Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Diagnostic performance of urgent referrals for suspected gynaecological malignancies

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to investigate the outcome of the urgent referrals with suspected gynaecological malignancy.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of the data of the urgent referrals for suspected gynaecological cancers over a 12-month period at a gynaecological oncology cancer centre in the UK.

Results

A total of 233 patients (70.61%) were referred with suspected endometrial pathology, 59 patients (17.88%) with suspected ovarian, 25 patients (7.58%) with suspected cervical and 13 patients (3.94%) with suspected vulval malignancy. The positive predictive value of referrals for diagnosing endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulval malignancy was 11.6, 23.7, 12.0 and 15.4%, respectively. Amongst the indications for referral for suspected endometrial cancer, presence of postmenopausal vaginal bleeding had the higher odds for cancer (odds = 0.13; 95% CI 0.08–0.21). The odds for cancer for women referred with a pelvic mass was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07–0.42) and for women referred with abdominal bloating was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.18–2.36). All the cases of malignancy were diagnosed in women referred with suspicious appearance of the cervix on clinical examination. The odds for cancer was 0.50 if the indication for referral was vulval itching. The majority of cases of gynaecological cancers during the study period were diagnosed following routine referrals.

Conclusion

The overall predictive value of two-week wait referrals for suspected gynaecological malignancies is low. Refinement of the current referral guidelines is required with particular emphasis in the premenopausal women where the diagnostic performance of the urgent referrals is significantly poorer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UK Department of Health (2000) NHS cancer plan, Department of Health, London

  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2005) Referral guidelines for suspected cancer. NICE Clinical Guidelines 27 http://www.nice.org.uk/CG027NICEguideline. Accessed 25 July 2010

  3. Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berrino F, De Angelis R, Sant M, Rosso S, Bielska-Lasota M, Coebergh JW, EUROCARE Working group et al (2008) Survival for eight major cancers and all cancers combined for European adults diagnosed in 1995–99: results of the EUROCARE-4 study. Lancet Oncol 8:773–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sant M, Allemani C, Santaquilani M, Knijn A, Marchesi F, Capocaccia R, EUROCARE Working Group. EUROCARE-4 (2009) Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995–1999. Results and commentary. Eur J Cancer 45:931–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Estève J, Gatta G, Hakulinen T, Micheli M et al. (1999) A Survival of cancer patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-2 study. IARC Scientific Publications, number 151, IARC Press, Lyon

  7. Jones R, Rubin G, Hungin P (2001) Is the two week rule for cancer referrals working? BMJ 322:1555–1556

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Potter S, Govindarajulu S, Shere M, Braddon F, Curran G, Greenwood R et al (2007) Referral patterns, cancer diagnoses, and waiting times after introduction of 2 week wait rule for breast cancer: prospective cohort study. BMJ 335:288–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanna SJ, Muneer A, Khalil KH (2005) The 2-week wait for suspected cancer: time for a rethink? Int J Clin Pract 59:1334–1339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sauven P (2002) Impact of the “2 week wait” on referrals to breast units in the UK. Breast 11:262–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. ACOG practice bulletin (2005) Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005: management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 106:41

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Bankhead C, Sharp D (2009) Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case–control study. BMJ 339:b2998. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hartmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D (2002) Screening for cervical cancer: systematic evidence review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: United States Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat3.chapter.4180. Accessed 10 July 2010

  14. Hamilton W (2010) Cancer diagnosis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 60:121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Burbos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burbos, N., Musonda, P. & Rufford, B. Diagnostic performance of urgent referrals for suspected gynaecological malignancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284, 1495–1500 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1854-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1854-5

Keywords

Navigation