Patterns of referral of patients undergoing surgical management for oral cancer

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer is most often diagnosed by dentists or dental specialists. We were interested in analyzing demographic and referral data for a cohort of patients referred for the management of oral cancer to our unit. METHODS: A consecutive review of all patients treated by oral and maxillofacial surgery at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre over the last 10 years. Inclusion criteria included those patients with malignant oral and perioral disease that underwent surgical management. Exclusion criteria included those patients who did not have malignant oral disease, who did not have surgical management and those patients who were not treated by our unit as the primary surgeon. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were identified. The mean age for presentation for the group was 61.6 years and the male to female ratio was 1.2:1. Approximately 70 per cent of patients were smokers or had smoked in the past. Over the last 10 years there has been a steady increase in referrals to our unit. Over half of all patients referred were from the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne while the majority of the remainder of the referrals were from private oral and maxillofacial surgeons. A significantly increased number of referrals from other sources were identified. Surveillance techniques that can be used in general dental practice are also described. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of referrals from dental sources highlights the importance of the dentist and dental specialist in the diagnosis and referral of patients with suspected oral cancer. Patients can either be referred to a dental hospital, private oral and maxillofacial surgeons or directly to a public hospital oral and maxillofacial surgery unit treating oral cancer, such as the one at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre.     

Determinants of dental referral practices among WIC nutritionists in North Carolina

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of knowledge and confidence on dental referral practices among WIC nutritionists in North Carolina. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 118 Likert scale-type questions was administered to 92% of all WIC nutritionists in North Carolina (n = 324). The relationship of knowledge and confidence with frequent dental referrals was tested using logistic regression. RESULTS: Regression results found that confidence in performing oral health risk assessments (OR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.13, 3.96), confidence in making dental referrals (OR = 3.02; 95% CI = 1.45-6.29), and confidence in expected outcomes that parents would seek dental care when advised to do so (OR = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.62, 5.97) were associated with more frequent dental referrals. CONCLUSIONS: The more confident WIC nutritionists feel about oral health, the more likely they are to make dental referrals. Screening and referral by WIC workers may benefit children by improving access to dental care, as the WIC clinic is frequently the first point of contact with a health professional.     

Delays in the referral and treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the delays in referral and treatment of patients with oral cancer. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: District General Hospital Maxillofacial Unit (MFU). SUBJECTS: 100 consecutive patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity referred to Rotherham District General Hospital Maxillofacial Unit (RDGH MFU) between 15th March 1993 and 16th January 1998. METHOD: Information collected at the time of referral and treatment was examined retrospectively. RESULTS: In the patients studied 72% were male, mean age 61.2 years (sd = 11.2, range 37 to 88) and 28% female, mean age 65.6 years (sd = 16.7, range 29 to 90). The majority of referrals were from medical practitioners (56%) and most of the remainder being referred by dental practitioners (36%). The patient delay was found to be the most significant with only 39% presenting within 4 weeks, 29% delayed more than 3 months. There was no statistical correlation between T-stage, alcohol or cigarette use and the patient delay in presentation. Having presented to a medical or dental practitioner 69% were referred within 1 week. There were no significant differences between the T-stages presenting to either medical or dental practitioners or in their delay in referral for each stage. There was no significant difference in age or sex distribution between the populations presenting to general medical or general dental practitioners. General medical practitioners were more likely to refer a patient urgently. Patients referred directly to the MFU were seen quickly but those referred via an indirect route were delayed. 95% of patients were treated within 6 weeks of first consultation. CONCLUSION: The majority of practitioners refer patients with oral cancer within 1 week. The most significant delay is that caused by the patient. Some practitioners referred patients to inappropriate specialties, leading to indirect referrals. This results in additional delay in the referral and treatment pathway. Education of the public and primary health care workers should continue. Opportunistic screening of the oral mucosa should be part of the dental check up, with possible targeting of patients at greatest risk, particularly heavy drinkers and smokers.     

Screening for oral cancer utilising risk-factor analysis is ineffective in high-risk populations

