%
5.6%
6.7%
4.0%
n
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
Communication difficulty?
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
Practice
84.3%
74.0%
69.1%
83.3%
Out patients
3.8%
4.8%
4.1%
3.9%
A&E
4.3%
6.9%
4.9%
4.5%
5.4%
10.4%
5.8%
5.7%
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
Practice
84.9%
68.4%
71.5%
83.3%
Out patients
3.9%
3.9%
4.7%
3.9%
A&E
3.9%
10.9%
6.5%
4.5%
20
Walk-in centre
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
Other
5.1%
13.1%
6.0%
5.7%
6.2 GP consultations
Concerns have been expressed about the number of times patients consult with symptoms of cancer before
being referred for specialist assessment.10 Participating practices were asked to count all consultations
relating to the presenting problem that was associated with the patients cancer. Most patients (66%)
included in the audit consulted their GP one or two times before referral. However 4% consulted five or
more times, and 9.5% did not consult at all. Those cancer sites where more than 20% of patients had three
or more consultations included lung (including mesothelioma), lymphoma, myeloma, ovary, pancreas and
stomach. This was also the case for males aged 25-29.
1
9.0%
14.1%
11.7%
5.9%
9.1%
9.0%
7.1%
8.5%
9.8%
13.1%
11.3%
8.4%
7.9%
10.1%
6.7%
7.2%
8.7%
9.7%
8.5%
6.8%
11.8%
9.2%
10.5%
8.8%
8.4%
7.1%
7.9%
12.0%
11.1%
5.4%
9.4%
2
47.0%
38.5%
72.2%
52.6%
42.4%
61.8%
30.0%
41.9%
42.7%
33.8%
28.9%
40.0%
68.5%
32.9%
24.6%
44.6%
43.2%
37.0%
32.6%
40.5%
35.2%
37.0%
36.8%
34.2%
60.8%
43.7%
57.9%
43.4%
31.2%
8.1%
46.3%
3
22.6%
16.2%
5.3%
17.8%
22.5%
15.2%
22.9%
23.3%
20.0%
19.2%
24.1%
21.2%
13.1%
26.6%
20.2%
23.5%
20.5%
22.5%
24.6%
30.6%
21.9%
23.5%
28.1%
19.1%
18.1%
26.2%
15.8%
17.8%
14.3%
13.5%
20.0%
4
6.8%
7.3%
1.4%
9.2%
9.7%
6.0%
10.0%
12.4%
7.1%
6.9%
11.0%
9.6%
2.8%
15.2%
8.7%
10.9%
11.8%
11.8%
10.5%
7.7%
8.3%
11.8%
7.0%
11.3%
3.6%
5.6%
1.3%
7.6%
13.2%
2.7%
7.5%
5+
2.1%
3.8%
0.6%
3.3%
3.7%
0.9%
4.3%
1.6%
3.7%
4.6%
6.2%
4.2%
0.7%
2.5%
9.9%
5.2%
2.6%
4.7%
6.4%
2.7%
3.3%
4.2%
8.8%
6.3%
1.2%
2.4%
1.3%
3.2%
6.3%
1.4%
3.2%
3.6%
5.6%
0.5%
4.6%
4.8%
1.4%
4.3%
3.9%
3.3%
4.6%
7.3%
8.0%
1.4%
7.6%
14.3%
3.2%
3.1%
5.7%
9.2%
2.5%
5.3%
4.2%
3.5%
8.2%
0.0%
0.8%
2.6%
3.7%
13.2%
1.4%
4.0%
Not known
8.9%
14.5%
8.4%
6.6%
7.8%
5.7%
21.4%
8.5%
13.4%
17.7%
11.1%
8.6%
5.7%
5.1%
15.5%
5.4%
10.0%
8.5%
8.2%
9.1%
14.3%
10.1%
5.3%
12.2%
7.8%
14.3%
13.2%
12.3%
10.6%
67.6%
9.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
1
9.2%
9.7%
9.3%
9.4%
2
41.8%
51.2%
42.6%
46.3%
3
23.9%
15.7%
13.0%
20.0%
4
8.2%
6.8%
0.0%
7.5%
5+
3.3%
3.2%
1.9%
3.2%
4.1%
3.9%
5.6%
4.0%
Not known
9.5%
9.4%
27.8%
9.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
9759
9066
54
18879
21
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
1
6.5%
3.2%
6.4%
5.4%
9.6%
9.6%
10.1%
8.4%
9.5%
8.6%
8.0%
8.7%
11.5%
10.2%
9.1%
2
50.9%
52.4%
46.8%
49.6%
48.7%
45.6%
39.6%
43.7%
42.5%
39.8%
41.3%
42.6%
38.6%
41.1%
41.8%
3
21.3%
9.5%
25.5%
23.3%
19.8%
21.0%
24.8%
25.5%
23.9%
26.3%
26.2%
21.6%
24.6%
19.9%
23.9%
4
5.6%
12.7%
8.5%
7.8%
8.1%
7.7%
9.2%
7.9%
8.7%
9.1%
7.5%
8.1%
7.1%
10.1%
8.3%
5+
2.8%
6.3%
0.0%
3.1%
2.0%
3.7%
2.2%
2.0%
3.6%
3.6%
3.7%
3.4%
3.5%
3.2%
3.3%
Not known
9.3%
12.7%
11.7%
7.8%
10.2%
8.1%
10.1%
8.7%
8.3%
8.9%
8.9%
10.4%
10.1%
11.6%
9.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3.7%
3.2%
1.1%
3.1%
1.5%
4.4%
4.0%
3.9%
3.6%
3.7%
4.4%
5.2%
4.5%
3.9%
4.1%
Not known
10.0%
9.2%
9.2%
5.8%
7.1%
6.2%
9.1%
8.4%
8.8%
8.7%
9.3%
9.9%
9.1%
15.5%
9.4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
4.4%
7.7%
2.8%
5.3%
2.4%
2.4%
3.4%
3.5%
4.5%
4.7%
4.1%
4.3%
3.9%
3.8%
3.9%
3.9%
4.9%
4.3%
4.0%
Not known
8.8%
13.6%
25.2%
9.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9571
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
1
7.8%
6.2%
8.3%
5.8%
7.8%
7.8%
9.7%
9.4%
10.9%
10.1%
10.0%
8.7%
11.3%
11.8%
9.8%
2
36.7%
52.3%
51.4%
58.8%
61.3%
61.4%
56.5%
54.2%
50.3%
49.4%
47.2%
47.0%
51.7%
45.3%
51.3%
3
26.7%
16.9%
19.3%
15.6%
13.9%
12.5%
13.3%
16.3%
15.7%
15.6%
19.5%
17.5%
14.3%
13.2%
15.7%
4
11.1%
6.2%
8.3%
6.2%
5.2%
6.9%
4.4%
6.1%
6.3%
6.9%
6.8%
8.1%
6.7%
7.7%
6.8%
5+
3.3%
1.5%
0.9%
2.5%
2.4%
2.7%
3.6%
2.0%
3.5%
4.5%
3.1%
4.5%
3.0%
2.6%
3.2%
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
1
9.3%
11.9%
9.7%
9.4%
2
47.1%
40.5%
33.6%
46.3%
3
20.2%
18.0%
14.6%
20.0%
4
7.4%
8.0%
9.3%
7.5%
5+
3.3%
3.1%
3.3%
3.2%
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
9.0%
13.6%
1
47.7%
37.0%
2
20.4%
15.6%
3
7.5%
7.4%
4
3.3%
3.2%
5+
3.9%
4.9%
Not known
8.3%
18.4%
Total
100%
100%
n
16876
1298
12.1%
9.4%
31.8%
46.3%
16.6%
20.0%
9.1%
7.5%
3.0%
3.2%
5.0%
4.0%
22.6%
9.5%
100%
100%
705
18879
4.1%
3.8%
3.9%
3.5%
4.0%
Not known
9.3%
9.0%
10.1%
10.7%
9.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
14644
837
1159
2239
18879
Ethnic category
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
1
9.1%
11.7%
9.5%
10.5%
9.4%
2
46.4%
47.0%
46.2%
45.9%
46.3%
3
20.1%
20.0%
18.6%
19.5%
20.0%
22
4
7.6%
5.6%
8.7%
6.8%
7.5%
5+
3.3%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.2%
Breast cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
breast abscess
breast pain
change to breast appearance
change to nipple appearance
fatigue
lump in breast
neck pain
nipple discharge
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
%
5.0%
0.3%
4.4%
3.7%
2.9%
0.3%
74.0%
0.1%
2.1%
3.3%
3.6%
0.3%
0.2%
100.0%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
%
14.8%
9.0%
3.0%
1.5%
26.4%
0.4%
4.6%
0.5%
2.2%
6.6%
24.6%
1.2%
1.8%
3.3%
100.0%
n
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
23
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
%
1.5%
6.3%
5.2%
6.6%
2.0%
25.2%
6.5%
7.4%
1.3%
1.3%
5.1%
3.3%
8.7%
15.0%
4.7%
100.0%
n
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
%
6.9%
0.5%
5.5%
1.4%
0.9%
8.4%
1.7%
1.6%
1.8%
0.6%
32.0%
3.1%
10.6%
2.0%
17.4%
4.2%
1.5%
100.0%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
24
Breast
33.1%
1.1%
10.3%
1.1%
0.2%
6.7%
2.0%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
Colorectal
Lung
41.5%
0.8%
2.5%
3.5%
0.0%
5.4%
24.6%
4.0%
61.0%
0.4%
0.3%
2.2%
Prostate
Haematology Other
74.0%
52.3%
24.4%
0.2%
0.7%
1.2%
3.0%
14.8%
4.1%
0.1%
0.5%
1.4%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
3.2%
6.1%
12.9%
Table 6.4-1, fraction of cases of specified cancer type with an investigation ordered by the GP, by investigation type (i.e.,
74.0% of prostate cancer patients have a blood test). Multiple investigations of different types in a single patient will be
counted more than once.
Chest X-ray
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
35.8%
50.0%
28.6%
1.7%
Ultrasound
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
1.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
14.3%
0.5%
MRI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Blood test
0.0%
12.5%
2.2%
3.5%
0.0%
25.0%
0.6%
0.0%
3.2%
2.0%
27.5%
12.5%
42.9%
2.0%
CT
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
12.5%
0.0%
0.2%
Endoscopy
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Table 6.4-2, percentage of cases presenting with symptom groups by type of investigation undertaken, for breast cancer.
25
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Chest X-ray
2.1%
1.3%
1.3%
2.6%
1.3%
10.0%
5.1%
7.7%
0.0%
10.6%
0.3%
0.0%
19.1%
7.1%
2.5%
Ultrasound
16.3%
2.2%
2.6%
0.0%
1.8%
20.0%
9.3%
38.5%
0.0%
12.4%
0.9%
6.7%
4.3%
10.7%
5.4%
MRI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Blood test
39.9%
64.2%
33.8%
5.3%
42.3%
60.0%
82.2%
76.9%
8.9%
43.5%
26.4%
20.0%
80.9%
57.1%
41.6%
CT
1.3%
0.9%
1.3%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.8%
Endoscopy
2.4%
4.7%
3.9%
2.6%
3.5%
10.0%
2.5%
0.0%
1.8%
2.9%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
3.5%
n
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Table 6.4-3, percentage of cases presenting with symptom groups by type of investigation undertaken, for colorectal cancer.
