Share This Article:

Are “Straight to Test” Pathways Always Best for Patients? A Prospective Observational Study of Two-Week-Wait Colorectal Referrals

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:118KB) PP. 443-447
DOI: 10.4236/ss.2013.410087    3,441 Downloads   4,594 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Aim: Many centres have adopted a straight to test approach to deliver a fast-track service for suspected lower GI cancer. We undertook a prospective comparison between patients having a straight to test (STT) flexible sigmoidoscopy and those attending an outpatient appointment (OPA). The study aimed to determine whether STT reduced diagnostic time without additional investigations. Methods: An observational study of 200 consecutive fast-track colorectal referrals was undertaken. Data collected included: patient demographics, whether STT or OPA, investigations undertaken (including dates) and final diagnosis. Outcomes were compared by adjusted linear regression and logistic regression, for numerical and binary outcomes respectively. Potential confounding factors included were: age, gender and whether NICE referral criteria were achieved. Results: 186 out of 200 referrals attended their appointment, 62% (116/186) went STT and 38% (70/186) had an OPA. No significant difference was seen in the number of days to final investigation, adjusted coefficient -3.71, 95% C.I. -8.92 to 1.50. The STT group had 0.4 more tests per patient, adjusted 95% C.I. 0.07 to 0.73, than the OPA group. Significantly more patients in the STT group had a flexible sigmoidoscopy in addition to whole colonic imaging (all modalities), compared to the OPA group, adjusted OR of 93.47 (95% C.I. 29.26 to 298.54). Conclusion: This study highlights the potential disadvantages of STT flexible sigmoidoscopy for patients referred under the two-week-rule with suspected lower GI cancer. Despite the previously published work highlighting the potential cost and time benefits, it may come at the sacrifice of exposing patients to additional investigations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

F. Mosley, J. Ausobsky and J. Griffith, "Are “Straight to Test” Pathways Always Best for Patients? A Prospective Observational Study of Two-Week-Wait Colorectal Referrals," Surgical Science, Vol. 4 No. 10, 2013, pp. 443-447. doi: 10.4236/ss.2013.410087.

References

[1] M. Quinn, P. Babb, A. Brock, L. Kirby and J. Jones, “Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950-1999,” The Stationery Office, London, 2001.
[2] American Cancer Society website, “Cancer Facts & Figures,” 2001. www.cancer.org
[3] Canadian Cancer Society Website, “Canadian Cancer Statistics,” 2001. www.cancer.ca
[4] N. Keddie and A. Hargreaves, “Symptoms of Carcinoma of the Colon and Rectum,” Lancet, Vol. 2, No. 7571, 1968, pp. 749-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(68)90950-1
[5] Department of Health, “Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer,” 2005.
http://publications.nice.org.uk/referral-guidelines-for-suspected-cancer-cg27
[6] National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), “Improving outcomes in Colorectal Cancer,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004.
[7] E. Leung, J. Grainger, N. Bandla and L. Wong, “The Effectiveness of the ‘2-Week Wait’ Referral Service for Colorectal Cancer,” International Journal of Clinical Practice, Vol. 64, No. 12, 2010, pp. 1671-1674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02505.x
[8] S. Mukherjee, G. Fountain, M. Stalker, J. Williams, T. R. C. Porrett and P. J. Lunniss, “The ‘Straight to Test’ Initiative Reduces both Diagnostic and Treatment Waiting Times for Colorectal Cancer: Outcomes after 2 Years,” Colorectal Disease: The Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 12, No. 10, 2010, pp. e250-e254.
[9] R. A. Smith, et al., “Outcomes in 2748 Patients Referred to a Colorectal Two-Week Rule Clinic,” Colorectal Disease: The Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2007, pp. 340-343.
[10] Department of Health, “UK Cancer Reform Strategy,” 2007.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Cancer/DH_091120
[11] M. R. Thompson, et al., “Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and Whole Colonic Imaging in the Diagnosis of Cancer in Patients with Colorectal Symptoms,” The British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 95, No. 9, 2008, pp. 1140-1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6234
[12] K. Maruthacalam, S. Noblett, S. Chaudri, E. Stoker and A. Horgan, “Two Week Rule Cancer Referral: Direct Access Colonoscopy vs Out-Patient Appointment, a Prospective Audit and Satisfaction Survey,” Colorectal Diseases, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2004, p. 49.
[13] A. D. Beggs, R. D. Bhate, S. Irukulla, M. Achiek and A. M. Abulafi, “Straight to Colonoscopy: The Ideal Patient Pathway for the 2-Week Suspected Cancer Referrals?” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 93, No. 2, 2011, pp. 114-119.
[14] D. M. Hemingway, J. Jameson and M. J. Kelly, “Straight to Test: Introduction of a City-Wide Protocol Driven Investigation of Suspected Colorectal Cancer,” Colorectal disease: The Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006, pp. 289-295.
[15] D. M. Hough, et al., “Colon Cancer Detection: An Algorithm Using Endoscopy and Barium Enema,” Clinical Radiology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1994, pp. 170-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81769-6
[16] S. Rai and D. Hemingway, “Iron Deficiency Anaemia— Useful Diagnostic Tool for Right Sided Colon Cancers?” Colorectal Disease: The Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 7, No. 6, 2005, pp. 588-590.
[17] M. M. Aljarabah, N. R. Borley, A. J. Goodman and J. M. D. Wheeler, “Referral Letters for 2-Week Wait Suspected Colorectal Cancer Do Not Allow a ‘Straight-to-Test’ Pathway,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2009, pp. 106-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/ 003588409X359114

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.