Screening for oral cancer by direct visual examination is believed to be ineffective because of the difficulty in differentiating a small number of malignancies from the much more prevalent benign oral mucosal lesions (OML) that are found in high-risk individuals. Standardised clinical diagnoses were recorded for all the OMLs identified during oral visual examination of 1111 individuals with risk factors for oral cancer, including tobacco and areca nut (paan) consumption. Suspicious lesions were referred for biopsy and definitive diagnosis. A total of 1438 OMLs with 32 different clinical diagnoses were identified in 604 participants. Analysis of referrals revealed two distinct groups: visually benign lesions (VBLs) none of which was referred, and visually complex lesions (VCLs) comprising 661 OMLs with nine different clinical diagnoses. After biopsy the VCLs included known potentially malignant disorders (PMDs) as well as benign lesions such as paan mucositis. VCLs (but not VBLs) share risk factors with oral cancer (p < 0.05 for paan 5.82 (CI: 1.98 to 8.43), and smoking 3.59 (CI: 1.12 to 4.47)). They are clinically indistinguishable from, but much more prevalent than, oral cancer, and most will never undergo malignant change. They therefore can prevent dentists from accurately detecting malignancy during the clinical examination of high-risk patients. However, they can easily be differentiated from other benign lesions by visual examination alone. Further research into diagnostic technology is needed to help differentiate them from oral cancers.     

Primary care clinicians' knowledge of oral cancer: a study of dentists and doctors in the North East of England.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the knowledge of oral cancer and related issues of general dental and general medical practitioners (GDPs and GMPs). DESIGN: A questionnaire was sent to 420 primary care clinicians, half to dentists and half to doctors. Responses to the questionnaire were analysed using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The response rate was 68.1% for GDPs and 71.9% for GMPs. Dental practitioners were significantly more likely to have diagnosed cases of oral cancer than medical practitioners (OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.6,4.4). Important differences arose between the groups in terms of risk factor knowledge and clinical examination. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that whilst the knowledge level of both groups is generally good, there are some discrepancies. These relate mainly to risk factor knowledge and clinical examination techniques.     

Direct access day case oral surgery

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of direct access referrals with standard letter referrals, and also assess the impact of the direct access system on the primary care provider, secondary sector and from the patients perspective. DESIGN: Surgical and anaesthetic guidelines were agreed and 12 general dental practitioners were recruited to participate in the study. Each practitioner was given 100 envelopes which contained randomly allocated 50 direct and 50 standard referrals. For direct referrals, GDPs completed a pre-operative assessment and obtained an operation date by telephone from the day case unit while the patient was in the surgery. The clinical history sheet was faxed to the day unit and the radiographs posted. The only contact the patient had with the hospital was on the day of surgery. Standard referral patients were referred in the traditional way with a referral letter being sent to an out-patient clinic. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the direct referral system versus standard letter method were made via completion of questionnaires by the patients, dental practitioners, hospital clinicians, day case anaesthetist and co-ordinator. SETTING: The study was carried out over 2 years commencing in 1997 at the Oral Surgery Day Case Unit at Manchester Royal Infirmary. RESULTS: A greater number of direct access referrals (409; 90%) were treated in comparison with (312; 75%) standard referrals (P < 0.001). Eighty nine per cent of direct access records were adequate pre-operatively. More than 70% of dentists and hospital clinicians preferred the direct access referral method. Sixty-three per cent of standard letter patients were satisfied with their mode of referral compared with 87% of direct access patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given appropriate guidelines dental practitioners are able to refer directly to oral surgery day case operation lists. This has proved to be the favoured method of referral for dental practitioners, the secondary sector and patients.     

The dentist as a referral source of first episode head and neck cancer patients

This analysis was conducted to shed more light on the role of the dentist in the detection and referral of patients with head and neck cancer. No other study of the referral practices of dentists has examined the characteristics of these patients in contrast to those referred by physicians to understand the selection of pathways to care. The findings reported here indicate that: "anatomical provinces" exist for both types of practitioners that are well recognized by the lay community and perhaps reinforced by the health field; advanced stage referrals on the parts of physicians may occur because patients delayed seeking care until symptoms required medical attention; and dentists as a group may b better prepared to detect oral cavity lesions, but not lesions at other head and neck sites. The findings of this study, as well as those of Adams and others and Pogrel, suggest the need for improved educational programs about head and neck cancer directed to the public as well as physicians and dentists. The public should be aware not only of the etiology of head and neck cancers and the associated signs and symptoms, but also of the availability of the dentist, as well as the physician, as a diagnostic resource. Furthermore, educational programs should be developed in dental and medical schools to teach and reinforce detection and diagnostic skill including soft-tissue examination procedures; the use of the indirect mirror for examination of the base of the tongue, larynx, and the lower posterior pharyngeal wall; and biopsy techniques.     

