rss
Sex Transm Infect 2009;85:527-530 doi:10.1136/sti.2009.036061
  • Health services research

Referrals into a dedicated British penile cancer centre and sources of possible delay

  1. M A Lucky,
  2. B Rogers,
  3. N J Parr
  1. Wirral University Teaching Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to M A Lucky, Urology Department, Wirral University Teaching Hospital, Wirral CH49 5PE, UK; marclucky{at}hotmail.com
  • Accepted 22 June 2009
  • Published Online First 6 July 2009

Abstract

Objective: To assess sources of delay in referral to a specialist Urology clinic for penile cancer.

Methods: Patients with penile cancer seen during the period December 2002 to December 2007 were identified from the unit’s database. Information regarding presentation, diagnosis and pattern of referral was retrieved from records. Delay was defined as the time between the patient first noticing a penile lesion and date of first seeking medical advice, or additional time before being seen by a Urologist resulting from referral to another speciality.

Results: Of 100 patients, with a median age of 54 years (range 2–81 years), 19% were initially referred to other specialities (Genitourinary Medicine—13%, Dermatology—4%, Plastics 2%). Initial referrals to Genito-urinary Medicine and Dermatology resulted in mean delays of 6 and 3.5 months respectively, whereas the mean duration for patients to present to any medical practitioner from onset of symptoms was 5.8 months. Overall, 47% presented with locally advanced disease.

Conclusion: Approximately one-fifth of patients with penile cancer are first referred to specialities other than Urology. This sometimes delays diagnosis, potentially affecting overall prognosis. The major source of delay, however, results from patient reluctance to seek medical advice. Thus, the greatest impact in this condition is likely to be achieved by increased public awareness and education.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Contributors: ML was responsible for analysis and collection of data, writing of paper; BR was responsible for data collection, database management and updating, and patient interview; NP was responsible for data collection, patient interview and assistance in writing of paper.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This Article

  1. All Versions of this Article:
    1. sti.2009.036061v1
    2. 85/7/527 most recent

Services

  1. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Latest from STI blog

Latest from STI blog

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of STI.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for STI. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.