• 2022-08
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-03
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-07
  • br Total cases With cancer p value All patients br


    Total cases With cancer p value* All patients 389 28 (7)
    Source of referral
    Specialty referred to:
    Smoking status:
    Alcohol intake (units/week)
    Patient delay:
    Professional delay:
    IMD2015: quintile for neighbourhood deprivation; GDP: general dental
    practitioner; GMP: general medical practitioner; MFU: maxillofacial unit;
    ENT: ear, nose, and throat. ∗ Fisher’s exact test. ∗∗ p values are for symptom present compared with absent.
    (4.7%). Finally, there were several significant associations with patients’ symptoms (Table 3).
    It is useful to explore the referral pattern for cases of sus-pected head and neck cancer by SES because substantial NHS resources are given to enable early diagnosis. Despite this,
    Table 3
    A predominance of patients had a relatively low risk of
    Specific symptom associations. Data are number (%).
    cancer (women, non-smokers, and those who consumed less
    Factor and symptom Patients with symptom p value* than 10 units of alcohol/week). The gender balance was unex-
    pected, as head and neck cancers are twice as common in men
    Source of referral:
    as in women. There are many possible explanations for this
    as, across all UK general practices in 2010, the crude con-
    sultation rate was 32% lower in men than in women, and
    these differences were greater in people from more deprived
    areas.7 Whilst this study looked at all consultations and not
    specifically at those for cancer of the head and neck, it Gemcitabine does
    suggest that Gemcitabine health is less of a priority in men than in women.
    The conversion rate of 7.2% agrees with the findings by
    Langton et al2 and shows that it places demands on NHS
    Alcohol intake (units/week):
    resources in terms of clinic time. It also adds to the anxiety
    of the “worried well” who may have been referred for reassur-
    ance rather than a high clinical suspicion of cancer. Urgent
    referrals can vary threefold among general practices.8 It is
    likely that a GP will be mindful that deprivation correlates
    with risk factors such as smoking and drinking, and there-
    fore may be more cautious and more likely to refer. Most
    of those referred (62%) lived in the most deprived quintile
    Source of referral:
    of residential neighbourhoods in England, in contrast to the
    deprived quartile.9
    The finding that patients from more deprived areas are less
    likely to be referred by a dentist might be because fewer are
    registered with a dentist,10 possibly because of cost and ease
    of access to NHS dental care. We found significant differ-
    ences in the rates of cancer between patients referred by the
    GP (6%) and dentist (20%). Several potential explanations
    for this need further investigation, but it is probably because
    it is easier to examine the mouth than to examine other sites
    in the head and neck.
    Sore throat:
    Consideration should be given to improving the appropri-
    ateness of referrals, for example, through better education in
    oral medicine, and the inclusion of photographs.11 Bethell
    GDP: general dental practitioner; GMP: general medical practitioner; MFU: and Leftwick thought that the two-week system could be
    maxillofacial unit; ENT: ear, nose, and throat.
    better, and found that few GPs had attended training on refer-
    ∗ Fisher’s exact test.
    rals to our specialty.12 The two main areas for further work