Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer

Key Points

  • Primary care providers have an increasingly important role in oncological services, particularly as the 'gatekeepers' to hospital-led services for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer

  • As cancer screening improves, primary care has a pivotal role in facilitating uptake, which can be enhanced using audit and feedback systems, office prompt systems and general practitioner endorsement

  • The epidemiology of cancer symptoms in primary care is becoming better understood, and risk models can be applied to identify patients requiring investigation for cancer

  • Fast-track referral routes might be a useful approach to reducing diagnostic delay in cancer, especially in health-care systems with long waiting times for out-patient diagnostic services

  • Primary care-led follow-up of breast and colorectal cancer is as effective as hospital-led care, but requires clear guidance for general practitioners, as well as good communication and access to specialists

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Primary care along the cancer continuum.
Figure 2: Screenshot of the QCancer tool, which is freely available at QCancer.org.
Figure 3: CAPER risk chart for lung cancer.45

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taplin, S. H. & Rodgers, A. B. Toward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty care. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2010, 3–10 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Macinko, J., Starfield, B. & Shi, L. The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970–1998. Health Serv. Res. 38, 831–865 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. National Public Health Partnership. Preventing Chronic Disease: a Strategic Framework [online], (2001).

  4. Taplin, S. H., Clauser, S., Rodgers, A. B., Breslau, E. & Rayson, D. Interfaces across the cancer continuum offer opportunities to improve the process of care. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2010, 104–110 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zapka, J. G., Taplin, S. H., Solberg, L. I. & Manos, M. M. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 12, 4–13 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arroyave, A. M., Penaranda, E. K. & Lewis, C. L. Organizational change: a way to increase colon, breast and cervical cancer screening in primary care practices. J. Community Health 36, 281–288 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonfill, X., Marzo, M., Pladevall, M., Marti, J. & Emparanza, I. Strategies for increasing women participation in community breast cancer screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD002943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002943.

  8. Ellis, P. et al. Diffusion and dissemination of evidence-based cancer control interventions. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. (Summ.) 79, 1–5 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Everett, T. et al. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD002834. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub2 (2011).

  10. Sabatino, S. A. et al. Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers: systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35 (Suppl.), S67–S74 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brawarsky, P., Brooks, D. R., Mucci, L. A. & Wood, P. A. Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing. Cancer Detect. Prev. 28, 260–268 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cole, S. R. et al. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J. Med. Screen. 14, 73–75 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Irwig, L., Turnbull, D. & McMurchie, M. A randomized trial of general practitioner-written invitations to encourage attendance at screening mammography. Community Health Stud. 14, 357–364 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lantz, P. M. et al. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed care sample: the efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. Am. J. Public Health 85, 834–836 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. O'Brien, M. A. et al. Are cancer-related decision aids effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 974–985 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomson O'Brien, M. A. et al. Audit and feedback versus alternative strategies: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000260 (2000).

  17. Kupets, R. & Covens, A. Strategies for the implementation of cervical and breast cancer screening of women by primary care physicians. Gynecol. Oncol. 83, 186–197 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shea, S., DuMouchel, W. & Bahamonde, L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3, 399–409 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Snell, J. L. & Buck, E. L. Increasing cancer screening: a meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 25, 702–707 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Balas, E. A. et al. Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Arch. Intern. Med. 160, 301–308 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kinsinger, L. S., Harris, R., Qaqish, B., Strecher, V. & Kaluzny, A. Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 13, 507–514 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lemelin, J., Hogg, W. & Baskerville, N. Evidence to action: a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns and improving preventive care. CMAJ 164, 757–763 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jepson, R. et al. The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol. Assess. 4, 1–133 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shekelle, P. G. et al. Interventions that increase the utilization of Medicare-funded preventive services for persons age 65 and older. Evidence report/technology assessment publication no HCFA-02151. Baltimore, MD: Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center/RAND. Report No.: HCFA Publication No.: HCFA-02151 (1999).

  25. Binstock, M. A., Geiger, A. M., Hackett, J. R. & Yao, J. F. Pap smear outreach: a randomized controlled trial in an HMO. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 13, 425–426 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Herman, C. J., Speroff, T. & Cebul, R. D. Improving compliance with breast cancer screening in older women: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 155, 717–722 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohler, P. J. Enhancing compliance with screening mammography recommendations: a clinical trial in a primary care office. Fam. Med. 27, 117–121 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Williams, R. B., Boles, M. & Johnson, R. E. A patient-initiated system for preventive health care. A randomised trial in community-based primary care practices. Arch. Fam. Med. 7, 338–345 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Belcher, D. W. Implementing preventive services. Success and failure in an outpatient trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 150, 2533–2541 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Krogsbøll, L. T., Jørgensen, K. J., Grønhøj Larsen, C. & Gøtzsche, P. C. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10. Art No.: CD009009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2.

  31. Reid, G. S. et al. Cervical screening in Perth and Kinross since introduction of the new contract. BMJ 303, 447–450 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Grady, K. E., Lemkau, J. P., Lee, N. R. & Caddell, C. Enhancing mammography referral in primary care. Prevent. Med. 26, 791–800 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hillman, A. L. et al. Physician financial incentives and feedback: failure to increase cancer screening in Medicaid managed care. Am. J. Public Health 88, 1699–1701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Doran, T. et al. Effect of financial incentives on incentivised and non-incentivised clinical activities: longitudinal analysis of data from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. BMJ 342, d3590 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Clementz, G. L., Aldag, J. C., Gladfelter, T. T., Barclay, A. M. & Brooks, H. F. A randomized study of cancer screening in a family practice setting using a recall model. J. Fam. Pract. 30, 537–541 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bowman, J., Sanson-Fisher, R., Boyle, C., Pope, S. & Redman, S. A randomised controlled trial of strategies to prompt attendance for a Pap smear. J. Med. Screen. 2, 211–218 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Atri, J. et al. Improving uptake of breast screening in multiethnic populations: a randomised controlled trial using practice reception staff to contact non-attenders. BMJ 315, 1356–1359 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ward, J. E., Boyle, K., Redman, S. & Sanson-Fisher, R. W. Increasing women's compliance with opportunistic cervical cancer screening: a randomized trial. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 7, 285–291 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hewitson, P., Ward, A. M., Heneghan, C., Halloran, S. P. & Mant, D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br. J. Cancer 105, 475–480 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Zajac, I. T. et al. Endorsement by the primary care practitioner consistently improves participation in screening for colorectal cancer: a longitudinal analysis. J. Med. Screen. 17, 19–24 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wishart, G. C. et al. Screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancer: is improved survival due to stage migration alone? Br. J. Cancer 98, 1741–1744 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hamilton, W. Five misconceptions in cancer diagnosis. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 59, 441–445 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Zarchy, T. M. & Ershoff, D. Which clinical variables predict an abnormal double-contrast barium enema result? Ann. Intern. Med. 114, 137–141 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jellema, P. et al. Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340, c1269 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamilton, W. The CAPER studies: five case-control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br. J. Cancer 101 (Suppl. 2), S80–S86 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hamilton, W. et al. The importance of anaemia in diagnosing colorectal cancer: a case-control study using electronic primary care records. Br. J. Cancer 98, 323–327 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hamilton, W. et al. The risk of colorectal cancer with symptoms at different ages and between the sexes: a case-control study. BMC Med. 7, 17 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Hamilton, W., Peters, T. J., Bankhead, C. & Sharp, D. Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case-control study. BMJ 339, b2998 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamilton, W., Peters, T. J., Round, A. & Sharp, D. What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study. Thorax 60, 1059–1065 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Hamilton, W., Round, A., Sharp, D. & Peters, T. J. Clinical features of colorectal cancer before diagnosis: a population-based case-control study. Br. J. Cancer 93, 399–405 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hamilton, W., Sharp, D. J., Peters, T. J. & Round, A. P. Clinical features of prostate cancer before diagnosis: a population-based, case-control study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 56, 756–762 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Hippisley-Cox, J. & Coupland, C. Identifying patients with suspected lung cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 61, e715–e723 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Hippisley-Cox, J. & Coupland, C. Identifying patients with suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 62, e29–e37 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hippisley-Cox, J. & Coupland, C. Symptoms and risk factors to identify women with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 63, e11–e21 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hippisley-Cox, J. & Coupland, C. Symptoms and risk factors to identify men with suspected cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 63, e1–e10 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Emery, J. Assessment of cancer risk in men and women. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 63, 4–5 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Collins, G. S. & Altman, D. G. Identifying patients with undetected colorectal cancer: an independent validation of QCancer (Colorectal). Br. J. Cancer 107, 260–265 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Astin, M., Griffin, T., Neal, R. D., Rose, P. & Hamilton, W. The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 61, e231–e243 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Olde Bekkink, M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy systematic review of rectal bleeding in combination with other symptoms, signs and tests in relation to colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 102, 48–58 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Shapley, M., Mansell, G., Jordan, J. L. & Jordan, K. P. Positive predictive values of ≥5% in primary care for cancer: systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 60, e366–e377 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. McCowan, C., Donnan, P. T., Dewar, J., Thompson, A. & Fahey, T. Identifying suspected breast cancer: development and validation of a clinical prediction rule. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 61, e205–e214 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Barton, M. B., Elmore, J. G. & Fletcher, S. W. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann. Intern. Med. 130, 651–657 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bywaters, J. The incidence and management of female breast disease in a general practice. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 27, 353–357 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Eberl, M. M., Phillips, R. L. Jr, Lamberts, H., Okkes, I. & Mahoney, M. C. Characterizing breast symptoms in family practice. Ann. Fam. Med. 6, 528–533 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Jones, R., Latinovic, R., Charlton, J. & Gulliford, M. C. Alarm symptoms in early diagnosis of cancer in primary care: cohort study using General Practice Research Database. BMJ 334, 1040 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Young, J. M., Muscatello, D. J. & Ward, J. E. Are men with lower urinary tract symptoms at increased risk of prostate cancer? A systematic review and critique of the available evidence. BJU Int. 85, 1037–1048 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bruyninckx, R., Buntinx, F., Aertgeerts, B. & Van Casteren, V. The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 53, 31–35 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. UK Department of Health, Health Service Circulars. HSC2000/013 Referral guidelines for suspected cancer [online], (2000).

