LAUSR

INTRODUCTION Available data suggest that the two-week wait referral pathway is ineffective at expediting diagnosis of cancer due to large numbers of inappropriate referrals. This study aimed to compare the referral pathway of 125 patients who had undergone primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer with 100 who had been two-week wait referrals. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a case note review. RESULTS Of the 125 patients who underwent surgery; 47 (38%) were referred via the 2WW pathway. GPs had referred 25 (53%) of the 47 patients and general dental practitioners 22 (47%). The tumour stage was similar regardless of referral pathway (two-week wait or routine). GPs recognised that the two-week wait pathway was needed in 49% of the patients they had referred, whereas the equivalent figure for GDPs was 40%. Of the 100 2WW patients, 52 were biopsied. Of these, nine (9%) were diagnosed with a malignancy. GPs referred 61% of the 100 two-week wait patients and accurately diagnosed five of the cancers (although two were basal cell carcinomas), general dental practitioners the remainder (including one basal cell carcinoma). Overall, 41% of the patients referred on the two-week wait pathway by GPs needed a biopsy, compared with 69% of those referred by general dental practitioners. CONCLUSIONS While the criteria for referral on the two-week wait pathway lack discrimination and the majority of referrals proved benign, nearly 40% of surgically treated patients were referred via this pathway, suggesting that it does serve a useful purpose. More patients with cancer were referred by GPs, but more two-week wait referrals by general dental practitioners warranted biopsy.