Primary Care Collaborative Clinical Trials Group

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

Interventions for head/neck cancer (HNC) survivors may not address their cancer-related and general health needs. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guided this systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2021 of interventions targeting cancer survivors treated with curative-intent, using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Interventions were categorized into domains of the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework to characterize the scope and quality of interventions. We identified 28 studies for inclusion: 13 randomized and 15 non-randomized. Most targeted surveillance/management of physical effects (n= 24) including 13 that also targeted psychosocial effects. Four studies addressed prevention/surveillance for recurrence/new cancers, one addressed health promotion/disease prevention, and one addressed chronic medical conditions. Most studies (n= 27) had medium-high risk of bias. There are few high-quality studies addressing HNC survivorship. Future rigorously designed studies should address broader areas of care, including chronic disease management and health promotion/disease prevention.

BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. In order to maximise the impact of GPs and GPNs, the impact of different models of care that have been developed to support their practice of EoLC needs to be understood.ObjectiveTo examine published models of EoLC that incorporate or support GP and GPN practice, and their impact on patients, families and the health system.MethodSystematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases.ResultsFrom 6209 journal articles, 13 papers reported models of care supporting the GP and GPN’s role in EoLC or PC practice. Services and guidelines for clinical issues have mixed impact on improving symptoms, but improved adherence to clinical guidelines. National Frameworks facilitated patients being able to die in their preferred place. A single specialist PC-GP case conference reduced hospitalisations, better maintained functional capacity and improved quality of life parameters in both patients with cancer and without cancer. No studies examined models of care aimed at supporting GPNs.ConclusionsPrimary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, and most patient and health system outcomes are substantially improved with their involvement. Successful integrative models need to be tested, particularly in non-malignant diseases. Such models need to be explored further. More work is required on the role of GPNs and how to support them in this role.