  69. Meechan, D. et al. Variation in use of the 2-week referral pathway for suspected cancer: a cross-sectional analysis. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 62, e590–e597 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Lewis, R. et al. A systematic review of cancer waiting time audits. Qual. Saf. Heath Care 14, 62–66 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Thorne, K., Hutchings, H. A. & Elwyn, G. The effects of the two-week rule on NHS colorectal cancer diagnostic services: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 6, 43 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Barraclough, K. Diagnosis: shifting the ROC curve. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 62, 452–453 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Tørring, M. L. et al. Time to diagnosis and mortality in colorectal cancer: a cohort study in primary care. Br. J. Cancer 104, 934–940 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Vedsted, P. & Olesen, F. Are the serious problems in cancer survival partly rooted in gatekeeper principles? An ecologic study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 61, e508–e512 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Mansell, G., Shapley, M., Jordan, J. L. & Jordan, K. Interventions to reduce primary care delay in cancer referral: a systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 61, e821–e835 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Cockburn, J., Pit, S., Zorbas, H. & Redman, S. Investigating breast symptoms in primary care: enhancing concordance with current best advice. Cancer Detect. Prevent. 25, 407–413 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Jiwa, M. et al. Implementing referral guidelines: lessons from a negative outcome cluster randomised factorial trial in general practice. BMC Fam. Pract. 7, 65 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Logan, E. C., Yates, J. M., Stewart, R. M., Fielding, K. & Kendrick, D. Investigation and management of iron deficiency anaemia in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a simple management prompt. Postgrad. Med. J. 78, 533–537 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Wolters, R., Wensing, M., Van Weel, C. & Grol, R. The effect of a distance-learning programme on patient self-management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. Eur. Urol. 46, 95–101 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Khan, N. F. Implementation of a diagnostic tool for symptomatic colorectal cancer in primary care: a feasibility study. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 10, 54–64 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Lewis, R. A. et al. Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 59, e234–e247 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Montgomery, D. A., Krupa, K. & Cooke, T. G. Alternative methods of follow up in breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Br. J. Cancer 96, 1625–1632 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Grunfeld, E. et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ 313, 665–669 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Grunfeld, E. et al. Follow-up of breast cancer in primary care vs specialist care: results of an economic evaluation. Br. J. Cancer 79, 1227–1233 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Grunfeld, E. et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus speciality care. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 848–855 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wattchow, D. A. et al. General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Cancer 94, 1116–1121 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Aubin, M. et al. Interventions to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD007672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007672.pub2.

