This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

GPs to refer more patients with low-risk cancer symptoms under new NICE guidance

GPs are being urged to refer and test thousands more patients for potential cancers under new guidelines rubber-stamped by NICE experts today.

The guidelines take a radical new approach, with the aim of giving GPs greater freedom to investigate patients with potential signs and symptoms of cancer and decrease the time before diagnosis.

The guidelines recommend GPs are able to request some ‘direct access’ tests urgently – within two weeks or even 48 hours for some rare cancers – which NICE advisors said would streamline the patient’s journey.

But GP critics said the guidelines risked referring too many patients at very low risk of cancer and missing those at the greatest risk because the new symptoms-based approach did not take into account patients’ baseline risk.

The guidelines are expected to lead to an increase in urgent referrals for potential lung cancer, upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, such as stomach cancer, and bowel cancer in particular – although NICE has not forecast exactly how many more patients would expect to go through these pathways.

Despite this, NICE said any increased costs would likely be evened out by savings resulting from diagnosing people earlier, so that their treatment is less complicated and more likely to be life-saving.

The main recommendations are largely unchanged from the draft guidelines published last November, and effectively lower the risk threshold at which patients are referred for cancer investigation – from a positive predictive value (PPV) of roughly 5% to 3% – as well as getting GPs to order tests for people with clusters of symptoms suggestive of potential cancer but with a lower PPV than this.

Professor Willie Hamilton, clinical lead for the guidelines development group and a GP in Exeter, told Pulse the guidelines should give GPs more flexibility to investigate when a patient’s presenting symptoms are only vaguely suggestive of cancer.

Professor Hamilton said: ‘GPs know the symptoms of cancer [but] what has been difficult up to now has been being able to act on that knowledge. There were patients with mild symptoms that just might have been cancer that it was more difficult to investigate.

‘So now that we have slightly increased both the types of tests and number of tests that are undertaken it is now easier for GPs to test.’

Professor Hamilton insisted the symptoms-based approach was not prescriptive and that he did not expect GPs to have to do much more work as a result of the recommendations to do more testing in primary care.

He said: ‘I don’t think it will be remotely unmanageable because some testing was already been going on, we’ve been doing blood tests, CA125 tests. We will have some responsibility for seeing the faecal occult blood test results, and making sure we act on the results. Similarly for gastroscopies.’

However, Professor Julia Hippisley-Cox, professor of epidemiology and general practice at the University of Nottingham, said it was ‘disappointing’ that the guidelines panel had not addressed concerns over the complexity of recommendations.

Professor Hippisley-Cox, who has been working on producing the validated QCancer risk tool that has already been adopted on GP computer systems, said: ‘They haven’t addressed the large number of concerns about whether such long and complicated guidance could ever be implemented by GPs in everyday clinical practice.’

The guidelines development group also faced criticism for not recommending GPs consider risk factors alongside symptoms in weighing up the patient’s risk of cancer.

Dr Nick Summerton, former NICE advisor and a GP in East Yorkshire, said it was ‘bonkers’ to ignore risk factors.

Dr Summerton said: ‘To ignore risk factors is – to be kind to them – bonkers. When any person arrives in the surgery they have a baseline risk of cancer – prior probability –  according to features such as age, gender, ethnicity, family history, lifestyle – for example, smoking – and co-morbidities.

‘We then collect other information on, perhaps, symptoms to enhance this probability. Thus to ignore baseline risk will mean increased referral of those at low risk and reduced referral of those at high risk – given the same symptoms. This is frankly stupid.’

However, Professor Hamilton said the addition of risk factors such as family history or smoking should not change the decision on whether a patient was investigated as the symptoms alone should be enough.

NICE - Suspected cancer: recognition and referral

Related images

  • Ovarian cancer - online

Readers' comments (32)

  • Has anyone really looked at the implications of this? Refer every patient over the age of 40 who has ever smoked for a chest X-ray if they have a cough or feel fatigue? That's half my morning surgery.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | Practice Manager | 23 June 2015 11:06am

    Spot on!

    I will stop raging against the machine and just REFER anything that meets criteria, won't lose any sleep over it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And remember to refer anyone over the age of 60 with new onset of diabetes to rule out pancreatic cancer

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Do not worry about the minutiae - just refer it ALL into secondary care and swamp them. They are indefinitely protected.
    Only then will someone ever realise what collapse actually means.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | GP Partner | 23 June 2015 12:16pm my thoughts initially as well - but thank fully the word unexplained is included in the guidance - and most of your / mine morning surgery with their cough will be explained.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Am I the only person who heard the NICE expert say on the Today programme that he wanted to "eliminate " the extra 5,000 cancer cases?
    Is this the new cost cutting exercise ?

    Sorry have now lost it.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Russell Thorpe

    I just cant see this happening has anyone bothered to talk to a radiologist or endoscopist?

    In my view we should have a requirement to perform Significant Event Analysis on all cases of delayed diagnosis / late presentation of cancer. That would improve the use of the exicting pathways.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Russell Thorpe

    oops that existing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Has NICE 'responsibly' estimated how many more GPs (not PAs,not nurses)this will be required to ensure success with this guideline ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Lets not beat around the bush. when patients come to see us, all of this nice/government rhetoric means they will come with the agenda of knowing if they have cancer or not because their little finger hurt in the night time.

    "can you order those special tests I saw on the news please doc"

    Unfortunately in my experience, people are no longer reassured by clinical skill of a doctor and want a machine and radiologist to reassure them.

    I say just scan everyone all the time. I have gone beyond the point of trying to protect nhs budgets from the fools at the top.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say