Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers

Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: a pilot program

BACKGROUND

There is a need to better measure and improve the quality of oncology care and improve communication with patients and other providers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of prospective data collection for quality assessment in daily clinical practice. Data were used to create and share treatment plans/summaries (TPSs) at the point of care.

METHODS

Using a web-based tool, 20 diverse practices entered clinical data on each new early-stage breast cancer patient into the BCR for 14 months (September 2009 through November 2010). The tool created individual TPSs that were shared with patients. Practices received practice-specific and aggregate BCR quality measures data, participated in a survey, and received a participation stipend.

RESULTS

Twenty practices entered 2014 patients into the BCR, collecting demographic, clinical, and treatment information. Fifty-two percent of practice participants replied to an end-of-pilot survey: 73% were satisfied with the BCR and web-based tool, 31% expressed concern regarding time and effort, and 52% reported additional practice costs during the pilot. Among those who created or shared the TPSs, 90% thought the documents improved oncologist-patient communication, and 95% favored using BCR data for practice quality improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective data collection for quality assessment is feasible and allows sharing of TPSs with patients at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on decreasing implementation burden to practices, broadening participation, examining costs, and, most importantly, assessing its effects on patient outcomes.

Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer

PURPOSE

Little is known about the current role of the general practitioner (GP) in breast cancer follow-up care. This study explores primary healthcare use in the period after completion of primary breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

A total of 336 women with a history of early-stage breast cancer treated with curative intent were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen (RNG) (1998-2007) and matched with a reference population of 983 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP.

RESULTS

Over the entire follow-up period (starting 1 year post-diagnosis), the median numbers of face-to-face contacts, drug prescriptions, and referrals in the patient group were significantly higher than those in the reference group: 4.0 vs. 3.2/year, 12.3 vs. 8.4/year, and 0.4 vs. 0.3/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001 for all differences. At least one annual face-to-face contact was observed for 96.7 % of patients and 92.9 % of women from the reference population (Chi-square test p = 0.011). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts for reasons related to breast cancer or were prescribed hormone antagonists and aromatase inhibitors to treat breast cancer. The main predictor of higher rates of face-to-face contacts and drug prescriptions was a higher age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer, especially among the elderly. When follow-up is transferred to the primary care setting, new responsibilities of GPs might be incorporated into existing primary healthcare delivery.

Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: 'not what i want, but maybe what i need'

BACKGROUND Nearly one-third of office visits for cancer are handled by primary care physicians. Yet, few studies examine patient perspectives on these physicians' roles in their cancer follow-up care or their care preferences. METHODS We explored survivor preferences through qualitative, semistructured, in-depth interviews drawing on patients recruited from 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers and 6 community hospitals. We recruited a purposive sample of early-stage breast and prostate cancer survivors aged 47 to 80 years, stratified by age, race, and length of time from and location of cancer treatment. Survivors were at least 2 years beyond completion of their active cancer treatment RESULTS Forty-two survivors participated in the study. Most participants expressed strong preferences to receive follow-up care from their cancer specialists (52%). They described the following barriers to the primary care physician's engagement in follow-up care: (1) lack of cancer expertise, (2) limited or no involvement with original cancer care, and (3) lack of care continuity. Only one-third of participants (38%) believed there was a role for primary care in cancer follow-up care and suggested the following opportunities: (1) performing routine cancer-screening tests, (2) supplementing cancer and cancer-related specialist care, and (3) providing follow-up medical care when "enough time has passed" or the survivors felt that they could reintegrate into the noncancer population. CONCLUSION Survivors have concerns about seeing their primary care physician for cancer-related follow-up care. Research interventions to address these issues are necessary to enhance the quality of care received by cancer survivors.

Patient and provider preferences for survivorship care plans

PURPOSE

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are tools used to assist in the transition from treatment to surveillance cancer care. However, few studies have investigated survivor and provider preferences regarding SCPs. Our purpose was to explore survivor and primary care provider preferences regarding content, format, and delivery of SCPs.

METHODS

Focus groups and provider interviews were performed in 2010. Five different templates were presented to study participants for their feedback. Each SCP included a treatment summary, surveillance schedule, and care plan for the same fictitious patient. Sessions were transcribed, and field notes taken.