Fast-track referrals for oral lesions: a prospective study

Since the introduction of the 14-day rule for referrals for cancer in 1999 there has been some suspicion that rates of detection of cancer are low and the number of inappropriate referrals is high. We undertook a prospective study of 150 consecutive patients with oral lesions referred to a department of oral and maxillofacial surgery in a teaching hospital that uses a "two week wait" fast-track referral system for head and neck cancers. The main outcome measures were the number of cancers detected, the age and sex of the patients, the number seen within 2 weeks, by whom, and the final diagnosis. Most patients (n=120, 80%) were referred with oral ulceration. All patients were seen within 2 weeks (mean 6 days). Nine patients (6%) had a diagnosis of malignancy and 17 (11%) had no detectable abnormality. The study confirms what others have shown, that the yield of diagnoses of malignant disease from fast-track referrals is low and the number of non-urgent referrals is high.     

Oral cancer knowledge and examination experiences among North Carolina adults

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses knowledge of oral cancer risk factors, clinical signs, and oral cancer examination experience among North Carolina adults. METHODS: A statewide random digit dial, computer-assisted telephone interview was conducted in 2002. Data from 1,096 respondents, with a response rate of 62 percent, were poststratified to 2000 census data by sex, race, and age group to produce population-based estimates. Knowledge of one sign of oral cancer, four or more risk factors for oral cancer, and having ever had an oral cancer examination were compared in logistic regression models using normalized weights. RESULTS: Fourteen (95% confidence interval [CI] +/-2) percent of adults had never heard of oral or mouth cancer. Risk factor knowledge was high for 56 percent (95% CI+/-3) and associated in a logistic regression model with younger age, feeling personal factors cause cancer, and nonuse of snuff. One sign of oral cancer (sore/lesion, red or white patch in mouth, and bleeding in the mouth) was correctly identified by 53 percent (95% CI+/-3) with significantly more correct responses from younger people, nonsmokers, and some college education. Only 29 percent (95% CI+/-3) reported ever having had an oral cancer examination when this procedure was described. Most respondents reported exams performed by dentists. In a weighted logistic regression model, older age, being dentate, nonsmokers, alcohol users, and those with some college education were significantly more likely to report having ever had an oral cancer examination. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is moderate knowledge of signs and risk factors for oral cancer among North Carolina adults, knowledge deficits remain. Oral cancer examinations need to be increased, particularly among tobacco smokers.     

Malignant tumours in Swedish dental personnel: a comparative study with the total population as well as with some specific occupational groups

By linking the records between the Swedish census of 1970 and the cancer register for the period 1971-1984 the question was investigated as to whether an increased risk of, in the first hand, tumours of the liver, the kidneys or the nervous system could be found among dental personnel, and if so, whether it could be correlated with age. No significant higher risk could be demonstrated for any of these sites of tumours, neither for dentists, nor for dental nurses, dental technicians, nor for dental personnel collectively in comparison to the risk in the general Swedish population. For dental personnel the SIR value for primary liver tumours was 1.3, 95% CI: 0.6-2.4, for tumours of the kidneys the SIR was 1.0, 95% CI: 0.6-1.5, and for tumours of the nervous system the SIR was 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8-1.6. When these groups of tumours were taken together, a significantly increased risk (p less than was found only for male dentists, where 33 cases were observed against 22 expected. This increased risk does not seem to have any counterpart in any other category of dental personnel, and therefore the significant figures may be interpreted as a chance result. The noticeably increased and decreased risk levels which were found in other sites of tumours for dentists could also be demonstrated in other groups with university education with one exception: haemo-lymphatic malignancies for which male dentists display a significantly lower risk. For all types of malignant tumours of dental personnel there was a nonsignificantly increased risk, the SIR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.99-1.15.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

General dental practitioners' perceptions of the West of Scotland Cancer Awareness Programme oral cancer campaign

OBJECTIVES: The 2003/04 West of Scotland Cancer Awareness Programme (WoSCAP) oral cancer campaign was designed to raise public awareness of the signs and symptoms of oral cancer. The objectives of this study were to explore general dental practitioners' (GDPs) awareness and perceptions of the campaign, and its impact on local dental practices. METHODS: A self-completing questionnaire was sent to GDPs in the West of Scotland (N = 983) at the conclusion of the public awareness campaign. RESULTS: A response rate of 68.6% was achieved. Most dentists (92%) had heard of the campaign and a large percentage had displayed the promotional materials in their practice. The majority of respondents rated the campaign materials, including a television advertisement, in a very positive manner. Over 40% of dentists reported that, during the active phase of the campaign, patients had asked for information concerning the programme, and 66% indicated that registered patients had asked for advice regarding a specific lesion. Additionally, 41% of dentists reported non-registered patients had attended asking for advice regarding a 'worrying' lesion. Over 60% of dentists had referred a patient during the campaign and 40% of these practitioners indicated an increased referral rate during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were positive in their assessment of the campaign and reported an increased awareness of oral cancer among patients.     

