MD Acumen · MRCGP SCA course · free practice resources
MRCGP SCA course · Station 12

Station 12 · PSA result

A 55-year-old rings for a PSA result he had “for a work medical”; it is 5.6, his brother is incontinent after a prostatectomy, and he flies to his son's wedding in ten days.

Reviewed and kept current

Telephone consultation · Investigation and results · Gender, reproductive and sexual health · Undifferentiated presentation · 12-minute case · 3 min reading · Last editorial review: 11 October 2026 · Next scheduled refresh: 11 April 2027 · Clinical content signed by Course Director, 11 October 2026.

Candidate instructions

Read this as you would outside the room

Read the brief as you would in the examination (RCGP: twelve consultations with simulated patients, each lasting twelve minutes, with 3 minutes' reading at the start of each). There is no reference material. Everything below the brief is folded until the consultation is over.

Information
FrameYou have 3 minutes to read, then 12 minutes. Telephone consultation, audio only. Everything below this brief is folded away until the consultation is over.
Your roleGP partner at a suburban practice, working the results call-back list.
PatientIan Prescott, 55.
Reason for consultationCall-back list entry: “PSA result; patient has rung twice.”
FormatTelephone, audio only. You are ringing him; he answers from a car park at work. You cannot examine him; the result and the record are in front of you.

Information available

The records extract, printed as it appears. Results carry units and reference ranges.

Problem listNo significant history. Non-smoker. BMI 27.
MedicationNone. Allergies: none recorded.
PSA, 8 days ago5.6 micrograms/L. Requested by a locum after the patient asked at a routine appointment; no symptoms recorded; no rectal examination recorded. Laboratory comment: age-related reference range 50 to 59 years, below 3.5.
Other bloods, same dayUrea and electrolytes within range. Urine: no infection.
Family historyBrother: prostate cancer at 58; radical prostatectomy.

Your task

•
Give him the result and assess him by telephone.
•
Explain what the result does and does not mean, and what happens next.
•
Agree a plan with him, including the timing he asks for.
•
Address his concerns.
Folded away

For the role player and the observer

Open these after the consultation, or during it if you are observing. The role-player script and every marking section are public (D-76): this is practice material, not an examination.

1 · Role-player script — opening line, story, ICE, hidden facts and triggers (examination findings last)

Candidates: do not open until you have consulted.

Persona and manner

  • Ian Prescott, 55, an airline ground operations manager; organised, brisk, used to managing logistics; you want facts and a timeline and you hide anxiety behind questions about schedules. You are in your car in a car park; occasional airport noise.
  • You become quiet when your brother is mentioned.

Opening line (verbatim)

  • “Hello — I'm ringing for my PSA result. I only had it because my brother made me. I'm assuming it's fine? I'm flying to Perth for my son's wedding a week on Thursday, so if there's anything, I'd rather know now.”

The story

  • “No symptoms at all. I'm fit. I run.”
  • “The wedding: my son lives in Australia. Three weeks away. Non-negotiable.”
  • If asked about waterworks: “Maybe I get up once at night. That's normal, isn't it?” Stream fine; no blood; no pain; no bone pain; no weight loss.
  • If asked about the test: no recent urine infection, no catheter, no cycling before the test, no sex within 48 hours; “the nurse asked”.
  • No one has ever examined your prostate. If a rectal examination is proposed by phone: “No thanks, not today.” You will agree to come in for one before or after the flight.
  • Your brother Neil: diagnosed at 58, two years ago. “They took the whole thing out. He wears pads. He can't… you know. It's wrecked him.” You have decided you will not have that operation.
  • Your father died at 80 of a stroke; no other cancer in the family.
  • Married to Julie; two sons. Julie “will want to know everything”. You have not told her the test was done.
  • You would rather have any referral after the wedding, “I don't want it hanging over the trip”, but if told that two weeks matters, “then get me in before”.