RESULTS

Four focus groups (n = 29 survivors) and five primary care providers participated. No cancer survivors had ever received a written SCP. We found clear preferences for the Journey Forward format (with some modifications) and face-to-face delivery (print or electronic) to the survivor by his or her oncologist just before or soon after completion of treatment. Primary care providers preferred an abbreviated version.

CONCLUSION

Written SCPs were endorsed by all patients and primary care providers as helpful communication tools. However, if used alone, the SCP would be insufficient to ease the transition to follow-up care. Improved communication and care coordination were identified as important for survivorship care that went beyond what this document might provide.

Integrating a prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation into breast cancer survivorship care

At some point during or after treatment, breast cancer may be considered a chronic illness, presenting many choices for managing the disease, its adverse treatment-related effects, other medical comorbidities as well as the biobehavioral burden of having a life-threatening disease, even for individuals with potentially curable breast cancer. Health care models, such as the chronic care model, the medical home, and the shared care model, provide a context for building survivorship health care models. Goals and characteristics of recently proposed shared care models for cancer survivorship health care delivery closely align with the goals and concepts of the prospective surveillance model (PSM) proposed elsewhere in this supplement to the journal Cancer. Given these similarities, along with the growth and expansion of survivorship care models and impending mandates for delivery, there is merit to considering how implementation of the PSM can be integrated with models of survivorship care delivery. The PSM model will likely face many similar challenges and barriers that have impeded widespread dissemination of other survivorship models of care. There exist opportunities to integrate lessons learned as well as to align efforts to achieve greater impact on the shared goal of improving health outcomes for breast cancer survivors.

The use of cancer treatment summaries and care plans among Massachusetts physicians

PURPOSE

Cancer survivorship presents many challenges for affected individuals and their health care providers. Reports from The Institute of Medicine document these challenges and recommend the use of survivorship treatment summaries and care plans to improve communication and coordination of care for cancer survivors. The purpose of our study was to assess current use of treatment summaries and care plans in Massachusetts and identify obstacles to greater use.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to cancer specialist physicians (CSPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) in Massachusetts. The survey asked CSPs about their preparation of treatment summaries and care plans for their cancer survivor patients and perceived barriers to the provision of these documents. PCPs were asked about receipt and utility of treatment summaries and care plans and information they would like to see in these reports.

RESULTS

One hundred eight CSPs and 400 PCPs answered the survey. Fifty-six percent of CSPs reported that they, or their staff, prepared treatment summaries for their cancer survivor patients; however, only 14% reported preparing care plans. Fifty-four percent of PCPs reported ever receiving a treatment summary, but only 16% ever received a care plan. CSPs cited lack of training, reimbursement, and templates as barriers to preparing care plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions are needed to make treatment summaries and care plans a part of standard care for all cancer survivors. Increasing the use of treatment summaries and care plans will require specific training and reimbursement and may be facilitated by templates that capture automated data.

Adherence to surveillance care guidelines after breast and colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines recommend routine surveillance, including office visits and testing, to detect new and recurrent disease among survivors of breast and colorectal cancer. The extent to which surveillance practice is consistent with guideline recommendations or may vary by age is not known.

METHODS

Cohorts of adult patients diagnosed with breast (n = 6205) and colorectal (n = 2297) cancer between 2000 and 2008 and treated with curative intent in 4 geographically diverse managed care environments were identified via tumor registries. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to describe time to initial and subsequent receipt of surveillance services. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the relation between patient characteristics and receipt of metastatic screening.

RESULTS

Within 18 months of treatment, 87.2% of breast cancer survivors received recommended mammograms, with significantly higher rates noted for patients aged 50 years to 65 years. Among survivors of colorectal cancer, only 55.0% received recommended colon examinations, with significantly lower rates for those aged ≥ 75 years. The majority of breast (64.7%) and colorectal (73.3%) cancer survivors received nonrecommended metastatic disease testing. In patients with breast cancer, factors associated with metastatic disease testing include white race (hazards ratio [HR], 1.13), comorbidities (HR, 1.17), and younger age (HR, 1.13; 1.15; 1.13 for age groups: <50, 50-64, and 65-74 respectively). In those with colorectal cancer, these factors included younger age (HR, 1.31; 1.25 for age groups: <50 and 50-64 respectively) and comorbidities (HR, 1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Among an insured population, wide variation regarding the use of surveillance care was found by age and relative to guideline recommendations. Breast cancer survivors were found to have high rates of both guideline-recommended recurrence testing and non-guideline-recommended metastatic testing. Only approximately 50% of colorectal cancer survivors received recommended tests but greater than 67% received metastatic testing.

