Article Text

Download PDFPDF
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}


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.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • 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.

Linked Articles

  • Whistlestop tour
    Jackie A Cassell