Changes

August 2025 — reviewed. This topic is a direct implementation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Minor structural changes have been made to this topic. 

Update

Goals

To support primary healthcare professionals to:

• Recognize symptoms suggestive of urological cancers.
• Refer people with suspected urological cancers within the appropriate timescales.
• Offer appropriate patient information and support for people with suspected cancer.

Outcome measures

No outcome measures were identified for this topic.

Audit criteria

QOF indicators

No QOF indicators were found during the review of this topic.

QIPP - Options for local implementation

NICE quality standards

Suspected cancer

• GPs have direct access to diagnostic endoscopy, ultrasound, MRI, X-ray and CT for people with suspected cancer.
• People presenting in primary care with symptoms that suggest oesophageal or stomach cancer have an urgent direct access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
• Adults presenting in primary care with symptoms that suggest colorectal cancer, who do not meet the referral pathway criteria, have a test for blood in their faeces.
• People with suspected cancer who are referred to a cancer service are given written information encouraging them to attend.

[NICE, 2021a]

Prostate cancer

• People with prostate cancer have a discussion about treatment options and adverse effects with a named nurse specialist.
• People with Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1 localised prostate cancer for whom radical treatment is suitable are offered active surveillance.
• People with Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 2, 3, 4 and 5 localised or locally advanced prostate cancer who are offered non-surgical radical treatment are offered radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in combination.
• People with adverse effects of prostate cancer treatment are referred to specialist services.
• People with hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer have their treatment options discussed by the urological cancer multidisciplinary team.

[NICE, 2021b]

Presentation

• Prostate cancer:
  • Localized prostate cancer usually develops in the outer zone of the prostate, where it seldom causes symptoms.
  • Locally advanced prostate cancer extends beyond the capsule of the prostate and is often asymptomatic when diagnosed.
  • Metastatic prostate cancer most frequently affects the bones, where it causes pain and fragility fractures. 
  • Prostate cancer can present with lower urinary tract symptoms, including nocturia, urinary frequency, and hesitancy. Haematuria can occur, as can erectile dysfunction.
  • The lower urinary symptoms overlap with those of benign prostatic hyperplasia – and the two conditions can co-exist. Digital rectal examination can help to differentiate the two, with hardness of the prostate or individual nodules being features suggestive of cancer.
  • Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is usually available in primary care, with age-specific raised values suggestive of cancer.
  • Definitive diagnosis requires biopsy, often guided by imaging performed in secondary care.
• Bladder cancer:
  • Several symptoms have been reported, with haematuria being the most common. Dysuria and urinary frequency are also features, especially when persistent.
  • As haematuria is a symptom of several cancers, investigation strategies may need to consider more than one possible cancer site, such as kidney, prostate, or endometrium. Similarly, dysuria and urinary frequency may be misattributed to urinary tract infection, especially in the elderly.
  • A diagnosis of bladder cancer is generally made by cystoscopy with biopsy, performed in secondary care. As bladder cancer shares some symptoms with other urological cancers, most haematuria clinics investigate with ultrasound before proceeding to cystoscopy.
• Renal cancer:
  • Renal cancer symptoms include haematuria, loin pain, urinary tract infections, or a mass in the flank.
  • The symptoms overlap with other urological cancers, particularly bladder cancer.
  • Most renal cancers are visible on ultrasound of the kidneys – a test that is available on referral to primary care.
  • Definitive diagnosis of renal cancer requires histology, performed in secondary care.
• Testicular cancer:
  • Testicular cancer usually presents as a change in the shape or texture of the testis. This may be painful.
  • It can present as disseminated disease, particularly with lymph node spread.
  • Testicular cancer can be seen on ultrasound of the testis, a test that is available in primary care.
• Penile cancer:
  • Penile cancer is usually seen as a raised lesion.
  • It can be difficult to differentiate penile cancer from the commoner lesions seen with some sexually transmitted diseases.
  • It is often possible to diagnose a typical penile cancer visually, but confirmation of the diagnosis is generally made by excision biopsy in secondary care.

[NICE, 2025]

Prevalence

• Prostate cancer:
  • Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer in men in the UK, and the second most common cause of cancer death in males in the UK (after lung cancer) [NICE, 2021c].  
    
    • Each year in the UK about 47,600 people are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and about 11,600 die from the disease [OHID, 2024].
    • It is estimated that 1 in 6–8 men in the UK will get prostate cancer at some point in their lives [NICE, 2020; NICE, 2021c]. 
• Bladder cancer:
  • Around 10,000 new bladder cancers are diagnosed each year in the UK, meaning that a full-time GP is likely to diagnose approximately one person with bladder cancer every 3–5 years.
  • It is seen in both sexes, though almost three-quarters of new cases are in males.
• Renal cancer:
  • Over 10,000 new renal cancers are diagnosed each year in the UK.
  • A full-time GP is likely to diagnose approximately one person with renal cancer every 3–5 years.
  • It is seen in both sexes, though around 60% of new diagnoses are in males.
• Testicular cancer:
  • Over 2000 new testicular cancers are diagnosed each year in the UK, so a full-time GP will usually diagnose one new person with testicular cancer during their career.
  • It is atypical in terms of the age groups affected. The peak age of onset is 30–34 years, although it can occur in older males.
  • It is the commonest cancer in males between 16 and 24 years.
• Penile cancer:
  • Penile cancer is rare, with around 500 cases diagnosed each year in the UK.
  • A full-time GP is likely to diagnose only one – if any – person with penile cancer during their career.

[NICE, 2025]

Prognosis

• Prostate cancer:
  • Prostate cancer is often indolent and does not lead to cancer-related mortality, and the risk of dying from prostate cancer depends on the initial disease characteristics at diagnosis [NICE, 2021c].
  • The prognostic risk for prostate cancer is calculated by taking into account the prostate-specific antigen level, Grade Group, and clinical stage [Gnanapragasam, 2018]. 
  • For the 1 in 6 people diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, the 5 year survival rate is 49% [NCPA, 2022].
• Bladder cancer:
  • The 5 year survival is approximately 49%.
• Renal cancer:
  • The 5 year survival is over 65%.
• Testicular cancer:
  • The 5 year survival is approximately 97%.
• Penile cancer:
  • More than 80% of men diagnosed with penile cancer aged 15-49 survive for 5 years or longer. 

[CRUK, 2025; NICE, 2025]

What symptoms are suggestive of urological cancers?

Table 1. Symptoms suggestive of urological cancers.

Scenario: Referral for suspected urological cancer

From birth onwards.

Search strategy

Scope of search

A full literature search was not conducted as this CKS topic is primarily based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline Suspected cancer: recognition and referral [NICE, 2015].

Search dates

August 2020 - August 2025

Key search terms

A full literature search was not conducted as this CKS topic is primarily based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline Suspected cancer: recognition and referral [NICE, 2015].

Sources of guidelines

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)
• Royal College of Physicians
• Royal College of General Practitioners
• Royal College of Nursing
• NICE Evidence
• World Health Organization
• Guidelines International Network
• TRIP database
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement
• National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
• Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
• British Columbia Medical Association
• Canadian Medical Association
• Alberta Medical Association
• Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium
• Singapore Ministry of Health
• National Resource for Infection Control
• RefHELP NHS Lothian Referral Guidelines
• Medline (with guideline filter)
• Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
• NHS Health at Work (occupational health practice)

Sources of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• The Cochrane Library:
  • Systematic reviews
  • Protocols
  • Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
• Medline (with systematic review filter)
• EMBASE (with systematic review filter)

Sources of health technology assessments and economic appraisals

• NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
• The Cochrane Library:
  • NHS Economic Evaluations
  • Health Technology Assessments
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
• International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment

Sources of randomized controlled trials

• The Cochrane Library:
  • Central Register of Controlled Trials
• Medline (with randomized controlled trial filter)
• EMBASE (with randomized controlled trial filter)

Sources of evidence based reviews and evidence summaries

• Bandolier
• Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin
• TRIP database
• Central Services Agency COMPASS Therapeutic Notes

Sources of national policy

• Department of Health
• Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)

Patient experiences

• Healthtalk
• BMJ - Patient Journeys

Sources of medicines information

The following sources are used by CKS pharmacists and are not necessarily searched by CKS information specialists for all topics. Some of these resources are not freely available and require subscriptions to access content.

• British National Formulary (BNF)
• electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC)
• European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
• LactMed
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
• REPROTOX
• Scottish Medicines Consortium
• Stockley's Drug Interactions
• TERIS
• TOXBASE
• Micromedex
• UK Medicines Information

Stakeholder engagement

Our policy

The external review process is an essential part of CKS topic development. Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders provides quality assurance of the topic in terms of:

• Clinical accuracy.
• Consistency with other providers of clinical knowledge for primary care.
• Accuracy of implementation of national guidance (in particular NICE guidelines).
• Usability.

Principles of the consultation process

• The process is inclusive and any individual may participate.
• To participate, an individual must declare whether they have any competing interests or not. If they do not declare whether or not they have competing interests, their comments will not be considered.
• Comments received after the deadline will be considered, but they may not be acted upon before the clinical topic is issued onto the website.
• Comments are accepted in any format that is convenient to the reviewer, although an electronic format is encouraged.
• External reviewers are not paid for commenting on the draft topics.
• Discussion with an individual or an organization about the CKS response to their comments is only undertaken in exceptional circumstances (at the discretion of the Clinical Editor or Editorial Steering Group).
• All reviewers are thanked and offered a letter acknowledging their contribution for the purposes of appraisal/revalidation.
• All reviewers are invited to be acknowledged on the website. All reviewers are given the opportunity to feedback about the external review process, enabling improvements to be made where appropriate.

Stakeholders

• Key stakeholders identified by the CKS team are invited to comment on draft CKS topics. Individuals and organizations can also register an interest to feedback on a specific topic, or topics in a particular clinical area, through the Getting involved section of the Clarity Informatics website.
• Stakeholders identified from the following groups are invited to review draft topics:
  • Experts in the topic area.
  • Professional organizations and societies (for example, Royal Colleges).
  • Patient organizations, Clarity has established close links with groups such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society specifically for their input into new topic development, review of current topic content and advice on relevant areas of expert knowledge.
  • Guideline development groups where the topic is an implementation of a guideline.
  • The British National Formulary team.
  • The editorial team that develop MeReC Publications.
• Reviewers are provided with clear instructions about what to review, what comments are particularly helpful, how to submit comments, and declaring interests.

Patient engagement

Clarity Informatics has enlisted the support and involvement of patients and lay persons at all stages in the process of creating the content which include:

• Topic selection
• Scoping of topic
• Selection of clinical scenarios
• First draft internal review
• Second draft internal review
• External review
• Final draft and pre-publication

Our lay and patient involvement includes membership on the editorial steering group, contacting expert patient groups, organizations and individuals.

Evidence exclusion criteria

Our policy

Scoping a literature search, and reviewing the evidence for CKS is a methodical and systematic process that is carried out by the lead clinical author for each topic. Relevant evidence is gathered in order that the clinical author can make fully informed decisions and recommendations. It is important to note that some evidence may be excluded for a variety of reasons. These reasons may be applied across all CKS topics or may be specific to a given topic.

Studies identified during literature searches are reviewed to identify the most appropriate information to author a CKS topic, ensuring any recommendations are based on the best evidence. We use the principles of the GRADE and PICOT approaches to assess the quality of published research. We use the principles of AGREE II to assess the quality of published guidelines.

Standard exclusions for scoping literature:

• Animal studies
• Original research is not written in English

Possible exclusions for reviewed literature:

• Sample size too small or study underpowered
• Bias evident or promotional literature
• Population not relevant
• Intervention/treatment not relevant
• Outcomes not relevant
• Outcomes have no clear evidence of clinical effectiveness
• Setting not relevant
• Not relevant to UK
• Incorrect study type
• Review article
• Duplicate reference

Organizational, behavioural and financial barriers

Our policy

The CKS literature searches take into consideration the following concepts, which are discussed at the initial scoping of the topic.

• Feasibility
  • Studies are selected depending on whether the intervention under investigation is available in the NHS and can be practically and safely undertaken in primary care.
• Organizational and Financial Impact Analysis
• Studies are selected and evaluated on whether the intervention under investigations may have an impact on local clinical service provision or national impact on cost for the NHS. The principles of clinical budget impact analysis are adhered to, evaluated and recorded by the author. The following factors are considered when making this assessment and analysis.
  • Eligible population
  • Current interventions
  • Likely uptake of new intervention or recommendation
  • Cost of the current or new intervention mix
  • Impact on other costs
  • Condition-related costs
  • In-direct costs and service impacts
  • Time dependencies
• Cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis studies are identified where available. 

We also evaluate and include evidence from NICE accredited sources which provide economic evaluations of recommendations, such as NICE guidelines. When a recommended action may not be possible because of resource constraints, this is explicitly indicated to healthcare professionals by the wording of the CKS recommendation.

Declarations of interest

Our policy

Clarity Informatics requests that all those involved in the writing and reviewing of topics, and those involved in the external review process to declare any competing interests. Signed copies are securely held by Clarity Informatics and are available on request with the permission of the individual. A copy of the declaration of interest form which participants are asked to complete annually is also available on request. A brief outline of the declarations of interest policy is described here and full details of the policy is available on the Clarity Informatics website. Declarations of interests of the authors are not routinely published, however competing interests of all those involved in the topic update or development are listed below. Competing interests include:

• Personal financial interests
• Personal family interest
• Personal non-financial interest
• Non-personal financial gain or benefit

Although particular attention is given to interests that could result in financial gains or losses for the individual, competing interests may also arise from academic competition or for political, personal, religious, and reputational reasons. An individual is not obliged to seek out knowledge of work done for, or on behalf of, the healthcare industry within the departments for which they are responsible if they would not normally expect to be informed.

Who should declare competing interests?

Any individual (or organization) involved in developing, reviewing, or commenting on clinical content, particularly the recommendations should declare competing interests. This includes the authoring team members, expert advisers, external reviewers of draft topics, individuals providing feedback on published topics, and Editorial Steering Group members. Declarations of interest are completed annually for authoring team and editorial steering group members, and are completed at the start of the topic update and development process for external stakeholders.

Competing interests declared for this topic:

None.