Ideas, concerns and expectations

  • Idea: “Probably nothing. No symptoms.”
  • Concern: Ending up like Neil; the trip being cancelled; telling Julie.
  • Expectation: A normal result, or a plan that fits around the wedding.

Impact

  • Work: you run a team; a day off is a day of explaining.
  • Home: Julie does not know the test was done; your sons are grown; the wedding is the family event of the decade.
  • Driving and money: no concern.

Red flags

  • Present: A PSA above the age-specific referral threshold with a first-degree relative diagnosed under 60; no rectal examination recorded.
  • Absent: No lower urinary tract symptoms of note, no haematuria, no bone pain, no weight loss.
  • Absent: No recent urine infection, catheter, cycling or ejaculation that would raise the PSA falsely.

Hidden facts and their triggers

  • Getting up once at night — released only if asked about waterworks
  • Neil's incontinence and the decision never to have that operation — released only if asked why your brother made you test, or what his treatment was like
  • That Julie does not know the test was done — released only if asked who knows, or who you would want to tell
  • Your preference for the referral after the wedding — released only if the doctor raises timing, or at minute seven
  • That you would come in before the flight if told it matters — released only if the doctor explains why two weeks matters

Behaviour

  • Minute 1: “I'm assuming it's fine?”
  • Minute 3, if asked why your brother made you test: “It's wrecked him.”
  • Minute 7: “After the wedding, if possible.”
  • If the doctor gives the result clearly with a warning that it is not what you hoped, explains what the number does and does not mean, explains the pathway and that the next step is a scan before any biopsy and long before any operation, takes Neil's story seriously, arranges the examination and the referral now with the travel dates noted so the scan can be fitted before or straight after, involves Julie as you wish, and safety-nets: exhale. “So nobody's cutting anything out next week.” Ask the doctor to “get the ball rolling, and I'll tell Julie tonight.”
  • If the doctor says it is a bit high and suggests repeating it in three months: relieved. “Great, after the wedding then.”
  • If the doctor says you need an urgent referral with no explanation of the pathway: “Do I need to cancel the flight?” Panic.
  • If the doctor gives the result baldly with no warning: go silent for a few seconds, then ask for it again.

Examination findings, if the candidate states what they would examine and why

  • None: audio-only telephone consultation. There are no examination findings to give.
  • If the candidate proposes a rectal examination: “No thanks, not today.” You will come in for one tomorrow or after the flight; the candidate should say that the referral does not wait for it.
2 · Examiner mark sheet — generic SCA scheme plus the key facts for this case

Domain grades — with the key facts that earn a clear pass at this station

Domain (RCGP wording) · key facts for this caseCF (0)F (1)P (2)CP (3)Score
1 · Data gathering and diagnosis
  • Checks he is somewhere private before the result; confirms the result, why the test was done and that no examination was recorded
  • Lower urinary tract symptoms, blood in the urine, bone pain and weight loss asked; the confounders checked: infection, catheter, cycling, ejaculation
  • The brother's story in detail: age, treatment, what it did to him; the father; what a referral would mean for the wedding and for Julie
  • Assessment stated: a PSA above the age-specific threshold with a first-degree family history meets the urgent referral criteria
☐☐☐☐/3
2 · Clinical management and medical complexity (×1.5)
  • Summarises the result, the family history and his position and checks whether anything has been missed
  • Working diagnosis: a raised PSA above the age threshold that needs the suspected-cancer pathway; benign enlargement and prostatitis as alternatives the pathway tests, not delays
  • The plan: the suspected-cancer referral made now with the travel dates on it; a rectal examination arranged, not a condition; a scan first
  • Safety-net for urinary retention, bone pain and blood in the urine; a named contact; an appointment with Julie if he wishes; written information
☐ (0)☐ (1.5)☐ (3)☐ (4.5)/4.5
3 · Relating to others
  • Gives a warning shot before the result and checks he can talk; uses his logistic mindset to structure the steps
  • Explores Neil's story before he decides anything; separates referral from operation explicitly, because that is his real fear
  • Honest about uncertainty and about the wedding: does not promise, does not frighten; the timing negotiated with the facts
  • Involves Julie on his terms; checks understanding of the next step in his own words
☐☐☐☐/3
Case total/10.5