  88. Jefford, M. et al. Tailored chemotherapy information faxed to general practitioners improves confidence in managing adverse effects and satisfaction with shared care: results from a randomised controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2272–2277 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Nielsen, J. D., Palshof, T., Mainz, J., Jensen, A. B. & Olesen, F. Randomised controlled trial of a shared care programme for newly referred cancer patients: bridging the gap between general practice and hospital. Qual. Saf. Health Care 12, 263–272 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Gysels, M., Richardson, A. & Higginson, I. J. Does the patient-held record improve continuity and related outcomes in cancer care: a systematic review. Health Expect. 10, 75–91 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Williams, J. G. et al. Pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate the use of patient held records for the continuing care of patients with cancer. Qual. Health Care 10, 159–165 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. McCabe, M. S. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship care. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 631–640 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Grunfeld, E. et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 4755–4762 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Jefford, M., Schofield, P. & Emery, J. Improving survivorship care. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1391–1392 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Khan, N., Ward, A., Watson, E., Austoker, J. & Rose, P. Long-term survivors of adult cancers and uptake of primary health services: a systematic review. Eur. J. Cancer 44, 195–204 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Earle, C. C., Burnstein, H. J., Winer, E. P. & Weeks, J. C. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 1447–1451 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Bellizzi, K. M., Rowland, J. H., Jeffery, D. D. & McNeel, T. Health behaviors of cancer survivors: examining opportunities for cancer control intervention. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 8884–8893 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Earle, C. C. & Neville, B. A. Under use of necessary care among cancer survivors. Cancer 101, 1712–1719 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Lewis, R. A. et al. Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. e248–e259 (2009).

  100. Aubin, M. et al. Family physician involvement in cancer care follow-up: the experience of a cohort of patients with lung cancer. Ann. Fam. Med. 8, 526–532 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Baravelli, C. et al. The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up. J. Cancer Surviv. 3, 99–108 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Brennan, M. E., Butow, P., Marven, M., Spillane, A. J. & Boyle, F. M. Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment--experiences and preferences of Australian women. Breast 20, 271–277 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Hudson, S. V. et al. Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: 'not what I want, but maybe what I need'. Ann. Fam. Med. 10, 418–427 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Rutherford, A. & Burge, B. General practitioners and hospitals. Continuity of care. Aust. Fam. Physician 30, 1101–1107 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Department of Health, NHS Improvement. Survivorship: Living with and Beyond Cancer [online], (2009).

  106. Watson, E. K. et al. Personalised cancer follow-up: risk stratification, needs assessment or both? Br. J. Cancer 106, 1–5 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Emery, J. et al. The role of primary and community-based healthcare professionals in early detection and follow-up in cancer care: a rapid review of best practice models. Sax Institute [online], (2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J. D. Emery, K. Shaw, B. Williams, and L. J. Trevena researched the data for the article. All authors contributed to the discussion of the article's content, wrote the manuscript and edited it before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon D. Emery.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Emery, J., Shaw, K., Williams, B. et al. The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11, 38–48 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.212

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.212

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer