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.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise-from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists-has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to eff ect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care-its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families-are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Depressive disorder is a highly prevalent condition in Europe. The major finding is the wide difference in the prevalence of depressive disorders found across the study sites.

No abstract

Objectives To determine the acceptability of two psychological interventions for depressed adults in the community and their effect on caseness, symptoms, and subjective function. Design A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial, stratified by centre. Setting Nine urban and rural communities in Finland, Republic of Ireland, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Participants 452 participants aged 18 to 65, identified through a community survey with depressive or adjustment disorders according to the international classification of diseases, 10th revision or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition. Interventions Six individual sessions of problem solving treatment (n = 128), eight group sessions of the course on prevention of depression (n = 108), and controls (n = 189). Main outcome measures Completion rates for each intervention, diagnosis of depression, and depressive symptoms and subjective function. Results 63% of participants assigned to problem solving and 44% assigned to prevention of depression completed their intervention. The proportion of problem solving participants depressed at six months was 17% less than that for controls, giving a number needed to treat of 6; the mean difference in Beck depression inventory score was -2.63 (95% confidence interval -4.95 to -0.32), and there were significant improvements in SF-36 scores. For depression prevention, the difference in proportions of depressed participants was 14% (number needed to treat of 7); the mean difference in Beck depression inventory score was -1.50 (-4.16 to 1.17), and there were significant improvements in SF-36 scores. Such differences were not observed at 12 months. Neither specific diagnosis nor treatment with antidepressants affected outcome. Conclusions When offered to adults with depressive disorders in the community, problem solving treatment was more acceptable than the course on prevention of depression. Both interventions reduced caseness and improved subjective function.