Global rating (recorded, not added to the total): ☐ Fail ☐ Bare Fail ☐ Bare Pass ☐ Pass

The domain grades (RCGP descriptors): CP clear pass — above the standard of a newly qualified, independent GP · P pass — sufficiently demonstrated at the standard · F fail — insufficiently demonstrated at the standard · CF clear fail — clearly demonstrated below the standard.

The RCGP grades each domain CF, F, P or CP and weights clinical management and medical complexity against the other two domains; the examination's maximum is 126 over twelve cases, which is 10.5 per case. The RCGP does not publish the mark each grade carries. MD Acumen's training sheet uses CF 0 · F 1 · P 2 · CP 3, with clinical management weighted ×1.5 (0 · 1.5 · 3 · 4.5), so that a case is marked out of 10.5 and a twelve-case circuit out of 126. A P in all three domains is 7.0; MD Acumen treats that line as the training standard for a case. The examination's pass mark is set by borderline regression for each diet and is published in the RCGP's diet summary reports; it is not a fixed fraction of 126.

Weighting rationale, in the RCGP's words: “To reflect the capability coverage within the clinical management and medical complexity domain this is weighted in comparison to the other two domains.”

3 · Expanded station standard — what earns a clear pass, pass, fail and clear fail here

Written to the standard of a newly qualified independent GP; the clear-pass row describes practice above that standard. It is a debriefing aid, not a checklist: the grade is a judgement that the essentials, the italic key facts on the mark sheet, were done well, at the patient's pace and in plain language. MD Acumen training standard; the RCGP does not publish case mark sheets.

GradeData gathering and diagnosisClinical management and medical complexityRelating to others
CPAsks whether he can talk and warns that the result is not what he hoped before giving the number and the threshold together. Asks the symptom and confounder questions in a short run he can follow from a car park. Asks why his brother made him test, hears “It's wrecked him”, and asks what Neil's treatment was and what Ian took from it, before saying anything about the next step. Asks who knows and what he wants Julie to know.Makes the suspected-cancer referral during the call and writes the travel dates on it, arranges the examination without making it a condition, and explains the pathway in steps he can plan around: the first appointment within two weeks, a scan first, a biopsy only if the scan warrants it, a decision long before any operation, surveillance a common outcome. Explains what else can raise a PSA. Gives a named contact, written information and a safety-net he can repeat.Separates referral from surgery explicitly in the first explanation, because that is the fear. Names Neil's story as the thing that will decide whether Ian attends, and answers it honestly: individualised treatment, incontinence a risk but not a certainty, active surveillance common. Uses his logistic mindset (steps, dates, what happens if) to carry the plan. Does not promise the wedding is safe and does not frighten him. Involves Julie on his terms, and names his courage in ringing.
PConfirms the result and the reason for testing. Asks about lower urinary tract symptoms, bone pain, weight loss and haematuria. Checks the confounders (infection, ejaculation, cycling, catheter). Takes the family history in detail: the brother's age and treatment. Establishes that no rectal examination was done. Assessment: a PSA above the age-specific threshold with a first-degree family history; the suspected-cancer referral criteria are met.Makes the suspected-cancer referral for prostate cancer with the family history noted; offers and arranges a rectal examination face to face, not as a prerequisite to referral. Explains the pathway accurately: a multiparametric MRI first, biopsy only if indicated, then the multidisciplinary team, with treatment options including active surveillance. Records the travel dates in the referral and discusses timing honestly. Safety-net: urinary retention, bone pain, haematuria. A named contact; an appointment with Julie offered.Breaks the result on the telephone with a warning shot and checks he is somewhere private. Explores the brother's story before he decides anything. Honest about uncertainty and about the wedding: neither promises nor frightens. Involves the wife on his terms. Checks understanding of the next step.
FReassures on the basis of no symptoms. Does not ask why the brother made him test, so Neil's story stays unexplored. Does not check the confounders or establish that no examination was done. Does not ask who knows. Assessment reached as “a bit high” with no reference to the threshold or the family history.Repeats the PSA in three months as the only action. Or refers without any explanation of what happens next, so that he asks whether to cancel the flight. Insists on a rectal examination before referral. Does not record the travel dates. No safety-net. No named contact.Gives the result baldly with no warning and no check of where he is. Colludes with delay to avoid distress. Ignores the car park and the airport noise. Uses two-week-wait, MRI and MDT as labels without explanation. Does not separate referral from surgery, so the fear of Neil's operation decides the outcome. Does not ask what he wants Julie to know.
CFThe result given as fine, or as a number with no meaning; the family history not asked; the brother's experience never heard; no assessment stated. Or the call conducted without checking that he can talk, so that a cancer conversation is held at a volume the car park can hear.Unsafe: a PSA of 5.6 at 55 with a first-degree relative diagnosed at 58 managed by repeating the test after the wedding, or by reassurance; or a referral so badly explained that he will not attend. He leaves with a result above threshold and no route to the pathway.Bald, frightening or collusive; dismissive of the wedding or the brother; talks over the panic; promises what cannot be promised; gives the result in a car park without checking that he can talk; ends with no idea what he has understood or decided, and with Julie neither mentioned nor asked about. No partnership and no honesty about the uncertainty in either direction.