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Chest X-ray
30.0%
14.3%
58.7%
60.6%
40.0%
85.2%
32.3%
78.5%
48.1%
51.9%
61.8%
13.4%
30.1%
60.7%
69.1%
58.4%
Ultrasound
23.3%
0.8%
1.0%
2.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
14.8%
4.9%
3.0%
4.0%
1.0%
7.4%
2.1%
MRI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Blood test
50.0%
9.5%
12.5%
24.2%
10.0%
21.1%
46.2%
11.4%
14.8%
55.6%
34.3%
3.0%
24.4%
19.5%
57.4%
23.4%
CT
3.3%
0.8%
5.8%
6.1%
2.5%
4.3%
3.1%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
5.7%
4.6%
4.3%
3.9%
Endoscopy
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.3%
2.1%
0.4%
n
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
Table 6.4-4, percentage of cases presenting with symptom groups by type of investigation undertaken, for lung cancer.
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate glan
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
26
Chest X-ray
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
45.0%
3.8%
0.8%
0.0%
6.5%
11.8%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
12.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
22.7%
3.0%
Ultrasound
1.0%
7.1%
6.3%
0.0%
7.7%
3.3%
0.0%
4.3%
17.6%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
5.5%
1.7%
2.2%
1.7%
9.1%
3.2%
MRI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Blood test
73.5%
71.4%
50.0%
67.5%
88.5%
87.4%
86.0%
76.1%
78.4%
72.2%
87.9%
22.5%
74.1%
81.4%
66.9%
23.1%
90.9%
74.0%
CT
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Endoscopy
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
Table 6.4-5, percentage of cases presenting with symptom groups by type of investigation undertaken, for prostate cancer.
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Figure 6.4-1, percentage of cases in which access to investigation would have changed GP management, by cancer type. 95%
confidence intervals are shown.
27
Cancer type
Bladder
Brain
Breast
Cervical
Colorectal
Endometrial
Gallbladder
Laryngeal
Leukaemia
Liver
Lung
Lymphoma
Melanoma
Mesothelioma
Myeloma
Oesophageal
Oropharyngeal
Ovarian
Pancreatic
Prostate
Renal
Sarcoma
Small Intestine
Stomach
Testicular
Thyroid
Vulval
Other
Unknown Primary
No Information
Total
Blood tests CT
1
0
1
0
11
0
0
0
6
0
3
2
0
0
3
3
0
1
0
36
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
73
Table 6.4-6, investigation type for cases in which access to investigation would have changed management, by cancer type.
All
Blood tests
CT
X-Ray
Endoscopy
MRI
USS
Unknown
Total
Breast
0.4%
1.7%
1.3%
0.5%
1.6%
0.4%
0.5%
6.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.4%
0.5%
2.2%
Colorectal Lung
0.4%
1.7%
5.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.3%
0.5%
8.9%
0.1%
3.2%
0.1%
0.5%
0.1%
2.3%
0.4%
6.9%
Prostate
Haemo
Other
Brain
1.2%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
2.1%
2.2%
9.4%
0.1%
0.1%
1.6%
0.4%
0.3%
1.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.7%
1.1%
2.9%
9.8%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.4%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
2.9%
5.7%
8.4%
20.1%
Table 6.4-7, the investigations which would have changed management. The figures are the number of investigations for
which management would have been changed with a denominator all cancers of that type by all cases, by cancer type.
28
Overall, over half of all cases were referred through the two week urgent referral pathway, while 12.9%
were referred as an emergency. A proportion of these will have entered secondary care as an emergency
without having been in contact with primary care. These are likely to also be patients with zero visits to the
GP (Table 6.2.1). Emergency presentations were particularly high in the 0-24 age group, and for brain, leukaemia, liver, myeloma and pancreas. Two week referrals less likely for some cancers, notably being less than
40% of the total for brain, leukaemia, liver, and myeloma.
Emergency
13.1%
12.7%
13.0%
12.9%
2 week
50.8%
57.3%
48.1%
53.9%
Routine
4.9%
5.0%
0.0%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
7.3%
6.7%
1.9%
7.0%
2.8%
6.3%
4.3%
4.7%
7.1%
5.1%
7.3%
7.7%
6.1%
6.1%
3.6%
3.8%
3.3%
3.7%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
10.2%
6.3%
11.7%
3.9%
8.6%
7.4%
7.0%
7.3%
7.2%
5.9%
6.8%
7.5%
8.5%
8.6%
7.3%
5.6%
1.5%
4.6%
7.4%
10.4%
6.4%
6.0%
6.2%
6.5%
5.1%
3.3%
3.0%
3.5%
3.5%
5.0%
Not referred by
practice
4.4%
10.8%
3.7%
5.3%
6.1%
2.6%
7.0%
5.8%
7.0%
5.7%
6.9%
7.7%
8.7%
7.7%
6.6%
Private
17.1%
12.2%
14.8%
14.8%
Not known
6.8%
6.1%
22.2%
6.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
9759
9066
54
18879
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
Emergency
39.8%
12.7%
20.2%
15.5%
15.2%
16.5%
11.4%
12.3%
11.2%
10.3%
11.5%
11.6%
15.8%
18.5%
13.1%
2 week
25.0%
49.2%
42.6%
50.4%
48.2%
46.7%
48.4%
49.7%
51.4%
52.4%
54.0%
54.1%
47.9%
47.3%
50.7%
Routine
Private
11.1%
17.5%
14.9%
18.6%
13.7%
19.1%
18.7%
16.8%
18.2%
19.4%
18.2%
16.3%
15.7%
13.7%
17.2%
Not known
11.1%
7.9%
6.4%
7.0%
7.1%
5.1%
7.3%
6.1%
5.9%
6.0%
5.9%
6.7%
8.8%
8.2%
6.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9571
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
Emergency
45.6%
7.7%
10.1%
9.9%
7.3%
10.1%
9.6%
9.9%
12.5%
12.3%
12.2%
13.0%
15.9%
17.1%
12.7%
2 week
24.4%
50.8%
49.5%
53.1%
59.4%
62.6%
55.4%
59.8%
57.3%
57.6%
60.1%
60.1%
56.1%
53.0%
57.4%
Routine
Private
14.4%
20.0%
24.8%
18.1%
11.8%
14.2%
15.1%
12.7%
11.0%
12.9%
12.2%
10.7%
9.5%
10.5%
12.2%
Not known
5.6%
9.2%
7.3%
6.2%
5.0%
4.2%
7.0%
5.6%
5.7%
6.4%
5.4%
5.5%
6.4%
8.3%
6.1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
Emergency
12.6%
17.1%
11.5%
12.9%
2 week
54.5%
48.7%
44.5%
53.9%
Routine
Private
14.9%
13.3%
12.2%
14.8%
5.1%
2.4%
3.9%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
6.8%
9.6%
7.2%
7.0%
Not known
6.0%
8.9%
20.6%
6.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
29
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
Emergency
2 week
12.0%
22.9%
15.6%
12.9%
55.4%
41.3%
40.7%
53.9%
Routine
5.2%
2.4%
3.5%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
6.5%
12.2%
8.5%
7.0%
5.7%
4.7%
4.9%
2.0%
5.1%
6.4%
5.7%
1.6%
2.8%
3.8%
2.2%
6.4%
5.5%
3.8%
2.8%
3.7%
5.7%
8.5%
5.6%
5.5%
5.8%
8.4%
14.0%
4.4%
9.6%
9.5%
1.3%
6.2%
2.6%
0.0%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
6.2%
15.0%
5.0%
8.6%
6.5%
3.9%
12.9%
7.8%
10.5%
13.1%
11.4%
8.2%
4.0%
7.6%
8.3%
3.2%
9.2%
6.9%
7.2%
5.1%
11.8%
8.4%
10.5%
7.8%
10.8%
7.9%
5.3%
8.1%
10.6%
1.4%
7.0%
Private
15.2%
10.2%
13.6%
14.8%
Not known
5.7%
10.9%
18.0%
6.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
16876
1298
705
18879
Emergency
2 week
7.8%
39.3%
3.7%
15.1%
14.8%
6.0%
20.0%
7.8%
30.7%
27.7%
20.3%
17.8%
4.7%
29.1%
28.2%
9.9%
7.4%
23.0%
29.0%
6.6%
13.1%
14.3%
19.3%
21.0%
10.2%
7.9%
5.3%
15.9%
30.2%
10.8%
12.9%
58.8%
12.8%
75.9%
49.3%
51.4%
64.6%
34.3%
59.7%
22.1%
34.6%
49.0%
41.4%
66.5%
48.1%
33.3%
58.2%
58.5%
47.4%
40.8%
55.5%
49.0%
41.2%
29.8%
40.4%
56.6%
42.1%
65.8%
38.1%
36.0%
12.2%
53.9%
Routine
15.8%
17.5%
5.8%
19.7%
16.4%
15.9%
18.6%
21.7%
24.9%
11.5%
8.2%
18.8%
16.4%
10.1%
17.9%
17.3%
12.2%
8.1%
12.3%
21.5%
12.8%
17.6%
14.0%
17.6%
7.8%
27.8%
18.4%
23.3%
14.8%
5.4%
14.8%
Private
Not known
5.8%
10.7%
4.7%
5.3%
5.7%
3.2%
8.6%
1.6%
9.1%
9.2%
8.9%
7.4%
3.0%
1.3%
9.5%
7.7%
7.0%
6.2%
5.1%
5.8%
7.5%
10.1%
12.3%
8.8%
4.8%
4.8%
3.9%
8.5%
5.8%
70.3%
6.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
Ethnic category
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
Emergency
12.8%
15.2%
15.5%
11.3%
12.9%
2 week
54.7%
47.3%
50.9%
52.8%
53.9%
30
Routine
15.1%
13.9%
14.8%
13.3%
14.8%
Private
4.9%
5.7%
3.5%
5.5%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
6.7%
9.8%
7.7%
7.5%
7.0%
Not known
5.9%
8.1%
7.6%
9.6%
6.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
14644
837
1159
2239
18879
Emergency
10.5%
12.5%
4.5%
4.4%
3.4%
62.5%
1.9%
50.0%
3.2%
5.0%
21.1%
37.5%
0.0%
3.7%
2 week
Routine
23.7%
75.0%
69.4%
72.8%
82.8%
12.5%
84.3%
50.0%
66.7%
19.0%
48.6%
37.5%
57.1%
75.9%
Private
2.6%
0.0%
17.9%
10.5%
8.0%
25.0%
4.7%
0.0%
12.7%
0.0%
14.7%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%
1.3%
12.5%
4.5%
1.8%
2.3%
0.0%
5.2%
0.0%
9.5%
3.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
Not referred by
practice
44.1%
0.0%
0.7%
7.0%
2.3%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
4.8%
23.0%
4.6%
12.5%
14.3%
5.0%
Not known
17.8%
0.0%
3.0%
3.5%
1.1%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
3.2%
50.0%
2.8%
12.5%
28.6%
4.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Table 6.5-8, type of referral with symptom groups by type of investigation, for breast cancer.
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Emergency
27.8%
13.4%
3.9%
50.0%
9.1%
30.0%
17.8%
23.1%
7.1%
19.4%
9.8%
23.3%
36.2%
9.5%
14.8%
2 week
Routine
37.8%
51.3%
37.7%
23.7%
63.3%
10.0%
50.0%
46.2%
17.9%
51.2%
52.4%
50.0%
40.4%
72.6%
51.4%
14.2%
17.2%
6.5%
0.0%
15.8%
40.0%
16.1%
15.4%
5.4%
11.8%
23.3%
16.7%
12.8%
10.7%
16.4%
Private
6.3%
3.4%
1.3%
0.0%
5.6%
10.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
6.8%
0.0%
4.3%
1.2%
5.1%
Not referred by
practice
7.9%
9.5%
29.9%
15.8%
3.4%
0.0%
5.1%
7.7%
23.2%
7.1%
4.0%
6.7%
4.3%
3.6%
6.5%
Not known
6.0%
5.2%
20.8%
10.5%
2.8%
10.0%
4.2%
7.7%
46.4%
7.1%
3.8%
3.3%
2.1%
2.4%
5.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Table 6.5-9, type of referral with symptom groups by type of investigation, for colorectal cancer.
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Emergency
20.0%
4.8%
32.7%
25.0%
17.5%
14.4%
35.4%
12.1%
7.4%
14.8%
19.6%
11.9%
26.7%
29.0%
18.1%
20.3%
2 week
46.7%
27.8%
36.5%
50.8%
40.0%
66.7%
26.9%
68.5%
66.7%
70.4%
44.1%
14.9%
37.5%
40.6%
63.8%
49.0%
Routine
16.7%
6.3%
6.7%
6.1%
10.0%
7.1%
8.5%
6.7%
14.8%
7.4%
14.7%
4.5%
12.5%
7.9%
6.4%
8.2%
Private
6.7%
1.6%
2.9%
3.0%
2.5%
1.6%
3.8%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.5%
4.0%
2.0%
1.1%
2.2%
Not referred by
practice
10.0%
41.3%
16.3%
8.3%
17.5%
5.7%
12.3%
6.7%
3.7%
0.0%
14.7%
16.4%
13.6%
10.2%
3.2%
11.4%
Table 6.5-10, type of referral with symptom groups by type of investigation, for lung cancer.
Not known
0.0%
18.3%
4.8%
6.8%
12.5%
4.5%
13.1%
4.0%
7.4%
7.4%
4.9%
50.7%
5.7%
10.2%
7.4%
8.9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
31
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate glan
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
Emergency
4.0%
0.0%
6.3%
10.0%
3.8%
3.3%
2.0%
8.7%
2.0%
22.2%
3.9%
2.2%
13.9%
3.4%
2.4%
42.1%
13.6%
6.6%
2 week
47.0%
57.1%
70.6%
67.5%
65.4%
60.2%
60.0%
65.2%
68.6%
55.6%
61.7%
20.2%
58.3%
61.0%
50.0%
11.6%
65.9%
55.5%
Routine
26.5%
42.9%
11.9%
5.0%
15.4%
26.4%
30.0%
13.0%
17.6%
11.1%
24.5%
11.2%
15.5%
25.4%
24.0%
14.0%
11.4%
21.5%
Private
9.0%
0.0%
7.5%
5.0%
15.4%
3.7%
6.0%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
5.0%
2.2%
3.9%
5.1%
7.9%
1.7%
4.5%
5.5%
Not referred by
practice
8.5%
0.0%
1.3%
5.0%
0.0%
2.8%
0.0%
6.5%
3.9%
5.6%
1.6%
19.1%
4.9%
0.0%
8.3%
19.8%
2.3%
5.1%
Not known
5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
7.5%
0.0%
3.7%
2.0%
6.5%
0.0%
5.6%
3.3%
44.9%
3.6%
5.1%
7.5%
10.7%
2.3%
5.8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
Table 6.5-11, type of referral with symptom groups by type of investigation, for prostate cancer.
6.6 Commentary
The place of first presentation varies significantly by cancer site. For some, it reflects the fact that the
presenting symptom can be a medical or surgical emergency. An example is an uncontrolled fit due to
brain cancer, haematemesis (vomiting blood) due to stomach cancer or bowel obstruction due to colorectal
cancer. Nevertheless, a proportion of those presenting as an emergency may have delayed seeking medical
help from the GP or may have experienced difficulties with access. It is notable that emergency presentation
is more likely in those who are housebound or aged >80 years.
Predictably, those cancers with very specific presenting symptoms (breast, melanoma) usually only required
one consultation before referral and two thirds of all cases required one or two. The number of consultations
is sometimes taken as a measure of the alacrity with which a diagnosis is reached. However, this measure
should take account of the nature of general practice consultations. These are relatively short, are more
commonly initiated by the patient, make use of interval reassessment, with the results of any diagnostic
tests ordered only being available after several days. Nevertheless, it is apparent from this audit that for
some cancers, typically those with non-specific and relatively common symptoms, a greater number of
consultations occur before referral.
In nearly 10% of cases there were zero consultations. These are likely to be patients who went directly
to A&E or whose cancer was an incidental finding whilst under specialist care for a co-morbid condition.
Patients with communication difficulties and those who were housebound were more likely to record zero
consultations.
The most common presenting symptoms for each of the four main cancers concurred with the NICE criteria
for urgent referral. It is notable that, of those recorded, haemoptysis was the presenting symptom for less
than 10% of all cases of lung cancer.
The data on use of investigations and expressed need for better access to diagnostics broadly bears out the
improvements in access proposed in Improving Outcomes: a strategy for cancer. There is one exception,
however, in that for lung cancer this study indicates that only in 0.1% of cases would better access to X-ray
have changed management.
32
Two other reports provide data that can be compared with the findings of this audit. The National Cancer
Patient Experience Survey 201012 obtained direct feedback from 67000 cancer patients who were admitted
to hospital in the first quarter of 2010. It found that of those patients who saw their GP before going to
hospital, 16% did so three or four times and 9% saw their GP five or more times. These findings are broadly
similar to the audit apart from the greater proportion consulting five times or more.
The NCIN Data Briefing on Routes to Diagnosis analysed the route by which patients entered the secondary
care system. It utilised a combination of data from the National Cancer Data Repository, Cancer Waiting
Times and Hospital Episode Statistics. It found that 25% of cases were referred through the two week wait
pathway and 23% presented as emergencies. This contrasts with the findings of this audit that 53.9% were
referred by the two week wait pathway and that 12.9% presented as emergencies. The differences in these
findings may be explained by differences in the patient cohort, differences in definitions (two week wait
referral compared to two week wait diagnosis for example), case ascertainment and the exclusion of screendetected cases. A recent analysis comparing case ascertainment using the National Cancer Data Repository
and Cancer Waiting Times data has shown that the latter, which might be expected to more closely mirror
those cases that come back to general practice care, similarly underestimates the proportion of emergency
presentations (NCIN personal communication). Nevertheless, these significant differences require further
detailed analysis so that future cancer audits using different source data can be reconciled.
33
0 days
20.0%
19.3%
31.5%
19.7%
1-14 days
16.7%
22.7%
11.1%
19.6%
15-31 days
10.7%
11.3%
5.6%
11.0%
183+ days
Not known
4.8%
33.0%
4.6%
27.2%
7.4%
38.9%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
5.6%
20.4%
7.9%
20.6%
7.4%
24.5%
11.6%
24.8%
7.6%
23.9%
5.1%
25.7%
5.7%
28.6%
5.7%
30.3%
5.3%
31.2%
4.3%
33.9%
5.1%
33.2%
4.5%
36.0%
3.5%
37.8%
2.9%
36.1%
4.8%
33.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
4.4%
21.1%
3.1%
30.8%
10.1%
20.2%
4.9%
25.1%
5.7%
21.5%
6.9%
19.7%
4.2%
25.6%
4.4%
23.3%
3.3%
28.1%
4.6%
25.7%
4.5%
28.5%
3.1%
28.2%
4.6%
29.9%
5.0%
35.7%
4.5%
27.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9759
9066
54
18879
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
0 days
24.1%
25.4%
16.0%
15.5%
18.8%
17.3%
16.0%
19.5%
20.1%
18.9%
19.8%
20.4%
21.4%
23.7%
20.0%
1-14 days
29.6%
20.6%
26.6%
19.4%
18.8%
19.9%
17.4%
16.8%
16.8%
16.0%
16.8%
15.9%
15.5%
15.8%
16.8%
15-31 days
13.9%
11.1%
7.4%
14.0%
11.7%
14.7%
13.0%
10.9%
10.9%
11.1%
10.2%
10.4%
9.7%
9.6%
10.8%
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9571
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
