Fast-track referrals for oral lesions: A prospective study

Efficacy of the Two-Week Wait Referral System for Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review

“…Table 2 shows the quality of the studies as assessed using the criteria table adapted from the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination review of cancer waiting time audits. 4 The studies scored between 8 and 15 out of a maximum of 16.The reasons for performing the studies were unclear in two of the audits 5,8 and the design of the data collection method was only outlined in one paper. 10 A total of 1,809 2ww referrals were analysed, yielding 199 findings of cancer.…”

“…7,9,10 Three studies 5,6,8 did not report the data regarding the compliance of the referrals to the NICE guidelines and were therefore not included in the analysis.The positive predictive values of each of the referral criteria were only outlined in the paper by McKie et al 10 and so collective data were not available for meta-analysis.…”

Outcomes for patients referred urgently with suspected head and neck cancer

“…4,5 We conducted a literature search using the same medical subject heading keywords as cited for this paper, plus the more specific phrases 'two week wait' and 'urgent referral'. We therefore aimed to quantify the diagnostic yield of urgent referrals for suspected head and neck malignancy, and to identify reasons why patients ultimately diagnosed with malignancy had not been referred via this pathway.…”

Do GP referral guidelines really work? Audit of an electronic urgent referral system for suspected head and neck cancer

“…A study by Singh et al [5] measured an 8% cancer diagnosis in all patients urgently referred with possible oral cancer over a 1-year period. This is similar to a study by Shah et al [6] who undertook a prospective study of 150 consecutive patients referred with oral lesions who demonstrated a diagnosis of malignancy in 6%.…”