A survey of general dental practitioners in Merseyside regarding urgent appointments and suspected cancer referrals.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to investigate the current situation regarding unregistered patients in the Mersey region who seek an urgent dental appointment, and to gather information on suspected oral cancer cases seen by dentists in the previous two years and about how such cases are referred. METHODS: The survey took the form of a short questionnaire sent in May 2006 to all general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the Mersey region who were registered with the regional postgraduate dental office. RESULTS: A total of 904 GDPs were identified and 572 (63%) returned completed survey responses. Half (276/572; 48%) reported that they could see new patients urgently under the National Health Service (NHS) and two-thirds (365/571; 64%) that they could see them either under the NHS or privately. Nineteen per cent reported that they would not see any new patients. Those in the most deprived areas were more likely to see a patient on the NHS. The waiting time for an urgent appointment, if it was offered, was over one week for nearly one-third (32%) of the dentists offering NHS care. Most dentists (84%) said that a patient suspected of having oral cancer would be referred the same day as the decision had been made to refer. CONCLUSION: Access to dental care has been a high-profile issue over the past few years. This survey indicated that in Merseyside, just under half of the dentists who responded were willing to see new patients with urgent problems under the NHS. It is suggested that this difficulty in access, together with some reported delays in obtaining appointments and the methods of onward referral, may cause additional barriers to early detection of oral cancer, especially for those in the most at-risk groups, who are also very frequently hard to reach.     

Epidemiology, aetiology, and clinical aspects of oral cancer and premalignant lesions

Since oral cancer can be considered to be a relatively rare disease, dental practitioners will only rarely be confronted with it. Nevertheless, dental practitioners have a key role to play in the early diagnosis and referral to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. The major part of oral cancers are squamous cell carcinomas, recognizable during routine oral inspection. Early referral is essential since treatment of small, not yet metastasized cancers have the best chance of long-term disease-free survival. Moreover, oral carcinoma is often preceded by white and/or red pre-malignant lesions of the salivary glands. These can similarly be detected by routine inspection. Here too, dentists play an important role in recognizing such diseases and referring patients to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon.     

Referrals to a secondary care dental clinic for anxious adult patients: implications for treatment.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the methods suggested by general dental practitioners for management of patients with dental anxiety whom they refer to a dental hospital setting, the treatment modalities eventually used with such patients and the relationship between patients previous sedation experience and the current referral. METHODS: Consecutive referral letters (n = 125) for management of patients with dental anxiety over a 16 month period were analysed for content, including reason for referral and suggested treatment modalities. Patient records were also examined for previous sedation experience. RESULTS: From 115 referrals eligible for analysis, the dentists requested management of anxiety using pharmacological methods in 113 referrals with only two referrals mentioning psychologically-based treatments. In secondary care, 29% of the adult referrals opted for dental treatment using psychological techniques alone. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the efficacy of psychological treatments for dental anxiety, primary and secondary care dentists appear not to be suggesting or promoting their use for patients with dental anxiety. Further research into the availablility of, and barriers to accessing the full range of services for those with dental anxiety, including patient perspectives, needs to be undertaken.     

Familial risk in oral and pharyngeal cancer

We examined the relationship between a family history of cancer and risk of roal and pharyngeal cancer using epidemiological data from a large case-control investigation of these tumours. 487 (45.7%) of the cases and 485 (41.0%) of the controls reported cancer in a parent or a sibling. After controlling for age, race, sex, study location, respondent status and smoking and alcohol use, the OR associated with any cancer in the family was 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.3]. Risks were non-significantly elevated among those with a history of cancers arising from the oral cavity/pharynx (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–2.3), oesophagus/larynx (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 0.7–3.8) and lung (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.8–1.8), with the excess risk primarily among those for whom a male relative, particularly a brother, was affected with these smoking-related cancers. In addition, an elevated risk of oral/pharynx cancer was found among those whose sisters developed other cancers (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.2). Subsite analyses revealed stronger elevated risks of smoking-related cancers in relatives of pharyngeal cancer cases (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.1–2.8) than of oral cancer patients. The data indicate that there is at most a weak familial aggregation of oral/pharynx cancers. Furthermore, since the excess familial risk of oral/pharynx cancer was associated with smoking-related cancers among male but not female relatives, it seems likely that environmental factors (notably smoking and drinking) contribute to the familial tendency observed in this study. The results underscore the need to collect risk profile information on relatives in future studies to disentangle genetic from environmental determinants.     

