Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Jul;59(564):e234-47.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X453567.

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

Ruth A Lewis  1 , Richard D Neal, Nefyn H Williams, Barbara France, Maggie Hendry, Daphne Russell, Dyfrig A Hughes, Ian Russell, Nicholas S A Stuart, David Weller, Clare Wilkinson
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

Ruth A Lewis et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care.

Design of study: Systematic review.

Setting: Primary and secondary care settings.

Method: A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals.

Conclusion: Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram showing the number of references identified, retrieved, and included in the review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Donnelly P, Hiller L, Bathers S, et al. Questioning specialists' attitudes to breast cancer follow-up in primary care. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(9):1467–1476. - PubMed
    1. Pascoe SW, Neal RD, Allgar VL, et al. Psychosocial care for cancer patients in primary care — recognition of opportunities for cancer care. Fam Pract. 2004;21(4):437–442. - PubMed
    1. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1996;313(7058):665–669. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell N, MacLeod U, Weller D. Primary care oncology: essential if high quality cancer care is to be achieved by all. Fam Pract. 2002;19(6):577–578. - PubMed
    1. Koinberg IL, Holmberg L, Fridlund B. Breast cancer patients' satisfaction with a spontaneous system of check-up visits to a specialist nurse. Scand J Caring Sci. 2002;16(3):209–215. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms