Surveillance after resection for colorectal cancer

Voices of Black men: reflecting on prostate cancer survivorship care plans

PURPOSE

This study addresses the critical issue of survivorship care for Black prostate cancer survivors. The aim was to explore their awareness of survivorship care plans to improve prostate cancer care and survivorship within this high-risk group.

METHODS

Utilizing a thematic analysis approach, we conducted in-depth interviews focused on analyzing post-treatment experiences of Black prostate cancer survivors by applying interpretive explanations to data collected from participants.

RESULTS

Participants reported a significant gap in survivorship care plan communication post-treatment, as these plans were seldom discussed. Survivors highlighted the adoption of post-treatment strategies and self-education as means to enhance their comprehension of the survivorship process. Black survivors demonstrated an intrinsic motivation, after feeling "discarded," to find suitable resources to enhance their survivorship care for a better quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The prioritization of post-treatment care for Black prostate cancer survivors is important. By offering comprehensive post-treatment education, improving symptom transparency, and establishing safe spaces for open discussion, the quality of life of Black survivors may be substantially improved.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is a pressing need for dynamic post-treatment care coordination tailored to Black prostate cancer survivors. A lack of crucial post-treatment education for this population that experiences disproportionate burden of prostate cancer may exacerbate cancer health disparities. Addressing this care coordination gap may improve support systems, survivor well-being, and better cancer outcomes.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer-related and treatment-related side-effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one-half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two-thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I-II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436.

Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Care for Black Patients: Barriers and Solutions

Racial disparities in colorectal cancer for Black patients have led to a significant mortality difference when compared to White patients, a gap which has remained to this day. These differences have been linked to poorer quality insurance and socioeconomic status in addition to lower access to high-quality health care resources, which are emblematic of systemic racial inequities. Disparities impact nearly every point along the colorectal cancer care continuum and include barriers to screening, surgical care, oncologic care, and surveillance. These critical faults are the driving forces behind the mortality difference Black patients face. Health care systems should strive to correct these disparities through both cultural competency at the provider level and public policy change at the national level.

Disparities in post-operative surveillance testing for metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, treatment for metastatic recurrence is most effective when malignancies are detected early through surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level test and computer tomography (CT) imaging. However, utilization of these tests is low, and many survivors fail to meet the recommended guidelines. This population-based study assesses individual- and neighborhood-level factors associated with receipt of CEA and CT surveillance testing.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to identify Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC stages II-III between 2010 and 2013. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to estimate the effect of individual and neighborhood factors on receipt of CEA and CT tests within 18 months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 78% and 58% of CRC survivors received CEA and CT testing, respectively. We found significant within racial/ethnic differences in receipt of these surveillance tests. Medicare-Medicaid dual coverage was associated with 39% lower odds of receipt of CEA tests among non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks with dual coverage had almost two times the odds of receiving CEA tests compared to Blacks without dual coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study did not find significant differences in receipt of initial CEA and CT surveillance testing across racial/ethnic groups, the assessment of the factors that measure access to care suggests differences in access to these procedures within racial/ethnic groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our findings have implications for developing targeted interventions focused on promoting surveillance for the early detection of metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors and improve their health outcomes.

Masculinity Barriers to Ever Completing Colorectal Cancer Screening among American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and White Men (Ages 45-75)

Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality among White, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) men are attributable to differences in early detection screening. Determining how masculinity barriers influence CRC screening completion is critical for cancer prevention and control. To determine whether masculinity barriers to medical care are associated with lower rates of ever completing CRC screening, a survey-based study was employed from December 2020-January 2021 among 435 White, Black, and AIAN men (aged 45-75) who resided in the US. Logistic regression models were fit to four Masculinity Barriers to Medical Care subscales predicting ever completing CRC screening. For all men, being strong was associated with 54% decreased odds of CRC screening completion (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94); each unit increase in negative attitudes toward medical professionals and exams decreased the odds of ever completing CRC screening by 57% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.86). Black men who scored higher on negativity toward medical professionals and exams had decreased odds of ever screening. Consideration of masculinity in future population-based and intervention research is critical for increasing men's participation in CRC screening, with more salience for Black men.

A narrative review of sociodemographic risk and disparities in screening, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of the most common extrathoracic malignancies in the United States

There is a well-established association between multiple sociodemographic risk factors and disparities in cancer care. These risk factors include minority race and ethnicity, low socioeconomic status (SES) including low income and education level, non-English primary language, immigrant status, and residential segregation, and distance to facilities that deliver cancer care. As cancer care advances, existing disparities in screening, treatment, and outcomes have become more evident. Lung cancer remains the most common and fatal malignancy in the United States, with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer being the three most common and deadly extrathoracic malignancies. Achieving the best outcomes for patients with these malignancies relies on strong physician-patient relationships leading to robust screening, early diagnosis, and early referral to facilities that can deliver multidisciplinary care and multimodal therapy. It is likely that challenges experienced in developing patient trust and understanding, providing access to screening, and building referral pipelines for definitive therapy in lung cancer care to vulnerable populations are paralleled by those in extrathoracic malignancies. Likewise, progress made in delivering optimal care to all patients across sociodemographic and geographic barriers can serve as a roadmap. Therefore, we provide a narrative review of current disparities in screening, treatment, and outcomes for patients with breast, prostate, and colorectal malignancies.

