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 effect 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.

Purpose: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, we hypothesized that gemcitabine-based therapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is as effective as and less toxic than standard treatment. Patients and Methods: We randomly assigned 619 patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma to treatment with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) or to dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP). Patients with B-cell lymphoma also received rituximab. Responding patients proceeded to stem-cell collection and ASCT. Coprimary end points were response rate after two treatment cycles and transplantation rate. The noninferiority margin for the response rate to GDP relative to DHAP was set at 10%. Secondary end points included event-free and overall survival, treatment toxicity, and quality of life. Results: For the intention-to-treat population, the response rate with GDP was 45.2%; with DHAP the response rate was 44.0% (95% CI for difference, −9.0% to 6.7%), meeting protocol-defined criteria for noninferiority of GDP (P = .005). Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis. The transplantation rates were 52.1% with GDP and 49.3% with DHAP (P = .44). At a median follow-up of 53 months, no differences were detected in event-free survival (HR, 0.99; stratified log-rank P = .95) or overall survival (HR, 1.03; P = .78) between GDP and DHAP. Treatment with GDP was associated with less toxicity (P < .001) and need for hospitalization (P < .001), and preserved quality of life (P = .04). Conclusion: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, in comparison with DHAP, treatment with GDP is associated with a noninferior response rate, similar transplantation rate, event-free survival, and overall survival, less toxicity and hospitalization, and superior quality of life.

Purpose: Ontario's cancer system is unique because it has implemented two standardized assessment tools population-wide to improve care: the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures severity of nine symptoms (scale 0 to 10; 10 indicates the worst) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) measures performance status (scale 0 to 100; 0 indicates death). This article describes the trajectory of ESAS and PPS scores 6 months before death. Patients and Methods: Observational cohort study of cancer decedents between 2007 and 2009. Decedents required ≥1 ESAS or PPS assessment in the 6 months before death for inclusion. Outcomes were the decedents' average ESAS and PPS scores per week before death. Results: Ten thousand seven hundred fifty-two (ESAS) and 7,882 (PPS) decedents were included. The mean age was 65 years, half were female, and approximately 75% of assessments occurred in cancer clinics. Average PPS score declined slowly over the 6 months before death, starting at approximately 70 and ending at 40, declining more rapidly in the last month. For ESAS symptoms, average pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression scores remained relatively stable over the 6 months. Conversely, shortness of breath, drowsiness, well-being, lack of appetite, and tiredness increased in severity over time, particularly in the month before death. More than one third of the cohort reported moderate to severe scores (ie, 4 to 10) for most symptoms in the last month of life. Conclusion: In this large outpatient cancer population, trajectories of mean ESAS scores followed two patterns: increasing versus generally flat. The latter was perhaps due to available treatment (eg, prescriptions) for those symptoms. Future research should prioritize addressing symptoms that worsen over time.

Purpose: An Institute of Medicine report recommends that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). The trial objective was to determine if an SCP for breast cancer survivors improves patient-reported outcomes. Patients and Methods: Women with early-stage breast cancer who completed primary treatment at least 3 months previously were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated within two strata: less than 24 months and ≥ 24 months since diagnosis. All patients were transferred to their own primary care physician (PCP) for follow-up. In addition to a discharge visit, the intervention group received an SCP, which was reviewed during a 30-minute educational session with a nurse, and their PCP received the SCP and guideline on follow-up. The primary outcome was cancer-related distress at 12 months, assessed by the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, continuity/coordination of care, and health service measures. Results: Overall, 408 survivors were enrolled through nine tertiary cancer centers. There were no differences between groups on cancer-related distress or on any of the patient-reported secondary outcomes, and there were no differences when the two strata were analyzed separately. More patients in the intervention than control group correctly identify their PCP as primarily responsible for follow-up (98.7% v 89.1%; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.9; P = .005). Conclusion: The results do not support the hypothesis that SCPs are beneficial for improving patient-reported outcomes. Transferring follow-up to PCPs is considered an important strategy to meet the demand for scarce oncology resources. SCPs were no better than a standard discharge visit with the oncologist to facilitate transfer.

Sleep disturbance is prevalent in cancer with detrimental effects on health outcomes. Sleep problems are seldom identified or addressed in cancer practice. The purpose of this review was to identify the evidence base for the assessment and management of cancer-related sleep disturbance (insomnia and insomnia syndrome) for oncology practice. The search of the health literature included grey literature data sources and empirical databases from June 2004 to June 2012. The evidence was reviewed by a Canadian Sleep Expert Panel, comprised of nurses, psychologists, primary care physicians, oncologists, physicians specialized in sleep disturbances, researchers and guideline methodologists to develop clinical practice recommendations for pan-Canadian use reported in a separate paper. Three clinical practice guidelines and 12 randomized, controlled trials were identified as the main source of evidence. Additional guidelines and systematic reviews were also reviewed for evidence-based recommendations on the assessment and management of insomnia not necessarily in cancer. A need to routinely screen for sleep disturbances was identified and the randomized, controlled trial (RCT) evidence suggests benefits for cognitive behavioural therapy for improving sleep quality in cancer. Sleep disturbance is a prevalent problem in cancer that needs greater recognition in clinical practice and in future research.