This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs should not be expected to initiate cancer prevention drugs, says report

GPs should be offered more support from specialist colleagues to prescribe drugs that can reduce the risk of breast or bowel cancer, authors of a Cancer Research UK report have concluded.

The report found that GPs would be more comfortable prescribing tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention if the drug was initiated by a specialist, while they needed more information and guidance on prescribing aspirin to prevent bowel cancer.

NICE recommended preventive use of tamoxifen – or another similar drug, raloxifene – in women with a clear history of breast cancer in 2013. However, the drugs are not licensed for primary prevention and can also increase the risk of other serious complications so the decision to start treatment can be complicated, experts said.

The team, led by Dr Samuel Smith, Cancer Research UK fellow at the University of Leeds, surveyed over 1,000 GPs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The researchers excluding GPs from Scotland, where a national care pathway has already been agreed for tamoxifen prescribing.

They found just over half of the GPs knew that tamoxifen can be used for prevention of breast cancer in women with a clear family history.

But 77% said they would be willing to prescribe tamoxifen and, overall, GPs were 40% more likely to prescribe the drug if asked to continue a prescription initiated in secondary care.

Reporting these survey findings in a paper in the British Journal of General Practice, the team concluded that ’developing a pathway involving both primary and scecondary care in a shared care agreement could substantially increase GPs’ willingness to prescribe’.

In a separate study on GPs’ attitudes to prescribing aspirin for prevention of bowel cancer in people with Lynch Syndrome - which predisposes affected people to bowel cancer - the authors found most GPs would be happy to prescribe aspirin, if provided with more support and information on the benefits of treatment and the correct dosing. 

The Cancer Research UK report called for cancer teams and NICE to develop ‘standardised pro-formas for secondary care clinicians, such as those from the breast cancer department, family history or clinical genetics clinic, to send to GPs when they are referring high-risk patients to discuss chemoprevention’.

Dr Smith said: ‘Our report helps us to understand GP attitudes towards the use of cancer prevention drugs. It’s clear that more needs to be done to promote the evidence and guidance associated with these drugs, particularly as research reveals GPs are lacking the support to discuss effectively the risks and benefits of preventive therapy.’

RCGP chair Dr Helen Stokes-Lampard said: ‘The benefits of using long term medication to lower the risk of developing cancer are becoming clearer as new research findings become available – and it’s important that this informs official clinical guidelines, and that GPs and our teams are aware of them.

‘But with clinical guidelines rightly being updated so frequently and given the incredibly broad spectrum of knowledge GPs need to have, it’s understandable that family doctors often take cues from our specialist colleagues in hospitals – so improved communication channels between primary and secondary care would certainly be helpful.’



Readers' comments (9)

  • But, Dr Lokes-Stampard, with reference to the last paragraph, how dare you imply a distinction exists between we GPs and our specialist colleagues in hospitals. Don't you know we are ALL specialists?......./s

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Torygraph is reporting this as GPs denying treatment to 500,000 women implying we want people to fall ill with cancer

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A refreshing absence of "GPs should" for once.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In fact this is probably the first "GPs should not" that I can remember. NICE will probably wreck it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Extract from GMC on unlicensed meds;

    Decisions should be made in collaboration with the patient by discussing the options with them and ensuring that they have sufficient information about the medicine to allow them to make an informed decision.

    where prescribing unlicensed medicines is supported by authoritative clinical guidance, it may be sufficient to describe to the patient in general terms, why the medicine is not licensed for the proposed use.

    You should also consider discussing the options with colleagues or experts and getting advice from them on the appropriateness of the treatment.

    You are responsible for all prescriptions you sign and your decisions and actions

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Percussion of the skull may be helpful in checking whether some wise guys have brains at all- should GPs be forced to do this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No need for oncologist.GPSi oncology.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I look forward to the day I'm ideally placed to manage dialysis patients in my waiting room, and knock out a CABG or lap Chloe as a minor op.

    Does anyone get the feeling we are f***ed?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but NHSE has once again completely failed in its responsibilities. NICE can recommend all it likes, but no comprehensive service can be provided if it is not properly and systematically set up, and then commissioned. Treating people who are at-rick of getting cancer is NOT part of GMS contracts and those responsible for commissioning should look at the gains, look at the risks, and look at the costs, and then decide if it is worthwhile. Until that step in the process is complete women will not get the care that they may benefit from, but that is no more GPs' fault than it is the fault of cardiologists or gynaecologists, who also happen, like us, not to be responsible for this activity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say