Where candidates lose this station

  • Saying the result is a bit high and suggesting a repeat in three months, so that “Great, after the wedding then” ends the call (statement C3)
  • Hearing “It's wrecked him” and moving on to the referral without exploring what Neil's story means for whether Ian will attend (statement R2)
  • Announcing an urgent referral without explaining the pathway, so that he asks whether to cancel the flight and panics (statement R4)

What the examiner is listening for in the last four minutes

By 8:00 the assessment should have been stated: a PSA above the age-specific threshold with a first-degree family history, which meets the urgent referral criteria. The examiner is listening for: the referral made now with the travel dates on it; the examination arranged but not a condition; the pathway in steps (first appointment within two weeks, a scan first, biopsy only if needed, decisions long before any operation, surveillance common); the separation of referral from surgery said aloud; Julie involved on his terms; a safety-net that names retention, bone pain and blood in the urine; the named contact; and his own words on the next step.

4 · RCGP feedback statements — where underperformance was identified — with case-specific examples

The ten statements below are postulated: the feedback an examiner would most likely attach at this station, chosen from the RCGP's standardised list of 26 feedback statements that applies to every SCA case and spans the three marking domains (Data Gathering and Diagnosis; Clinical Management and Medical Complexity; Relating to Others). They are a prediction from the case content, its complexity and the marks that matter, not an examiner's record: any statement on the full list can be attached to any case, and feedback plays no part in the mark. Record the statements that applied in the practice log.