Survivorship care plans in research and practice

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \

Survivorship care plans in research and practice

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \

A qualitative study of unmet needs and interactions with primary care among cancer survivors

Introduction:

Despite increasing numbers, there is little research investigating the long-term needs of cancer survivors. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of individuals who have survived at least 5 years following a cancer diagnosis, and to describe perceived unmet needs and interactions with primary care.

Methods:

Forty long-term survivors of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer were purposively selected for an in-depth qualitative study. We aimed for a maximum variation sample according to cancer site, gender, time since diagnosis, cancer needs, anxiety and depression. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded thematically using a grounded theory approach.

Results:

Analysis of the interview data is presented in four subthemes: the role they perceived for the general practitioner (GP), unmet needs, reasons for not using primary care for needs they perceived as cancer related, and ongoing care for cancer-related issues. The majority of cancer survivors did not see a role for their GP in their long-term care related to their cancer diagnosis as most considered that they did not need active follow-up, but some expressed a need for psychological services and information on possible long-term effects. Cancer survivors cited three main reasons for not using GP services in relation to their cancer diagnosis: GPs were seen as non-experts in cancer; they were perceived as too busy; and a lack of continuity within primary care made it difficult to talk about long-term issues. There was a wide variation in schedules and notification of PSA tests among the prostate cancer survivors.

Discussion:

The results from this project suggest that some cancer survivors have specific emotional and physical needs that could benefit from input from their primary care team, but not all cancer survivors look to their GP for their long-term cancer-related care. Better information care planning is required from specialists in order to identify those who would benefit most.

Needs of low-income african american cancer survivors: multifaceted and practical

This study aimed to identify the needs of low-income, African American cancer survivors in an urban setting. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews conducted with cancer survivors (n = 12), caregivers (n = 10), professionals (n = 10), and surveys from town hall meetings (n = 80). The major needs identified, across all groups, included a diverse array of practical needs including transportation, financial and job assistance, childcare, self-care assistance, more education and lifestyle information when diagnosed as well as after diagnosis, better post treatment plan, and more need for social support. They identified the ideal resource center as being located within the survivor's neighborhood and would provide a range of medically specific support as well as recreational services. Being of limited economic means has a host of implications for those diagnosed with cancer and for their family members. Participants suggested that needs for cancer survivors have to take into account a complexity of factors including culture, family, and especially economic implications.

Self-management and transitions in women with advanced breast cancer

CONTEXT

Self-management involves behaviors that individuals perform to handle health conditions. Self-management may be particularly challenging during transitions-shifts from one life phase or status to another, for example, from cure- to noncure-oriented care-because they can be disruptive and stressful. Little is known about individuals' experiences with self-management, especially during transitions.

OBJECTIVES

Our purpose was to describe experiences of self-management in the context of transitions among women with advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposive sample of 15 women with metastatic breast cancer about their self-management preferences, practices, and experiences, including how they managed transitions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. The qualitative method of interpretive description was used to code and analyze the data.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 52 years (range 37-91 years); most were White (80%), married (80%), and college educated (60%). Self-management practices related to womens' health and to communication with loved ones and providers. Participants expressed a range of preferences for participation in self-management. Self-management included developing skills, becoming empowered, and creating supportive networks. Barriers to self-management included symptom distress, difficulty obtaining information, and lack of knowledge about the cancer trajectory. Women identified transitions as shifts in physical, emotional, and social well-being, as when their cancer progressed and there was a need to change therapy. Transitions often prompted changes in how actively women self-managed and were experienced as positive, negative, and neutral.

CONCLUSION

Self-management preferences can vary. Providers should explore and revisit patients' preferences and ability to self-manage over time, particularly during transitions.

Working without a net: leukemia and lymphoma survivors' perspectives on care delivery at end-of-treatment and beyond

This study explored survivors' perspectives on care delivery and supportive care needs during reentry. Fifty-one individual interviews were conducted with adult leukemia and lymphoma survivors, 3 to 48 months from treatment cessation. Survivors reported poor continuity of care across the patient-survivor transition, difficulty finding appropriate information/services, lack of preparation, lack of support for survivorship issues, and inadequate or poorly timed follow-up as factors contributing to adjustment difficulties at end of treatment and beyond. Improved care coordination is needed after active treatment, including use of an exit interview and delivery of services that are more congruent and better timed to meet ongoing and emergent survivorship needs.