Opinions and attitudes of the UK's GDPs and specialists in oral surgery, oral medicine and surgical dentistry on oral cancer screening

OBJECTIVE: To survey two broad areas of oral cancer awareness and management of patients at risk of oral cancer by specialists in oral surgery, oral medicine, surgical dentistry and general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK. The first of these included knowledge and awareness of aetiological factors, changing patterns of disease, and screening/detection programmes including their effectiveness. The second included oral cancer detection methods, advice on avoidance of high-risk activity and self-examination, and referral pattern of GDPs. DESIGN AND METHOD: A pretested, 44-item questionnaire, a covering letter, a brief outline of the research protocol and return, stamped envelope were mailed in March 2003. A sample of 200 GDPs whose names were obtained from the General Dental Council's main list and 305 dental specialist names obtained from specialist's list in surgical dentistry, oral medicine and oral surgery were selected randomly. Information on oral cancer awareness and practice, screening practice and education was obtained. RESULTS: The response rate was 66.9%. The knowledge of the dental specialists was consistent with that in reports of current aetiological studies on oral cancer. However there were gaps in the GDP's knowledge and ascertainment of oral cancer risk factors. Over 70% of the dental specialists provided counselling advice on the risks of tobacco and alcohol habits compared with 41.2% of GDPs. More GDPs (52.4%) than specialists (35.4%) believed that oral cancer screening on a national basis would be effective in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. Over 95% of all respondents used a visual examination for oral cancer screening and 89.9% of all respondents strongly believed that visual screening is effective in the early detection of oral cancer. CONCLUSION: The results showed that GDPs had knowledge gaps in their awareness of oral cancer risk factors and the application of preventive measures. Most dental health providers in the UK perform visual screening of the oral mucosa for their patients. Opinion was equivocal as to whether a nationally based screening programme similar to cervical cancer would be effective in improving the mortality and morbidity of oral cancer.     

Two-week rule: suspected head and neck cancer referrals from a general medical practice perspective

The two-week rule (2WR) referral system was designed to fast-track patients with suspected malignancies to secondary care services to facilitate prompt investigation and management, the ultimate goals being early detection and improved survival. Patients with symptoms of head and neck cancer primarily present to the general practitioner (GP) who has an important role in the identification of high-risk patients for prompt management. This paper reports urgent 2WR referrals from primary care to highlight difficulties in the referral process. Data were collected from three GP practices (16 GPs) in Merseyside that all used the EMIS Web system (EMIS Health). All patients who were referred on the 2WR pathway in a two-year period from January 2017 were identified (n = 113). The conversion rate for malignant diagnosis was 5.5% (95% CI: 2.0 to 11.5%). Those with multiple symptoms had a higher rate of malignancy (16%, 3/19) than those with a single symptom (3%, 3/91) (p = 0.06). In total, 76% of patients had had no treatment before referral. The duration of symptoms ranged from 1 - 208 weeks (median (IQR) 6 (4-12) weeks). Common benign symptoms included laryngopharyngeal reflux (n = 27), thyroid lesion (n = 9), and neck lymph node (n = 7). The diagnosis of head and neck cancer in primary care is challenging. Initiatives to try to increase the cancer conversion rate are required, but they run the risk of missed diagnosis and increased delay. Sufficient resources are needed in secondary care to ensure the timely assessment of patients who are referred on the 2WR pathway.     

Multiple primary tumours following head and neck cancer in southern England during 1961–98

BACKGROUND: Successful initial treatment of oral and oro-phayngeal cancer has led to the emergence of second primary tumours (SPTs). Population data are meagre. METHODS: Occurrence of multiple primary cancers following a malignancy in a head and neck site was computed using data from a population-based cancer registry covering a population of 14 million. RESULTS: Among 59,958 subjects reported to the registry, 5.5% males and 3.6% females developed a second primary cancer. At the sites studied, a total of 2771 second primary cancers were found, compared with an expected number of 2341. The standardised incidence ratio (SIR) for contracting a new primary cancer was 1.14 (95% CI=1.09-1.19) for men and 1.34 (95% CI=1.24-1.44) for women. There was a significantly increased risk for a second cancer in most of the upper aerodigestive tract sites that are generally regarded as tobacco associated, with an SIR for subsequent oral cancer of 5.56 in men and 15.31 in women. Subjects first detected with a pharyngeal cancer experienced the highest SIR for a subsequent tumour. Excluding tobacco-associated sites, the risk of a subsequent cancer was not significantly raised in either sex (SIR 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.93) for men; SIR 0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.09) for women). CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk for multiple primary cancer was higher in younger subjects, those detected with a head and neck cancer during the 1990s as compared with earlier decades of the study, and among patients who received radiotherapy for their first tumour. By 20 years from the time of the first head and neck cancer, we estimate that approximately 30% of male patients and 20% of female patients will have developed an SPT.