0 days
26.7%
18.5%
22.9%
14.8%
12.7%
16.2%
20.5%
19.6%
19.0%
19.5%
18.1%
21.2%
21.0%
19.9%
19.2%
1-14 days
28.9%
21.5%
28.4%
31.3%
26.7%
28.5%
21.1%
22.8%
22.5%
22.9%
20.3%
22.1%
21.2%
20.1%
22.8%
15-31 days
6.7%
7.7%
10.1%
9.5%
16.5%
11.4%
12.7%
12.7%
10.6%
11.6%
12.3%
11.2%
10.5%
9.0%
11.4%
34
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
0 days
19.7%
21.5%
15.9%
19.7%
1-14 days
20.0%
15.5%
15.1%
19.6%
15-31 days
11.1%
10.2%
9.7%
11.0%
183+ days
Not known
4.8%
29.4%
4.2%
36.4%
3.3%
44.5%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
183+ days
Not known
4.8%
29.0%
4.1%
38.1%
2.8%
45.1%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
16876
1298
705
18879
183+ days
Not known
4.6%
29.9%
5.3%
30.6%
5.1%
30.0%
4.9%
32.6%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
14644
837
1159
2239
18879
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
0 days
19.4%
24.8%
16.5%
19.7%
1-14 days
20.0%
15.6%
16.2%
19.6%
15-31 days
11.3%
8.2%
8.1%
11.0%
Ethnic category
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
0 days
19.4%
18.8%
23.1%
20.5%
19.7%
1-14 days
20.2%
18.6%
17.7%
17.0%
19.6%
15-31 days
11.2%
9.9%
10.5%
10.5%
11.0%
0 days
29.0%
21.8%
17.2%
19.7%
19.2%
20.2%
25.7%
10.1%
19.0%
18.5%
19.3%
16.8%
17.7%
16.5%
19.4%
15.9%
13.5%
16.6%
20.3%
22.2%
27.1%
22.7%
26.3%
23.2%
15.1%
16.7%
14.5%
18.9%
28.0%
6.8%
19.7%
1-14 days
27.7%
31.6%
32.2%
15.1%
16.5%
23.9%
25.7%
12.4%
15.9%
11.5%
19.6%
21.1%
9.2%
20.3%
14.7%
16.3%
14.4%
23.0%
26.9%
10.4%
18.6%
21.0%
19.3%
14.4%
30.7%
21.4%
19.7%
14.8%
19.6%
4.1%
19.6%
15-31 days
7.4%
9.8%
11.5%
9.2%
12.0%
10.6%
7.1%
12.4%
8.2%
10.8%
12.7%
13.8%
9.5%
22.8%
11.1%
21.8%
15.3%
11.6%
13.3%
6.7%
8.5%
13.4%
8.8%
13.5%
10.2%
13.5%
14.5%
11.1%
13.8%
2.7%
11.0%
183+ days
Not known
3.5%
23.9%
2.6%
21.4%
4.0%
23.3%
11.2%
23.7%
5.3%
24.8%
6.4%
19.3%
4.3%
31.4%
10.1%
20.9%
3.0%
45.1%
2.3%
46.2%
2.5%
31.2%
4.9%
25.8%
9.6%
38.7%
5.1%
20.3%
3.6%
39.7%
3.0%
20.0%
7.0%
21.4%
3.3%
26.8%
1.5%
20.8%
5.3%
44.6%
3.0%
34.7%
8.4%
18.5%
3.5%
19.3%
5.0%
31.7%
9.0%
21.1%
9.5%
23.0%
10.5%
21.1%
6.5%
36.3%
1.6%
26.5%
5.4%
75.7%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
35
0 days
24.3%
57.1%
21.1%
34.1%
19.4%
33.3%
20.3%
50.0%
17.3%
29.4%
30.3%
40.0%
0.0%
17.2%
1-14 days
5.9%
28.6%
34.2%
25.9%
13.4%
16.7%
45.6%
0.0%
40.4%
41.2%
30.3%
20.0%
0.0%
32.2%
15-31 days
0.0%
0.0%
17.5%
16.5%
14.9%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
19.2%
11.8%
19.7%
0.0%
0.0%
11.5%
32-62 days
63-182 days
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
14.3%
14.0%
10.5%
5.9%
5.9%
14.9%
20.9%
16.7%
16.7%
7.2%
7.4%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
3.8%
5.9%
5.9%
7.9%
7.9%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
5.9%
5.9%
183+ days
Not known
0.7%
68.4%
0.0%
12.5%
2.6%
14.9%
11.8%
25.4%
16.4%
23.0%
16.7%
25.0%
4.6%
17.7%
50.0%
0.0%
11.5%
17.5%
5.9%
83.0%
3.9%
30.3%
20.0%
37.5%
0.0%
71.4%
4.0%
23.3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
183+ days
Not known
2.4%
21.0%
1.7%
49.6%
1.3%
83.1%
0.0%
21.1%
8.6%
14.3%
0.0%
20.0%
3.4%
27.1%
7.7%
15.4%
0.0%
87.5%
1.8%
30.6%
7.0%
15.7%
6.7%
23.3%
2.1%
27.7%
9.5%
19.0%
5.3%
24.8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
183+ days
Not known
0.0%
40.0%
0.8%
81.7%
1.9%
33.7%
0.8%
26.5%
2.5%
60.0%
4.1%
16.0%
3.1%
38.5%
2.7%
12.1%
0.0%
11.1%
3.7%
14.8%
2.0%
20.6%
0.0%
76.1%
1.7%
39.2%
1.7%
29.0%
5.3%
37.2%
2.5%
31.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
20.2%
24.1%
14.3%
23.7%
16.4%
30.0%
22.9%
15.4%
3.6%
25.9%
18.8%
26.7%
19.1%
17.9%
19.2%
1-14 days
25.5%
6.9%
1.3%
39.5%
14.5%
30.0%
11.9%
15.4%
1.8%
17.1%
19.6%
13.3%
21.3%
10.7%
16.5%
15-31 days
13.9%
9.1%
0.0%
2.6%
15.6%
0.0%
14.4%
30.8%
0.0%
8.8%
11.9%
6.7%
12.8%
10.7%
12.0%
32-62 days
63-182 days
8.7%
8.4%
4.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
10.5%
2.6%
13.4%
17.3%
20.0%
0.0%
13.6%
6.8%
15.4%
0.0%
1.8%
5.4%
5.3%
10.6%
13.9%
13.1%
13.3%
10.0%
6.4%
10.6%
17.9%
14.3%
10.8%
11.4%
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
16.7%
11.1%
19.2%
19.7%
15.0%
19.1%
18.5%
26.2%
14.8%
33.3%
18.6%
10.4%
19.3%
23.1%
16.0%
19.3%
1-14 days
10.0%
1.6%
26.0%
32.6%
12.5%
21.7%
17.7%
34.2%
22.2%
25.9%
26.5%
6.0%
15.9%
17.8%
5.3%
19.6%
15-31 days
16.7%
4.0%
11.5%
9.1%
7.5%
15.4%
12.3%
13.4%
25.9%
11.1%
20.6%
4.5%
9.7%
13.9%
11.7%
12.7%
32-62 days
63-182 days
6.7%
10.0%
0.0%
0.8%
6.7%
1.0%
8.3%
3.0%
2.5%
0.0%
12.2%
11.4%
6.9%
3.1%
7.4%
4.0%
22.2%
3.7%
0.0%
11.1%
7.8%
3.9%
0.0%
3.0%
8.0%
6.3%
6.6%
7.9%
16.0%
8.5%
8.2%
6.5%
36
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
0 days
17.5%
21.4%
31.3%
12.5%
23.1%
17.1%
18.0%
28.3%
25.5%
16.7%
20.4%
6.7%
19.7%
25.4%
28.1%
35.5%
20.5%
22.2%
1-14 days
1.0%
28.6%
35.0%
7.5%
19.2%
8.5%
0.0%
13.0%
19.6%
0.0%
8.3%
5.6%
17.5%
20.3%
5.9%
9.9%
11.4%
10.4%
15-31 days
0.5%
14.3%
4.4%
7.5%
11.5%
4.9%
2.0%
13.0%
17.6%
16.7%
8.7%
0.0%
10.7%
15.3%
3.1%
5.0%
9.1%
6.7%
32-62 days
63-182 days
1.0%
1.5%
21.4%
0.0%
3.1%
0.6%
12.5%
17.5%
3.8%
0.0%
9.3%
7.3%
8.0%
8.0%
6.5%
6.5%
11.8%
3.9%
5.6%
5.6%
5.9%
9.7%
1.1%
0.0%
6.5%
5.8%
8.5%
10.2%
0.6%
1.2%
5.0%
0.8%
6.8%
20.5%
5.0%
5.8%
183+ days
Not known
0.5%
78.0%
0.0%
14.3%
3.8%
21.9%
2.5%
40.0%
0.0%
42.3%
9.3%
43.5%
26.0%
38.0%
2.2%
30.4%
2.0%
19.6%
16.7%
38.9%
8.3%
38.8%
0.0%
86.5%
4.2%
35.6%
1.7%
18.6%
2.0%
59.1%
2.5%
41.3%
4.5%
27.3%
5.3%
44.6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
0 days
28.6%
18.9%
18.8%
21.5%
16.9%
12.5%
19.7%
1-14 days
25.0%
22.5%
13.4%
22.4%
9.2%
7.2%
19.6%
15-31 days
9.9%
12.9%
10.1%
12.8%
4.2%
5.5%
11.0%
32-62 days
63-182 days
5.6%
4.9%
9.1%
8.8%
6.6%
8.5%
7.2%
8.7%
2.7%
2.6%
3.3%
2.8%
7.4%
7.4%
183+ days
Not known
2.5%
23.6%
5.2%
22.6%
7.3%
35.2%
5.6%
21.8%
1.5%
62.7%
2.0%
66.7%
4.7%
30.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
2432
10175
2789
931
1323
1229
18879
0 days
24.7%
38.8%
33.3%
31.5%
1-14 days
27.0%
22.5%
7.4%
24.8%
15-31 days
12.5%
8.4%
5.6%
10.6%
183+ days
Not known
3.2%
18.0%
2.4%
15.0%
3.7%
35.2%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
9759
9066
54
18879
37
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
0 days
31.5%
30.2%
29.8%
30.2%
26.4%
30.1%
28.6%
26.2%
26.9%
21.1%
21.8%
24.1%
23.3%
26.7%
24.7%
1-14 days
28.7%
27.0%
28.7%
28.7%
27.4%
24.3%
25.5%
27.1%
25.0%
30.2%
29.4%
25.4%
25.4%
27.0%
27.1%
15-31 days
9.3%
7.9%
12.8%
7.8%
13.2%
12.5%
11.2%
14.0%
12.9%
13.6%
14.0%
12.5%
11.5%
9.3%
12.5%
183+ days
Not known
0.9%
16.7%
6.3%
14.3%
0.0%
17.0%
4.7%
14.0%
2.0%
16.8%
4.0%
13.2%
3.5%
16.5%
3.3%
15.1%
3.9%
16.3%
2.9%
16.5%
2.5%
17.9%
3.5%
19.3%
3.4%
21.9%
3.7%
20.4%
3.3%
17.8%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
3.3%
10.0%
6.2%
15.4%
5.5%
8.3%
2.9%
7.8%
2.4%
9.2%
2.1%
9.0%
1.8%
16.6%
2.5%
13.1%
1.6%
15.6%
3.4%
13.6%
2.8%
15.9%
2.6%
15.3%
2.6%
18.3%
1.8%
20.3%
2.5%
14.9%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
2.9%
15.8%
2.7%
21.3%
2.3%
32.2%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
183+ days
Not known
2.8%
15.1%
2.9%
27.7%
3.5%
32.3%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
16876
1298
705
18879
183+ days
Not known
2.8%
16.1%
2.6%
19.4%
2.1%
16.7%
3.5%
18.5%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
14644
837
1159
2239
18879
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9571
Table 7.2-2, primary care interval, by age band of patient, for males.
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
0 days
20.0%
44.6%
40.4%
41.2%
48.6%
48.2%
43.5%
40.9%
39.5%
36.6%
36.4%
35.1%
36.6%
36.0%
38.9%
1-14 days
38.9%
16.9%
14.7%
21.4%
21.0%
22.2%
22.1%
22.1%
22.0%
22.9%
22.1%
23.8%
22.0%
22.8%
22.4%
15-31 days
7.8%
4.6%
8.3%
11.5%
7.5%
6.9%
5.4%
8.1%
8.1%
8.0%
10.0%
11.0%
8.8%
7.4%
8.4%
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
Table 7.2-3, primary care interval, by age band of patient, for females.
