Background:It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.Methods:Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.Results:We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.Conclusions:This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Primary care providers have important roles across the cancer continuum, from encouraging screening and accurate diagnosis to providing care during and after treatment for both the cancer and any comorbid conditions. Evidence shows that higher cancer screening participation rates are associated with greater involvement of primary care. Primary care providers are pivotal in reducing diagnostic delay, particularly in health systems that have long waiting times for outpatient diagnostic services. However, so-called fast-track systems designed to speed up hospital referrals are weakened by significant variation in their use by general practitioners (GPs), and affect the associated conversion and detection rates. Several randomized controlled trials have shown primary care-led follow-up care to be equivalent to hospital-led care in terms of patient wellbeing, recurrence rates and survival, and might be less costly. For primary care-led follow-up to be successful, appropriate guidelines must be incorporated, clear communication must be provided and specialist care must be accessible if required. Finally, models of long-term cancer follow-up are needed that provide holistic care and incorporate management of co-morbid conditions. We discuss all these aspects of primary care, focusing on the most common cancers managed at the GP office-breast, colorectal, prostate, lung and cervical cancers.

BackgroundCancer survivors are living longer, prompting greater focus on managing cancer as a chronic condition. Shared care between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists, involving explicit partnership in how care is communicated, could ensure effective transitions between services. However, little is known about cancer patients' and survivors' preferences regarding shared care.ObjectiveTo explore Australian cancer survivors' views on shared care: what cancer survivors need from shared care; enablers and barriers to advancing shared care; and what successful shared care looks like.Setting and ParticipantsCommunity forum held in Adelaide, Australia, in 2015 with 21 participants: 11 cancer survivors, 2 family caregivers, and 8 clinicians and researchers (members of PC4‐Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group).InterventionQualitative data from group discussion of the objectives.ResultsParticipants stressed that successful shared care required patients being at the centre, ensuring accurate communication, ownership, and access to their medical records. PCPs were perceived to lack skills and confidence to lead complex cancer care. Patients expressed burden in being responsible for navigating information sharing and communication processes between health professionals and services. Effective shared care should include: shared electronic health records, key individuals as care coordinators; case conferences; shared decision making; preparing patients for self‐management; building general practitioners' skills; and measuring outcomes.Discussion and ConclusionsThere was clear support for shared care but a lack of good examples to help guide it for this population. Recognizing cancer as a chronic condition requires a shift in how care is provided to these patients.

It is essential that GPs receive regular education and training, and exposure to EoLC from an early stage in their careers to ensure skill and confidence. Research into the role of GPNs in symptom control needs to occur.

Patients and carers prefer a holistic approach to care. This review shows that GPs have an important role in ACP and that their involvement facilitates dying in the place of preference. Proactive identification of people approaching EoL is likely to improve all aspects of care, including planning and communicating about EoL. More work outlining the role of GPNs in end of life care is required.