RCGP feedback statement (postulated top ten)Underperformance it signals (generic)Station-specific example
D1 · Data gathering was insufficient to enable safe assessment of the condition/situation
Data gathering and diagnosis · Data gathering and interpretation
History too thin to decide safely: the presenting problem not characterised, the essential negatives not asked.
  • Does not ask about urinary symptoms, bone pain, weight loss or blood in the urine.
  • Does not check the confounders before interpreting the result.
D2 · Existing information about the case was insufficiently utilised
Data gathering and diagnosis · Data gathering and interpretation; Organisation, management and leadership
The records, results or the referral note not read or not used; questions asked that the notes already answer.
  • Does not read the laboratory's age-related reference range or the family history line.
  • Does not notice that no rectal examination was recorded.
D6 · The implications of relevant findings identified during the data gathering were insufficiently recognised or understood
Data gathering and diagnosis · Data gathering and interpretation
A finding or result is elicited but its meaning is not recognised or not followed up.
  • Hears 5.6 against a threshold of 3.5 and calls it a bit high.
  • Hears “diagnosed at 58” and does not weigh a first-degree relative under 60.
C1 · The management plan relating to referral was inappropriate or not reflective of current practice
Clinical management and medical complexity · Clinical management
Referral made when not indicated, omitted when indicated, or to the wrong service or urgency.
  • Refers routinely rather than on the suspected-cancer pathway.
  • Does not refer at all because he has no symptoms.
C3 · The management plan relating to investigations was inappropriate or not reflective of current practice
Clinical management and medical complexity · Clinical management
Investigations ordered without purpose, omitted when needed, or not explained.
  • Saying the result is a bit high and suggesting a repeat in three months, so that “Great, after the wedding then” ends the call.
  • Orders a repeat PSA before referral in an asymptomatic man above threshold.
C5 · The plan relating to the medical management of risk was inadequate or inappropriate
Clinical management and medical complexity · Clinical management; Organisation, management and leadership
Clinical risk left unmanaged: no plan for the thing that could go wrong, or the risk not weighed.
  • No safety-net for retention, bone pain or blood in the urine.
  • Does not record the travel dates, so the appointment lands while he is in Australia.
C8 · Inappropriate or inadequate arrangements for follow-up, continuity and/or safety netting
Clinical management and medical complexity · Clinical management
No follow-up, continuity or safety-net, or one too vague to act on.
  • Ends with no named contact and no plan for the result of the scan.
  • Refers and does not see him again.
R2 · The person's agenda, health beliefs and/or preferences were insufficiently explored
Relating to others · Communication and consultation skills; Practising holistically, promoting health and safeguarding
What the person thinks is wrong, fears, or wants is not asked, or not used in the plan.
  • Hearing “It's wrecked him” and moving on to the referral without exploring what Neil's story means for whether Ian will attend.
  • Does not ask what he thinks is going on (“Probably nothing. No symptoms.”)
R4 · Explanations were inadequately shared or adapted for the person's needs
Relating to others · Communication and consultation skills
Explanation in jargon, at the wrong pace, or not adapted to the person's level and concerns.
  • Announcing an urgent referral without explaining the pathway, so that he asks whether to cancel the flight and panics.
  • Uses two-week-wait, MRI and MDT without explaining them.
R6 · Respect and/or sensitivity shown to the person was inadequate or inappropriate
Relating to others · Fitness to practise; Maintaining an ethical approach
Discourtesy, insensitivity to distress or to privacy; the person's dignity not protected.
  • Gives the result baldly with no warning shot and no check of where he is.
  • Dismisses Neil's incontinence as unlikely for him without acknowledging it.

The full list of 26 statements, with the generic meaning of each, is on the exam and the mark scheme.

5 · Examiner points of fact and guidelines

Points of fact the examiner should have to hand

Each statement is drawn from the named guideline, in its current version, with the date it was checked. The examiner marks against these facts; the candidate is not expected to quote them.