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
0 days
31.8%
29.7%
24.1%
31.5%
1-14 days
25.1%
22.3%
19.6%
24.8%
15-31 days
10.6%
10.0%
9.3%
10.6%
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
0 days
32.2%
27.7%
22.6%
31.5%
1-14 days
25.3%
21.2%
19.1%
24.8%
15-31 days
10.7%
8.3%
10.4%
10.6%
Ethnic category
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
0 days
31.4%
33.8%
31.5%
31.0%
31.5%
1-14 days
25.1%
24.3%
22.8%
24.0%
24.8%
15-31 days
10.8%
7.0%
11.1%
9.6%
10.6%
38
0 days
31.1%
33.3%
65.2%
36.8%
29.2%
44.1%
5.7%
33.3%
19.9%
16.9%
11.8%
23.0%
50.7%
20.3%
10.3%
34.7%
34.5%
22.7%
22.6%
17.3%
20.4%
26.9%
19.3%
24.5%
37.3%
20.6%
47.4%
28.0%
24.3%
12.2%
31.5%
1-14 days
31.1%
24.4%
17.1%
22.4%
23.3%
24.1%
24.3%
23.3%
27.9%
19.2%
28.8%
27.6%
22.4%
31.6%
20.2%
20.5%
18.8%
32.7%
31.3%
31.0%
22.4%
21.0%
28.1%
18.2%
25.3%
24.6%
26.3%
22.9%
18.5%
5.4%
24.8%
15-31 days
10.1%
7.3%
2.7%
10.5%
11.5%
7.4%
15.7%
12.4%
10.1%
10.8%
13.1%
12.6%
5.8%
16.5%
13.9%
12.2%
15.3%
10.0%
10.0%
15.7%
12.6%
10.1%
8.8%
12.2%
12.7%
22.2%
6.6%
11.3%
15.3%
4.1%
10.6%
183+ days
Not known
3.2%
14.6%
2.6%
23.1%
0.9%
11.1%
2.0%
11.2%
4.1%
15.2%
2.5%
8.5%
5.7%
25.7%
3.9%
12.4%
1.6%
29.3%
3.1%
34.6%
2.7%
23.6%
4.1%
15.8%
2.4%
8.0%
0.0%
12.7%
4.8%
24.6%
2.2%
10.2%
2.6%
13.5%
0.9%
16.6%
2.8%
14.4%
3.8%
17.5%
3.3%
24.9%
5.9%
15.1%
1.8%
22.8%
4.7%
19.1%
2.4%
15.1%
4.0%
16.7%
3.9%
6.6%
3.0%
21.3%
4.2%
17.5%
1.4%
71.6%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
0 days
18.4%
50.0%
56.0%
62.3%
71.3%
37.5%
73.8%
50.0%
63.5%
10.0%
24.8%
25.0%
0.0%
65.2%
1-14 days
4.6%
37.5%
20.9%
21.1%
14.9%
12.5%
17.6%
0.0%
25.4%
3.0%
22.9%
37.5%
28.6%
17.1%
15-31 days
2.6%
0.0%
6.0%
3.5%
2.3%
12.5%
2.1%
0.0%
3.2%
1.0%
10.1%
0.0%
28.6%
2.7%
32-62 days
63-182 days
0.7%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
7.5%
4.5%
0.9%
3.5%
4.6%
2.3%
12.5%
12.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
1.6%
3.0%
0.0%
10.1%
11.9%
0.0%
12.5%
28.6%
0.0%
1.6%
1.4%
183+ days
Not known
0.0%
73.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
3.7%
0.0%
8.8%
1.1%
3.4%
0.0%
12.5%
0.9%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
83.0%
3.7%
16.5%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.9%
11.1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
39
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
21.3%
17.2%
9.1%
31.6%
33.0%
20.0%
16.1%
0.0%
7.1%
20.0%
44.6%
16.7%
17.0%
36.9%
29.2%
1-14 days
22.6%
26.7%
15.6%
31.6%
22.3%
20.0%
28.0%
53.8%
1.8%
21.8%
24.1%
33.3%
31.9%
21.4%
23.3%
15-31 days
13.1%
12.1%
2.6%
5.3%
13.6%
10.0%
17.8%
15.4%
1.8%
18.2%
7.1%
6.7%
12.8%
13.1%
11.5%
32-62 days
63-182 days
11.5%
10.0%
4.7%
6.9%
7.8%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
10.6%
9.9%
20.0%
10.0%
11.9%
8.5%
23.1%
7.7%
1.8%
1.8%
6.5%
10.0%
5.4%
6.8%
20.0%
10.0%
10.6%
14.9%
6.0%
13.1%
8.3%
8.5%
183+ days
Not known
5.2%
16.3%
7.8%
24.6%
2.6%
58.4%
2.6%
28.9%
4.0%
6.6%
10.0%
10.0%
3.4%
14.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
85.7%
2.4%
21.2%
3.8%
8.2%
3.3%
10.0%
0.0%
12.8%
2.4%
7.1%
4.1%
15.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
183+ days
Not known
0.0%
23.3%
2.4%
76.2%
1.9%
27.9%
1.5%
18.2%
2.5%
47.5%
3.4%
9.5%
1.5%
29.2%
2.7%
10.7%
0.0%
11.1%
0.0%
3.7%
4.9%
14.7%
1.5%
73.1%
3.4%
25.0%
2.6%
24.1%
3.2%
14.9%
2.7%
23.6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
13.3%
7.1%
10.6%
10.6%
7.5%
5.9%
15.4%
18.1%
25.9%
29.6%
3.9%
7.5%
21.0%
16.5%
9.6%
11.8%
1-14 days
13.3%
9.5%
18.3%
34.1%
30.0%
33.9%
23.8%
43.6%
37.0%
51.9%
24.5%
7.5%
26.1%
28.1%
37.2%
28.8%
15-31 days
26.7%
1.6%
19.2%
12.1%
7.5%
16.6%
14.6%
13.4%
11.1%
11.1%
20.6%
3.0%
9.1%
10.9%
13.8%
13.1%
32-62 days
63-182 days
13.3%
10.0%
1.6%
1.6%
13.5%
8.7%
14.4%
9.1%
2.5%
2.5%
16.8%
14.0%
9.2%
6.2%
5.4%
6.0%
14.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
12.7%
18.6%
4.5%
3.0%
10.8%
4.5%
10.9%
6.9%
10.6%
10.6%
11.3%
8.7%
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
0 days
17.5%
28.6%
34.4%
2.5%
15.4%
11.4%
14.0%
10.9%
21.6%
22.2%
13.2%
10.1%
11.0%
15.3%
24.4%
38.8%
9.1%
17.3%
1-14 days
16.0%
21.4%
33.8%
22.5%
50.0%
35.4%
28.0%
37.0%
31.4%
44.4%
39.2%
5.6%
35.6%
27.1%
22.6%
14.0%
52.3%
31.0%
15-31 days
7.5%
7.1%
13.8%
22.5%
26.9%
21.5%
20.0%
15.2%
15.7%
22.2%
18.8%
4.5%
18.4%
18.6%
12.0%
5.8%
11.4%
15.7%
32-62 days
63-182 days
6.0%
3.0%
21.4%
7.1%
5.6%
4.4%
15.0%
12.5%
7.7%
0.0%
6.5%
7.3%
14.0%
10.0%
10.9%
8.7%
7.8%
11.8%
5.6%
0.0%
9.9%
7.4%
1.1%
1.1%
9.4%
11.7%
13.6%
13.6%
3.7%
6.5%
0.8%
2.5%
11.4%
6.8%
7.6%
7.0%
40
183+ days
Not known
3.5%
46.5%
7.1%
7.1%
2.5%
5.6%
2.5%
22.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.7%
12.2%
6.0%
8.0%
2.2%
15.2%
5.9%
5.9%
0.0%
5.6%
4.6%
6.9%
0.0%
77.5%
2.6%
11.3%
10.2%
1.7%
3.7%
27.0%
0.0%
38.0%
4.5%
4.5%
3.8%
17.5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
0 days
34.3%
38.9%
21.2%
33.6%
10.4%
8.6%
31.5%
1-14 days
27.3%
28.0%
25.7%
31.0%
4.8%
7.5%
24.8%
15-31 days
9.3%
11.7%
14.5%
9.5%
2.6%
3.9%
10.6%
32-62 days
63-182 days
6.5%
6.1%
8.1%
6.1%
10.3%
11.2%
7.3%
6.8%
2.4%
2.0%
2.7%
2.5%
7.4%
6.3%
183+ days
Not known
2.9%
13.7%
2.5%
4.7%
5.8%
11.3%
4.0%
7.8%
0.7%
77.0%
0.9%
73.9%
2.9%
16.6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
2432
10175
2789
931
1323
1229
18879
0 days
9.1%
8.8%
9.3%
8.9%
1-14 days
45.0%
51.7%
27.8%
48.2%
15-31 days
17.1%
16.1%
11.1%
16.6%
183+ days
Not known
1.4%
13.2%
1.1%
12.2%
0.0%
35.2%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
0.9%
16.7%
0.0%
11.1%
2.1%
17.0%
1.6%
12.4%
1.5%
15.2%
0.4%
12.1%
1.1%
14.9%
1.7%
11.1%
1.7%
11.0%
2.0%
11.5%
1.3%
12.3%
1.5%
13.3%
0.8%
16.0%
1.8%
16.0%
1.5%
13.1%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
183+ days
Not known
1.1%
10.0%
4.6%
12.3%
0.9%
7.3%
0.0%
8.2%
1.2%
10.1%
0.3%
8.3%
1.5%
12.5%
0.8%
10.5%
1.5%
12.4%
0.7%
11.9%
1.2%
12.3%
1.4%
11.5%
1.6%
14.4%
0.7%
16.0%
1.1%
12.1%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9759
9066
54
18879
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
0 days
29.6%
6.3%
12.8%
5.4%
9.6%
9.2%
8.1%
8.1%
7.6%
7.6%
8.3%
8.1%
11.8%
12.6%
9.1%
1-14 days
32.4%
54.0%
44.7%
46.5%
44.7%
46.0%
42.2%
48.7%
47.2%
45.0%
45.8%
45.2%
42.5%
41.0%
44.9%
15-31 days
9.3%
14.3%
10.6%
20.2%
15.7%
16.5%
18.5%
16.6%
18.0%
17.0%
18.0%
18.7%
15.8%
15.8%
17.2%
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1256
1367
1534
1419
1135
793
9571
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
0 days
34.4%
6.2%
6.4%
7.0%
5.2%
5.6%
7.0%
5.6%
7.7%
8.6%
8.9%
8.7%
11.1%
13.3%
8.7%
1-14 days
33.3%
36.9%
43.1%
55.1%
56.8%
59.2%
49.0%
57.5%
52.7%
52.5%
53.3%
52.6%
46.9%
46.6%
51.9%
15-31 days
11.1%
20.0%
22.0%
15.2%
17.9%
15.8%
19.8%
15.5%
15.5%
15.3%
14.6%
16.1%
17.3%
15.1%
16.1%
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1037
1096
940
955
8889
41
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
0 days
8.7%
12.8%
7.6%
8.9%
1-14 days
49.0%
40.2%
39.6%
48.2%
15-31 days
16.8%
15.3%
14.6%
16.6%
183+ days
Not known
1.3%
12.0%
0.9%
17.2%
0.4%
28.0%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
17252
1142
485
18879
183+ days
Not known
1.3%
11.3%
1.0%
22.4%
0.9%
28.9%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
16876
1298
705
18879
183+ days
Not known
1.3%
12.1%
1.0%
16.8%
1.4%
13.3%
1.4%
15.0%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
14644
837
1159
2239
18879
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
0 days
8.4%
16.1%
9.2%
8.9%
1-14 days
49.5%
37.3%
37.2%
48.2%
15-31 days
17.0%
13.8%
13.0%
16.6%
Ethnic category
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
0 days
8.9%
9.6%
9.1%
8.4%
8.9%
1-14 days
48.9%
41.8%
43.2%
48.8%
48.2%
15-31 days
16.8%
16.6%
17.8%
15.0%
16.6%
0 days
5.3%
26.9%
2.7%
7.9%
10.9%
3.0%
14.3%
3.9%
22.8%
15.4%
15.6%
13.0%
2.1%
21.5%
14.3%
6.0%
5.2%
17.1%
20.5%
4.1%
9.0%
5.9%
15.8%
13.8%
5.4%
3.2%
2.6%
10.4%
23.3%
4.1%
8.9%
1-14 days
45.3%
28.2%
66.1%
46.7%
44.3%
55.2%
34.3%
48.8%
27.0%
38.5%
43.9%
44.1%
54.8%
46.8%
40.9%
49.5%
56.8%
51.7%
45.1%
45.9%
45.2%
51.3%
40.4%
36.1%
56.0%
38.1%
52.6%
38.3%
40.7%
12.2%
48.2%
42
15-31 days
23.2%
12.0%
16.2%
21.1%
16.0%
20.9%
12.9%
20.9%
13.8%
12.3%
13.9%
17.5%
17.7%
13.9%
17.1%
19.6%
15.3%
12.6%
12.8%
19.5%
14.3%
11.8%
12.3%
16.9%
15.1%
19.8%
19.7%
12.9%
9.5%
6.8%
16.6%
183+ days
Not known
2.0%
11.3%
0.9%
21.8%
0.6%
9.2%
0.0%
10.5%
1.0%
12.1%
1.1%
7.6%
2.9%
24.3%
0.8%
11.6%
1.6%
16.6%
3.1%
21.5%
1.2%
19.0%
1.6%
11.8%
1.6%
6.9%
0.0%
8.9%
0.4%
14.3%
1.7%
10.2%
0.9%
12.2%
0.5%
13.7%
1.8%
13.3%
1.8%
10.7%
1.5%
18.6%
0.8%
13.4%
0.0%
19.3%
2.2%
16.3%
0.6%
15.7%
0.8%
10.3%
2.6%
6.6%
1.8%
15.5%
1.6%
17.5%
0.0%
68.9%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
920
234
3046
152
2566
435
70
129
574
130
2014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18879
0 days
12.5%
12.5%
1.5%
1.8%
0.0%
37.5%
1.5%
50.0%
1.6%
2.0%
14.7%
12.5%
0.0%
2.7%
1-14 days
30.9%
50.0%
59.7%
61.4%
64.4%
37.5%
72.7%
50.0%
57.1%
24.0%
45.0%
50.0%
28.6%
66.1%
15-31 days
7.2%
25.0%
24.6%
19.3%
24.1%
25.0%
16.2%
0.0%
20.6%
3.0%
17.4%
0.0%
28.6%
16.2%
32-62 days
63-182 days
2.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
8.2%
0.7%
8.8%
0.9%
5.7%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
3.2%
1.0%
0.0%
11.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
4.4%
0.8%
183+ days
Not known
0.7%
46.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
3.7%
0.0%
7.9%
2.3%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.7%
0.0%
70.0%
0.9%
9.2%
0.0%
37.5%
14.3%
14.3%
0.6%
9.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
21.3%
9.5%
3.9%
42.1%
6.6%
20.0%
14.4%
23.1%
1.8%
14.7%
6.6%
16.7%
27.7%
4.8%
10.9%
1-14 days
35.7%
40.1%
27.3%
21.1%
52.1%
20.0%
43.2%
46.2%
12.5%
45.3%
48.3%
40.0%
40.4%
54.8%
44.3%
15-31 days
15.7%
15.5%
11.7%
5.3%
18.0%
10.0%
17.8%
15.4%
5.4%
12.9%
16.6%
20.0%
12.8%
19.0%
16.0%
32-62 days
63-182 days
6.8%
4.7%
17.2%
4.3%
11.7%
1.3%
2.6%
2.6%
13.4%
3.7%
30.0%
10.0%
8.5%
1.7%
15.4%
0.0%
5.4%
0.0%
7.6%
2.4%
15.3%
4.9%
6.7%
3.3%
2.1%
2.1%
7.1%
6.0%
11.8%
3.9%
183+ days
Not known
0.8%
15.0%
1.3%
12.1%
2.6%
41.6%
0.0%
26.3%
1.3%
4.9%
0.0%
10.0%
1.7%
12.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%
0.6%
16.5%
0.6%
7.6%
0.0%
13.3%
2.1%
12.8%
1.2%
7.1%
1.0%
12.1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
183+ days
Not known
13.3%
13.3%
1.6%
51.6%
2.9%
23.1%
0.8%
16.7%
0.0%
27.5%
0.8%
9.5%
0.8%
24.6%
0.0%
9.4%
11.1%
11.1%
0.0%
3.7%
1.0%
12.7%
0.0%
70.1%
1.7%
18.2%
0.7%
19.1%
1.1%
9.6%
1.2%
19.0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
0 days
16.7%
4.8%
25.0%
18.2%
22.5%
10.1%
24.6%
9.4%
7.4%
3.7%
18.6%
4.5%
22.2%
23.1%
14.9%
15.6%
1-14 days
40.0%
19.0%
33.7%
43.2%
35.0%
54.8%
30.0%
65.8%
55.6%
74.1%
42.2%
13.4%
38.6%
40.6%
53.2%
43.9%
15-31 days
13.3%
15.1%
9.6%
14.4%
10.0%
18.5%
13.8%
11.4%
11.1%
18.5%
20.6%
3.0%
10.8%
10.6%
13.8%
13.9%
32-62 days
63-182 days
3.3%
0.0%
7.1%
0.8%
5.8%
0.0%
6.1%
0.8%
5.0%
0.0%
4.9%
1.4%
5.4%
0.8%
2.7%
1.3%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
1.0%
7.5%
1.5%
6.3%
2.3%
4.0%
2.0%
6.4%
1.1%
5.0%
1.2%
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
43
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
0 days
2.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
3.8%
0.8%
0.0%
6.5%
0.0%
16.7%
2.5%
2.2%
9.4%
1.7%
1.6%
28.9%
4.5%
4.1%
1-14 days
43.0%
57.1%
55.6%
55.0%
73.1%
48.4%
52.0%
54.3%
51.0%
55.6%
50.3%
11.2%
50.8%
45.8%
40.6%
9.9%
63.6%
45.9%
15-31 days
19.0%
14.3%
18.8%
25.0%
11.5%
21.1%
18.0%
13.0%
23.5%
11.1%
21.8%
7.9%
16.8%
30.5%
20.9%
9.9%
11.4%
19.5%
32-62 days
63-182 days
14.0%
5.0%
21.4%
7.1%
11.9%
3.1%
2.5%
0.0%
7.7%
3.8%
14.6%
6.5%
16.0%
10.0%
10.9%
2.2%
13.7%
5.9%
11.1%
0.0%
13.1%
6.0%
4.5%
5.6%
9.1%
3.2%
15.3%
3.4%
15.4%
6.1%
10.7%
6.6%
11.4%
2.3%
12.7%
5.3%
183+ days
Not known
0.5%
16.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
5.6%
2.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
7.7%
2.0%
2.0%
2.2%
10.9%
2.0%
3.9%
0.0%
5.6%
1.8%
4.5%
1.1%
67.4%
1.6%
9.1%
1.7%
1.7%
2.6%
13.0%
1.7%
32.2%
2.3%
4.5%
1.8%
10.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
0 days
53.4%
1.0%
1.0%
6.0%
11.9%
3.7%
8.9%
1-14 days
20.8%
72.8%
11.8%
64.3%
11.1%
9.0%
48.2%
15-31 days
7.6%
17.8%
28.4%
16.6%
6.3%
9.0%
16.6%
32-62 days
63-182 days
5.7%
1.8%
3.7%
0.8%
37.4%
14.5%
5.9%
1.3%
4.0%
2.2%
4.5%
1.8%
9.1%
3.1%
183+ days
Not known
0.7%
10.0%
1.3%
2.6%
2.3%
4.7%
1.2%
4.6%
0.5%
64.1%
0.9%
71.3%
1.3%
12.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
2432
10175
2789
931
1323
1229
18879
7.4 Commentary
The data on patient delay should be interpreted with considerable caution, for the reasons previously stated,
namely that information on duration of symptoms is not always recorded in the clinical record. When it is,
the information may not have been elicited in a systematic way and reflects the doctors interpretation of the
patients statements. Overall, 12% of patients were recorded as having symptoms for two months or more
prior to first presentation. There were some surprising patient delays relating to alarm symptoms 12% of
those with breast lump, 26% of those with change in bowel habit and 20% of those with rectal bleeding
delayed for more than two months before consulting. This underlines the importance of communicating
messages to the public on the importance of seeking medical advice promptly.
There was little impact on the primary care interval relating to housebound status, communication difficulty
or ethnicity. The duration of this interval was shorter for women, related to the high proportion of two week
wait referrals for breast cancer. Some symptoms were associated with delays of two months or more, over
15% of cases of colorectal cancer presenting with anaemia, and of lung cancer presenting with cough or
musculoskeletal pain.
For the referral period, the fractions with zero and one - 14 day duration correlate well with emergency
and two week wait referrals. Similarly, the larger fraction of patients who are housebound or have
communication difficulties that have short referral delay is likely to represent their greater likelihood to be
referred as emergencies.
44
Stage at diagnosis was determined by the practice following review of the available clinical records and
hospital correspondence, and was assigned to categories that equate to the grouped staging described by
SEER. Of all the cancers included in this audit, 46% were identified as confined to the organ, 25% with
local (regional) spread and 18% with metastatic disease. For 11% the stage was unknown. Solid tumours
comprised 91% of the total. Of these, 52% were confined to the organ. There was a large variation in the
fraction of tumours diagnosed with organ confined disease. If tumours with unknown stage had the same
distribution as those recorded then these figures ranged from Brain (80%), Melanoma (78%) and Testicular
(74%) down to Pancreatic (22%), Ovarian (28%) and Lung (28%). The following tables relate stage at
diagnosis to demographic features, tumour type, referral route and presenting symptom (for the four
common cancers only).
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
46.9%
22.5%
19.0%
44.2%
27.9%
17.0%
24.1%
20.4%
14.8%
45.5%
25.1%
18.0%
Not known
11.5%
10.9%
40.7%
11.3%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
48.1%
21.3%
12.0%
57.1%
17.5%
12.7%
62.8%
18.1%
11.7%
50.4%
20.9%
14.7%
39.6%
31.5%
16.8%
50.0%
24.3%
15.1%
47.5%
23.5%
16.5%
44.9%
24.7%
20.4%
50.1%
21.3%
17.4%
50.8%
21.9%
17.6%
45.6%
24.6%
20.3%
46.4%
21.3%
19.8%
44.2%
22.1%
20.3%
41.5%
21.7%
22.4%
46.9%
22.6%
18.9%
Not known
18.5%
12.7%
7.4%
14.0%
12.2%
10.7%
12.5%
10.0%
11.1%
9.7%
9.5%
12.5%
13.4%
14.4%
11.5%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
9,759
9,066
54
18,879
Males, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All males
n
108
63
94
129
197
272
455
749
1,256
1,367
1,534
1,419
1,135
793
9,571
45
Females, by ageband
0-24
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85+
All females
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
42.2%
22.2%
12.2%
50.8%
24.6%
12.3%
56.9%
23.9%
11.0%
50.6%
28.8%
10.7%
50.2%
32.5%
7.3%
49.4%
30.6%
13.4%
48.1%
29.7%
11.0%
44.2%
30.5%
16.2%
42.6%
27.3%
19.2%
42.1%
27.8%
19.3%
42.5%
27.3%
21.1%
45.6%
24.7%
18.2%
39.3%
29.4%
19.0%
40.3%
25.1%
18.7%
44.1%
27.9%
17.0%
Not known
23.3%
12.3%
8.3%
9.9%
9.9%
6.6%
11.2%
9.0%
10.9%
10.8%
9.1%
11.5%
12.3%
15.8%
11.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
90
65
109
243
424
625
616
789
947
953
1,037
1,096
940
955
8,889
Communication difficulty
None
Communication difficulty
Not known
Total
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
46.6%
25.3%
17.6%
36.7%
27.6%
22.1%
29.5%
13.8%
22.7%
45.5%
25.1%
18.0%
Not known
10.5%
13.7%
34.0%
11.3%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
17,252
1,142
485
18,879
Not known
10%
16%
28%
11%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
16,876
1,298
705
18,879
Local spread
Not known
Total
Housebound?
No
Yes
Not Known
Total
Organ
47%
31%
27%
46%
Ethnic category
Organ
White British
White other
Nonwhite
Not Known
Total
Table 8.1-6, stage, by ethnic category.
46
46.0%
42.4%
43.7%
44.8%
45.5%
25.1%
28.6%
28.2%
22.7%
25.1%
Distant mets
18.4%
17.1%
16.1%
17.1%
18.0%
10.6%
11.9%
12.0%
15.3%
11.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
14,644
837
1,159
2,239
18,879
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
67.6%
18.5%
4.9%
72.2%
13.7%
5.1%
48.2%
33.8%
8.7%
30.9%
43.4%
13.2%
39.9%
30.9%
21.9%
62.5%
23.7%
5.5%
30.0%
27.1%
35.7%
58.1%
33.3%
2.3%
46.2%
6.4%
4.2%
39.2%
14.6%
33.1%
24.7%
29.5%
35.6%
34.6%
23.3%
19.6%
70.7%
14.8%
5.5%
35.4%
39.2%
6.3%
36.5%
8.7%
22.2%
31.5%
32.9%
24.3%
40.2%
46.7%
7.9%
24.4%
32.2%
36.0%
19.7%
29.2%
41.8%
61.4%
15.6%
14.0%
50.0%
15.3%
28.1%
47.1%
28.6%
17.6%
40.4%
26.3%
21.1%
28.5%
35.7%
28.8%
70.5%
16.3%
8.4%
51.6%
25.4%
11.1%
50.0%
35.5%
3.9%
41.1%
25.9%
14.3%
1.6%
4.8%
87.3%
10.8%
6.8%
6.8%
45.5%
25.1%
18.0%
Not known
9.0%
9.0%
9.3%
12.5%
7.2%
8.3%
7.1%
6.2%
43.2%
13.1%
10.2%
22.5%
9.0%
19.0%
32.5%
11.2%
5.2%
7.3%
9.2%
9.0%
6.5%
6.7%
12.3%
6.9%
4.8%
11.9%
10.5%
18.7%
6.3%
75.7%
11.3%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
n
920
234
3,046
152
2,566
435
70
129
574
130
2,014
760
878
79
252
596
229
422
390
2,912
398
119
57
319
166
126
76
567
189
74
18,879
47
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
61.8%
23.0%
7.2%
37.5%
25.0%
25.0%
50.7%
30.6%
9.7%
35.1%
45.6%
12.3%
52.9%
39.1%
3.4%
25.0%
37.5%
37.5%
49.0%
35.8%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
73.0%
15.9%
4.8%
42.0%
20.0%
5.0%
16.5%
21.1%
56.9%
12.5%
12.5%
75.0%
28.6%
14.3%
42.9%
48.2%
33.8%
8.7%
Not known
7.9%
12.5%
9.0%
7.0%
4.6%
0.0%
9.0%
0.0%
6.3%
33.0%
5.5%
0.0%
14.3%
9.3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
152
8
134
114
87
8
2254
2
63
100
109
8
7
3046
Colorectal cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
anaemia
asymptomatic
bowel obstruction
change in bowel habit
epigastric pain
fatigue
nausea
not known
other
rectal hemorrhage
rectal pain
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
29.4%
31.0%
32.8%
45.3%
33.6%
13.4%
58.4%
14.3%
19.5%
42.1%
28.9%
21.1%
40.3%
33.9%
19.5%
10.0%
30.0%
60.0%
32.2%
33.1%
25.4%
23.1%
30.8%
46.2%
32.1%
19.6%
14.3%
32.4%
24.7%
35.3%
49.4%
29.3%
15.2%
26.7%
53.3%
13.3%
34.0%
38.3%
25.5%
27.4%
31.0%
35.7%
39.9%
30.9%
21.9%
48
Not known
6.8%
7.8%
7.8%
7.9%
6.3%
0.0%
9.3%
0.0%
33.9%
7.6%
6.2%
6.7%
2.1%
6.0%
7.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
381
232
77
38
678
10
118
13
56
170
632
30
47
84
2566
Lung cancer
Symptom
abdominal pain
asymptomatic
chest infection
chest pain
chronic bronchitis, emphysema
cough
fatigue
haemoptysis
hoarse voice
lymphadenopathy
musculoskeletal pain
not known
other
shortness of breath
weight loss
Total
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
10.0%
23.3%
63.3%
49.2%
23.8%
19.0%
29.8%
32.7%
26.9%
22.0%
32.6%
35.6%
42.5%
22.5%
20.0%
24.9%
37.9%
30.2%
16.9%
23.8%
49.2%
34.9%
32.9%
24.2%
11.1%
33.3%
40.7%
7.4%
22.2%
70.4%
17.6%
18.6%
57.8%
17.9%
16.4%
35.8%
15.3%
22.2%
53.4%
25.1%
30.7%
30.4%
18.1%
24.5%
40.4%
24.7%
29.5%
35.6%
Not known
3.3%
7.9%
10.6%
9.8%
15.0%
7.1%
10.0%
8.1%
14.8%
0.0%
5.9%
29.9%
9.1%
13.9%
17.0%
10.2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Not known
5.5%
14.3%
8.1%
2.5%
7.7%
8.9%
8.0%
0.0%
9.8%
5.6%
9.5%
31.5%
9.7%
6.8%
6.5%
10.7%
9.1%
9.0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
30
126
104
132
40
507
130
149
27
27
102
67
176
303
94
2014
Prostate cancer
Symptom
asymptomatic
blood in the semen
blood in the urine
bone pain
change in bowel habit
enlargement of the prostate glan
erectile dysfunction
fatigue
genitourinary tract pain
incontinence
lower urinary tract symptoms
not known
other
painful urination
raised psa
urine retention
weight loss
Total
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
75.5%
14.0%
5.0%
57.1%
14.3%
14.3%
63.8%
12.5%
15.6%
35.0%
5.0%
57.5%
50.0%
19.2%
23.1%
64.6%
16.7%
9.8%
70.0%
20.0%
2.0%
39.1%
17.4%
43.5%
54.9%
19.6%
15.7%
66.7%
11.1%
16.7%
63.1%
17.8%
9.7%
44.9%
13.5%
10.1%
48.5%
9.1%
32.7%
66.1%
15.3%
11.9%
71.9%
16.3%
5.3%
47.1%
15.7%
26.4%
25.0%
22.7%
43.2%
61.4%
15.6%
14.0%
200
14
160
40
26
246
50
46
51
18
931
89
309
59
508
121
44
2912
49
Emergency
2 week
Routine
Private
Not referred by practice
Not known
Total
Organ
Local spread Distant mets
34.1%
24.8%
28.3%
47.1%
27.5%
16.5%
54.0%
20.4%
13.7%
47.5%
26.4%
17.0%
45.5%
21.4%
20.9%
34.3%
19.9%
18.1%
45.5%
25.1%
18.0%
Not known
12.7%
8.9%
11.8%
9.1%
12.2%
27.7%
11.3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
2432
10175
2789
931
1323
1229
18879
8.5 Commentary
This is the most comprehensive description of stage at diagnosis yet to become available. Levels of recording
vary considerably by cancer registry and by cancer site, but even in the best circumstances are in the
region of 75% complete across all cancer types. In this audit we received stage data on 89% of all cases
and the proportion is higher if only solid tumours are considered. The data for a small number of sites
should be interpreted with caution. The staging for myeloma and leukaemia are not compatible with the
options offered in this audit and therefore the data for these sites are not reliable . Brain cancer very rarely
undergoes distant spread (though it is a site for secondary spread) and the reported 5.1% with distant
spread may be unreliable.
When all cancers are considered, there are notable differences in stage at diagnosis for those with
communication difficulty and housebound status. Cancer diagnosis in these population sub-groups merits
further investigation to determine the underlying reasons. Age >75 yrs was associated with more advanced
stage for prostate cancer but with earlier stage for lung cancer.
For emergency presentations, compared to other referrals, there are about 25% fewer with organ-confined
disease, mirrored by a greater proportion with disseminated disease. Even so, a third of emergency
presentations have disease confined to the organ or origin. We need to know more about the way that
symptoms develop in these patients in order to understand where interventions to reduce emergency
presentation can be most effectively targeted.
50
This first national audit of cancer diagnosis in primary care gained the participation of 14% of all the
practices in England, a remarkable level of voluntary participation. It has demonstrated that high quality,
reliable information on the primary care pathway to cancer diagnosis can be collected through audit utilising
primary care records. It has provided unique insights into the diagnostic pathway for the rarer cancers, for
which it obtained data on significant numbers in all cases.