Survivors of breast cancer: patient perspectives on survivorship care planning

INTRODUCTION

Survivors of breast cancer (SBC) constitute the largest population of cancer survivors. Needs for survivorship care may vary according to life stage and urban/rural place of residence. This study was conducted to better understand patient preferences for survivorship care plans (SCP).

METHODS

Patients were identified through cancer agency electronic records and invited to participate by mail. Sessions were stratified by age and rural/urban place of residence. Participants were asked about preferences for content and format of SCP. Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured format with interviews being taped, transcribed, cross-checked for accuracy, and analyzed independently, using constant comparative methods.

RESULTS

Preferred SCP key elements included treatment summary, information on nutrition/exercise, expected side effects, signs and symptoms of recurrence, recommended follow-up schedule, information sent to primary care physician, and updates on changes. SBC emphasized preference for individualized content depending upon physical and psychosocial effects. No difference was observed between preferred SCP content among patients residing in urban/rural areas. Rural participants preferred electronic formats for ongoing information bulletins and communication with health care providers.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

SBC from all age groups identify common preferences for key SCP elements with individualized content reflecting the wide variation observed among physical and psychosocial effects of breast cancer. Patterns of key psychological, social, and physical effects observed at different life stages may help SCP customization.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Results provide direction for designing key content and format of SCP and also provide information about elements of care planning that should be customized to individual patient needs.

Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown.

AIM

To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach.

SETTING

Six general practices in the Thames Valley area.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and focus groups with primary care teams.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role.

CONCLUSION

Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.

Sisters Peer Counseling in Reproductive Issues After Treatment (SPIRIT): a peer counseling program to improve reproductive health among African American breast cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

African American breast cancer survivors may be at high risk for reproductive health problems, including menopause symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and distress about cancer-related infertility. The authors partnered with Sisters Network Inc. to create the Sisters Peer Counseling in Reproductive Issues After Treatment (SPIRIT) program, a culturally sensitive intervention program that combined a written workbook and peer counseling.

METHODS

Three hundred women were randomized to receive either the workbook plus 3 in-person sessions with a trained peer counselor or the workbook plus ≤ 30 minutes of telephone counseling to be initiated by the participant. Questionnaires at baseline, post-treatment, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up assessed emotional distress, sexual function, relationship satisfaction, spirituality, menopause symptoms, and knowledge. Satisfaction with the program and the use of medical care also were assessed.

RESULTS

Both groups of women improved significantly in knowledge, decreased in distress, and had decreased hot flashes. Sexually active women had improved sexual function at 6-month follow-up but not at 1 year. However, peer counseling had little incremental benefit over the telephone counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPIRIT program was rated very useful by 66% of women. Outcomes justify continued use of the workbook and further research to optimize the impact of peer counseling.

Research in progress conference for hospitalists provides valuable peer mentoring

BACKGROUND

Many academic hospitalist units lack senior mentors. In such groups, peer mentoring may be valuable. To formalize collaboration, we instituted a research-in-progress conference at our institution, and this article describes the format and evaluation data.

METHODS

The research-in-progress sessions were held every 3 to 4 weeks and followed a specific format. Evaluation forms were completed after each of the 15 sessions during the 2009 academic year. Attendees and presenters completed surveys at the end of the sessions. The projects presented were tracked for successful academic outcomes, namely, publication in a peer-reviewed journal or presentation at a national meeting.

RESULTS

A mean of 9.6 persons were present at each session and completed the evaluations. All 15 presenters rated the climate of the sessions as extremely supportive, and 86% believed they were helpful in advancing their project. A total of 143 evaluations were completed by the attendees, 86% and 96% of whom found the sessions to be intellectually stimulating and to have satisfactorily kept them abreast of their colleagues' scholarly pursuits, respectively. To date, 10 of the 15 projects have translated into successful academic outcomes: 6 peer-reviewed publications and 4 other presentations presented at national meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

The research-in-progress conference has been well received and has resulted in academic productivity within our hospitalist division. It is likely that such a conference will be most valuable for groups with limited access to senior mentors.