  1. Refer men using a suspected-cancer pathway referral for prostate cancer if their prostate feels malignant on digital rectal examination, or if their PSA is above the age-specific threshold: 2.5 at 40 to 49, 3.5 at 50 to 59, 4.5 at 60 to 69, 6.5 at 70 to 79, 5.0 at 80 and over (micrograms per litre); a digital rectal examination is recommended but its absence should not delay referral. NICE — NG12 Suspected cancer: recognition and referral, section 1.6, urological cancers: prostate, 2015, last updated 2025, checked 10 Oct 2026
  2. Before a PSA test, exclude and allow for factors that raise the level transiently: an active urinary infection (wait six weeks), ejaculation within 48 hours, vigorous exercise such as cycling within 48 hours, a prostate biopsy within six weeks, and a rectal examination within a week; a raised level in an asymptomatic man above the age threshold is referred, not repeated. GOV.UK (NHS England) — Prostate cancer risk management programme: advising well men about the PSA test, information for GPs, factors affecting the PSA level; action on a raised result, 2016, updated 2022, checked 10 Oct 2026
  3. Offer multiparametric MRI as the first-line investigation for people with suspected clinically localised prostate cancer; offer a biopsy only if the MRI Likert score is 3 or more, or if the score is 1 or 2 and the clinical suspicion is high after discussion; many localised cancers are managed by active surveillance. NICE — NG131 Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management, section 1.2, assessment and diagnosis; section 1.3, localised and locally advanced prostate cancer, 2019, last updated December 2021, checked 10 Oct 2026
  4. A first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer, particularly under 60, roughly doubles a man's risk; men with a family history are among those for whom the PSA conversation and a lower threshold for investigation are relevant. NICE CKS — Prostate cancer, background information: risk factors, current online version, checked 10 Oct 2026
  5. People referred on a suspected-cancer pathway should be seen within two weeks of referral; the faster diagnosis standard aims to tell the person whether they have cancer within 28 days of referral; a referral should carry the information the receiving team needs, including dates the person is unavailable. NHS England — Early diagnosis: the faster diagnosis standard and cancer waiting times, version 12, 2023, checked 10 Oct 2026
  6. When breaking significant news by telephone, confirm the person's identity and that they can talk privately, give a warning that the news is not what they hoped, give the information in small amounts, check understanding, and arrange a follow-up contact; written information supports the conversation. GMC — Decision making and consent, paragraphs 10 to 20, sharing information and discussing options, November 2020, checked 10 Oct 2026
  7. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men are assessed with a symptom score, a rectal examination, urinalysis and consideration of PSA after counselling; nocturia once a night is within the usual range for a man in his fifties and does not itself indicate disease. NICE — CG97 Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: management, section 1.1, initial assessment, 2010, last updated June 2015, checked 10 Oct 2026
  8. Men aged 50 and over who ask about the PSA test may have it after a discussion of its benefits and limitations; the GP does not offer it unprompted to men without symptoms. The test does not diagnose cancer: about three in four men with a raised PSA do not have prostate cancer on biopsy, and about one in seven men with a normal PSA do. A raised result in a man without symptoms is investigated through the urology pathway, not repeated to see whether it settles. GOV.UK (NHS England) — Prostate cancer risk management programme: advising well men about the PSA test, information for GPs, the PSA test: benefits and limitations; what to tell men, 2016, updated 2022, checked 10 Oct 2026
  9. For localised prostate cancer the choice of treatment is made with the man after multidisciplinary review: active surveillance is offered as an option for low-risk disease and considered for intermediate-risk disease, with radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy the alternatives. Before any radical treatment, men are told about the likely effects on urinary continence, erectile function and bowel function, and are offered the support of a specialist nurse; treatment is decided after diagnosis and staging, not at referral. NICE — NG131 Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management, section 1.3, localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: treatment decisions and adverse effects, 2019, last updated December 2021, checked 10 Oct 2026
  10. Consider a PSA test and a digital rectal examination to assess for prostate cancer in a man with any lower urinary tract symptoms (nocturia, frequency, hesitancy, urgency or retention), erectile dysfunction or visible haematuria. The safety-net for a man awaiting urology assessment names the symptoms that change the urgency: inability to pass urine, new bone pain and visible blood in the urine. NICE — NG12 Suspected cancer: recognition and referral, section 1.6, urological cancers: prostate, when to consider a PSA test, 2015, last updated 2025, checked 10 Oct 2026
  11. Information about a patient is shared with a spouse or family member only with the patient's consent, express or implied, and the patient decides how much is shared and when; where a patient asks that a result be kept from a relative, that wish is respected and recorded. A patient may ask for a family member to be present at a consultation or to be told the outcome, and the doctor records what has been agreed. GMC — Confidentiality: good practice in handling patient information, disclosures with consent; sharing information with those close to the patient, 2017, checked 10 Oct 2026
  12. The Renal and urology Topic Guide expects the GP to counsel men about PSA testing before it is requested, to perform a digital rectal examination and describe prostate size, tenderness and nodules, to apply the suspected-cancer referral criteria and know the pathway that follows, to break significant news safely including by telephone, and to recognise urinary retention, haematuria and bone pain as the symptoms that change the urgency. RCGP — GP curriculum: Renal and urology, Topic Guide: knowledge and skills, Being a GP, 2025 curriculum, checked 10 Oct 2026

Working references for this station

IssuerDocumentVersionChecked
NICENG12 Suspected cancer: recognition and referral2015, last updated 202510 Oct 2026
GOV.UK (NHS England)Prostate cancer risk management programme: advising well men about the PSA test, information for GPs2016, updated 202210 Oct 2026
NICENG131 Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management2019, last updated December 202110 Oct 2026
NICE CKSProstate cancercurrent online version10 Oct 2026
NHS EnglandEarly diagnosis: the faster diagnosis standard and cancer waiting timesversion 12, 202310 Oct 2026
GMCDecision making and consentNovember 202010 Oct 2026
NICECG97 Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: management2010, last updated June 201510 Oct 2026
GMCConfidentiality: good practice in handling patient information201710 Oct 2026
RCGPGP curriculum, Topic Guides: Renal and urology · People with long-term conditions including cancer · Consulting in general practiceBeing a GP, 2025 curriculum10 Oct 2026

12 statements, 724 words. Every statement is signed by the Course Director before it is published; a station whose facts have changed since signature carries no signature line until it is signed again.

This case's topic and its signed Golden Triangle, for review after the station.

Golden Triangle: Cancer: delayed presentation and diagnosis (red-flag recognition and referral) Knowledge Amber, Evidence Amber, Real-world Red. The triangle is white because it has not reached the Equinox. Knowledge has one arrow pointing in to the Equinox; Evidence has one arrow pointing in to the Equinox; Real-world has two arrows pointing in to the Equinox; Green corners have no arrow.

Golden Triangle

Cancer: delayed presentation and diagnosis (red-flag recognition and referral)

Knowledge Amber · Evidence Amber · Real-world Red

Not yet at the Equinox · UK (NHS England) · as of 7 October 2026 · How the triangle works

6 · RCGP curriculum tags for this case
RCGP curriculum (2025)This case
Topic Guide(s)Renal and urology · People with long-term conditions including cancer · Consulting in general practice
Core capabilitiesData gathering and interpretation · Decision-making and diagnosis · Communicating and consulting · An ethical approach
SCA Clinical Experience Group(s)Investigation / Results · Gender, reproductive and sexual health, including women's, men's, LGBTQ+, gynae and breast · New presentation of undifferentiated disease
AKT blueprint clinical areaMale reproductive health (moderate representation)
Case typeresults
Modalitytelephone
7 · My marks and reflection — practice log form

Record your three domain grades, your case total out of 10.5, your global rating, the RCGP feedback statements that applied, and what you will keep and change. The form is already labelled with this case and its web address; a copy of your entry is emailed to you, so your practice log builds up in your inbox and can be downloaded.

Record my marks and reflection for SCA-12

Revision link for this case: mdacumen.com/sca-station12-psa-result

Independence & scope. Formative training material from MD Acumen Ltd; not a prediction of exam performance. Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or delivered on behalf of the Royal College of General Practitioners; the marking domains and feedback statements are the RCGP's published ones, and every descriptor on this page is an Acumen training tool calibrated to them. Clinical content reflects UK guidance at the date of editorial review — always check the current guideline. All patients are fictional.