There are important potential sources of bias to be acknowledged. Participation was voluntary, and in a few
cases selective. It is possible that those practices most interested in cancer care volunteered to participate,
and therefore the findings represent better practice. Against this, one in six of all English general practices
participated and the effect is unlikely to be a major bias.
Practices were required to audit all cases occurring in a specified period. There are 250,000 cases of cancer
annually in England. When this figure is adjusted by the exclusion criteria for the audit and the proportion of
practices participating, there is no evidence of significant exclusion of cases.
Data was extracted from clinical records and hospital correspondence. This was done by a range of
individuals, sometimes a clinician and sometimes an administrative assistant. In all cases it was reviewed at
a practice meeting and then by a cancer network clinical lead. There is scope for errors of interpretation, for
example in deciding on the date of first consultation or the stage of disease. Such potential sources of error
apply to most studies of diagnostic intervals and we do not believe that this audit was more susceptible for
some reason. We particularly stress caution in the interpretation of the patient interval, since this is better
determined by means other than scrutiny of GP records.
Two other important reports have been published in recent months, the NCIN analysis of Routes to Diagnosis
and the Patient Experience survey. In several respects the findings of this audit bear out the findings of those
reports. For example, in finding that two-thirds of patients consult once or twice before referral. Where they
differ, for example on the proportion of emergency presentations, it is important to carefully analyse the
reasons. The valuable understanding of cancer diagnosis that is being built up through these separate pieces
of work will be stronger for doing so.
This report provides a descriptive overview of the results of the audit. It offers an opportunity to Cancer
Networks and PCTs to benchmark their own local results against a national picture. There remain some
significant pieces of work to be undertaken. For example, over 4000 free text comments were made on
reasons for delay in diagnosis and these are currently being analysed using a combination of qualitative
and quantitative methods. The oversight group have put in place a process by which requests for access
to the data by bona fide researchers and NHS organisations for the purpose of additional analysis can be
considered.
As a result of the experience of conducting this audit, some changes have been made to the fields and
explanatory notes. These continue to be available on www.durham.ac.uk/school.health/erdu/cancer_audit/.
In 2010/11 its use is being encouraged by Cancer Network GP leads as they work with selected practices on
the introduction of practice cancer profiles.
Future audit of the part played by general practice in cancer diagnosis may develop in several directions. The
cancer diagnostic pathway spans primary and secondary care. Combining primary and secondary care audit
for specific cancer sites has the potential to offer valuable insights into the sometimes poorly understood
interaction between two, informing future commissioning needs.
51
1. In the absence of a NICE Quality Standard or NHS Commissioning Board guidance, commissioners
might like to consider the following points when commissioning cancer care in primary care settings.
Specifically, the findings from this report could inform the setting of criteria for good practice in cancer
diagnosis in primary care.
2. The findings of this report could be used to inform plans to improve access to diagnostics as outlined in
Improving Outcomes: a Strategy for Cancer
3. The Cancer Diagnosis Audit Tool could be a useful tool for practices, Cancer Networks and
commissioners to identify local areas for improvement and to monitor the impact of service
improvements.
4. The systematic use of national level data on the audit of cancer diagnosis could be used in order to
monitor the impact on primary care outcomes of policy in the area of early diagnosis.
5. The Cancer Diagnosis Audit Tool could be used by practices to review their quality of care in the area of
cancer diagnosis. Aspects of care that might be examined could include
The number of consultations prior to referral
The proportion of patients with cancer who present as an emergency
The quality of care experienced by patients who are disadvantaged by virtue of being housebound,
having communication difficulties, being old or from an ethnic minority
The use of appropriate basic investigations prior to referral
6. Analytical support could be made available for those commissioners and networks that make localitywide use of the audit tool.
7. Primary care audit could be combined with other data, from secondary care audit or from the
Association of Public Health Observatories Practice Profiles, for example, to generate more detailed
understanding of factors influencing the pathway to diagnosis.
8. The role of co-morbidities should be examined in future audit.
Acknowledgements
We wish to specifically acknowledge the contributions of Nicola Cooper and Chris Carrigan at NCIN, as well
as the support of the Cancer Network GP leads at the time of this audit.
52
53
NCAT Sponsor
Kathy Elliott
kathy.elliott@gstt.nhs.uk
Information
Custodian
Local
Guardian
54
Security of data
The data will be held in same system that is currently used to store the cancer registration dataset for the
South West of England. This is a server which is an integral part of the South West Public Health Observatory
local area network. The SWPHO network has a hardened CISCO PIX firewall and anti-virus software which
are approved to a NHS code of connection standard.
User access is through PC terminals, running Windows XP, physically within the organisation. These are
password protected and can only be used by members of the organisation. In addition, access to the data
is restricted to those who use it as part of their daily work. The building in which the data is held is secure
with two independent alarm systems. Daytime access requires both a pin number and a swipe-card to pass
through two locked doors. Servers are located behind further doors with separate pin coded security locks,
accessible only by nominated IT support staff. The SWPHO security policy is fully implemented and complies
with ISO 17799 and 27001.
Data backups are held encrypted on magnetic tapes on site in a locked fireproof safe.
Anonymisation
Using the process described below and embodied in the accompanying spreadsheet will pseudo-anonymise
the patients and GP surgeries. Each patient and GP surgery will be assigned a new ID number. Each network
or PCT that submits data will hold the file which will cross reference the new ID number to a list of GP
surgeries, meaning that practices are anonymous within the national analysis.
This type of pseudo-anonymisation will allow the NCAT to inform a submitting network/PCT if analysis of
the data reveals issues of clinical significance, and for the network/PCT to trace these to their source, all the
while preserving the anonymity of the GP surgeries at a national level.
The pseudo-anonymisation process will also allow data quality issues within the dataset to be investigated
by grouping patients by their GP surgery while anonymising both their identity and that of their GP surgery.
Careful data quality work of this nature is necessary to ensure robustness of the resultant analyses.
55
56
What is wanted
Patient ID
NHS No.
DoB
Gender
Ethnicity
Country of origin
Problems communicating
Housebound
Date of birth
Male or Female
Ethnicity of patient
Patient's country of origin
Any communication problems the patient has
Is the patient housebound
Diagnosis
Enter the diagnosis of the primary cancer Please note that the
audit should only include confirmed malignancies and
EXCLUDES non-melanotic carcinomas of the skin. Also
EXCLUDE CIN, for example of the cervix, or other carcinoma in
situ.
Date
patient
noted
first
symptoms or signs of cancer
For all date entries please enter date as dd/mm/yy. This will
allow a hidden program to calculate the number of days
between different dates. If the notes only refer to the month
(i.e. diarrhoea since May 2007), put '15th' as the day of the
month (i.e. 15/05/07) If the date is not known, please enter 'NK'
57
Date that the referral letter was sent from Primary Care. If this
is not available, please use the date that the referral letter or
proforma was completed.
Type of referral
Date the patient first had contact with secondary care following
the referral, whether for an investigation or an out patient
appointment
58
localities
participating
practices
Cancer Network
Participating PCTs /
localities
No of
participating
practices
% uptake
Greater
Manchester and
Cheshire
11 PCTs
59
Limited to
10% of all
practices
Merseyside and
Cheshire
7 PCTs
33
79% (funding
was available
for 42
practices)
North Trent
Barnsley
Doncaster
Bassetlaw
Rotherham
Sheffield
Chesterfield North
Chesterfield - South
9
9
3
12
13
20
9
21%
20%
27%
29%
14%
36%
16%
East Midlands
Leicestershire County
Rutland
Leicester City
Northamptonshire
47
40
52
57%
60%
63%
Mount Vernon
Hertfordshire
31
27%
North West
London
7 (out of 8) PCTs
Not available
Not available
North London
Islington
Barnet
Camden
West Essex
Enfield
Haringey
24
37
20
19
16
5
63%
53%
50%
47%
26%
9%
North East
London
Not available
Not available
Not available
South East
London
Lambeth
Bromley
Greenwich
Southwark
32
26
21
8
62%
Not available
Not available
Not available
South West
London
5 PCTS
39
Not available
Peninsula
Plymouth
31
Not available
Dorset
Not recorded
Not available
Not available
Avon, Somerset,
Wiltshire
Banes
Bristol
N Somerset
8
15
9
30%
26%
35%
59
60
Southwark
Not available
South West
London
5 PCTS
39
Not available
Peninsula
Plymouth
31
Not available
Dorset
Not recorded
Not available
Not available
Avon, Somerset,
Wiltshire
Banes
Bristol
N Somerset
Somerset
S Gloucestershire
Wiltshire
8
15
9
6
6
11
30%
26%
35%
8%
21%
18%
Three Counties
Not recorded
73
Not available
Surrey, West
Sussex
Hampshire
22
28
100%
100%
Kent and
Medway
Medway
21
Not available
Anglia
6 PCTs
124
33%
Greater Midlands
8 PCTs
161
42.8%
Lancashire and S
Cumbria
16
Not available
North of England
4 PCOs
22
Limited to a
quota from
each PCO
1.
Hippisley-Cox J, Vinogradova Y. Trends in Consultation Rates in General Practice 1995 to 2008:
Analysis of the QResearch database. NHS Information Centre 2009
2.
Department of Health (2007): Cancer Reform Strategy. Department of Health: London, England
3.
NHS Information Centre (2009): The national lung cancer audit 2009
4.
Baughan P, ONeill B, Fletcher E (2009): Auditing the diagnosis of cancer in primary care: the
experience in Scotland. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 2): S87S91
5. http://www.dur.ac.uk/school.health/erdu/cancer_audit/cancerdiagnosisaudittool/
6.
www.dur.ac.uk/resources/school.health/erdu/AnalysisofSEAforcancerdiagnosis-Updatedfinalreport.
pdf
7.
Elliott K, Stacey C. LAEDI Programme Summary Report. National Cancer Action Team 2010
info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@hea/documents/
generalcontent/cr_046646.pdf
8.
Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP, Lutz JM, Quinn MJ, and Coleman MP. Deprivation and survival from
breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1995 September; 72(3): 738743.
9.
Young JL Jr, Roffers SD, Ries LAG, Fritz AG, Hurlbut AA (eds). SEER Summary Staging Manual - 2000:
Codes and Coding Instructions, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 01-4969, Bethesda, MD,
2001.
10.
Rarer Cancer Foundation (2011). Primary Cause? An audit of the experience in primary care of rarer
cancer patients.
11.
McArdle CS, Hole DJ. Emergency presentation of colorectal cancer is associated with poor 5-year
survival. British J Surgery 2004; 91: 605-609
12.
Department of Health National Cancer Patient Experience Survey Programme 2010 National Survey
Report. Gateway Ref 14944, DH 2010
61
62
63
64
The Royal College of General Practitioners is a network of over 42,000 family doctors working to improve
care for patients. We work to encourage and maintain the highest standards of general medical practice
and act as the voice of GPs on education, training, research and clinical standards.