Follow-up surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors of different sexual orientations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance.

METHODS

An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test.

RESULTS

About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.

Characteristics Associated With Nonreceipt of Surveillance Testing and the Relationship With Survival in Stage II and III Colon Cancer

We investigated characteristics of patients with colon cancer that predicted nonreceipt of posttreatment surveillance testing and the subsequent associations between surveillance status and survival outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 with disease stages II and III and who were between 66 and 84 years of age were eligible. A minimum of 3 years' follow-up was required, and patients were categorized as having received any surveillance testing (any testing) versus none (no testing). Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the relative likelihood of No Testing. Cox models were used to obtain subdistribution hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for 5- and 10-year cancer-specific and noncancer deaths. There were 16,009 colon cancer cases analyzed. Patient characteristics that predicted No Testing included older age, Black race, stage III disease, and chemotherapy. Patients in the No Testing group had an increased rate of 10-year cancer death that was greater for patients with stage III disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.48, 2.17) than those with stage II disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 1.66). Greater efforts are needed to ensure all patients receive the highest quality medical care after diagnosis of colon cancer.

Inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy among Medicare beneficiaries with surgically resected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, surveillance with colonoscopy is an important step for the early detection of local recurrence. Unfortunately, surveillance colonoscopy is underused, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. This study assesses the association between patient and neighborhood factors and receipt of surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data (2009-2014). Beneficiaries with surgically resected stage II or III CRC between the ages of 66 and 85 years were identified, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of factors on receipt of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 57.5% of the patients received initial surveillance colonoscopy. After adjustments for all factors, Blacks and Hispanics had lower odds of receiving colonoscopy than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs; 29.6% for Blacks; P = .002; 12.9% for Hispanics; P > .05). NHWs with Medicaid coverage had 35% lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than NHWs without Medicaid coverage. Minority patients with Medicaid were more likely to receive colonoscopy than their racial/ethnic counterparts without Medicaid coverage (P > .05). Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of ≥$90,000 had significantly lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of $0 to $30,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of initial surveillance colonoscopy remains low, and there are acute disparities between Black and NHW patients. The association between factors that assess a patient's ability to access colonoscopy and actual receipt of colonoscopy suggests inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy within and across racial/ethnic groups.

Patterns of surveillance for colorectal cancer: Experience from a single large tertiary institution

AIM

Colorectal cancer surveillance is an essential part of care and should include clinical review and follow-up investigations. There is limited information regarding postoperative surveillance and survivorship care in the Australian context. This study investigated patterns of colorectal cancer surveillance at a large tertiary institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of hospital records was conducted for all patients treated with curative surgery between January 2012 and June 2017. Provision of clinical surveillance, colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) within 24 months postoperatively were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate time-to-surveillance review and associated investigations.

RESULTS

A total of 675 patients were included in the study. Median time to first postoperative clinical review was 20 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 18-21) with only 31% of patients having their first postoperative clinic review within 2 weeks. Median time to first CEA was 100 days (95% CI, 92-109), with 47% of patients having their CEA checked within the first 3 months, increasing to 68% at 6 months. Median time to first follow-up CT scan was 262 days (95% CI, 242-278) and for colonoscopy, 560 days (95% CI, 477-625). Poor uptake of surveillance testing was more prevalent in patients from older age groups, those with multiple comorbidities, and higher stage cancers.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancer surveillance is multi-disciplinary and involves several parallel processes, many of which lead to inconsistent follow-up. Further prospective work is required to identify the reasons for variation in care and which aspects are most important to cancer patients.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States because of the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate every 3 years to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries; vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics; and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Data Base are presented for the most prevalent cancer types. Cancer-related and treatment-related short-term, long-term, and late health effects are also briefly described. More than 16.9 million Americans (8.1 million males and 8.8 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2019; this number is projected to reach more than 22.1 million by January 1, 2030 based on the growth and aging of the population alone. The 3 most prevalent cancers in 2019 are prostate (3,650,030), colon and rectum (776,120), and melanoma of the skin (684,470) among males, and breast (3,861,520), uterine corpus (807,860), and colon and rectum (768,650) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost two-thirds (64%) are aged 65 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by follow-up care providers. Although there are growing numbers of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care.

Evaluating Surveillance Patterns after Chemoradiation-Only Compared with Conventional Management for Older Patients with Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Upfront chemoradiation with omission of surgery (CR-only) is increasingly being used to treat rectal cancer. When CR-only is used with curative intent, intense surveillance is recommended. We hypothesized that in practice, few patients treated with CR-only receive intensive post-treatment surveillance.

STUDY DESIGN

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare, all nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients (≥66 years old) diagnosed from 2004 to 2012, who received upfront chemoradiation, were included. Patients who received CR-only were compared with patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy plus proctectomy. In the 24 months after treatment, markers of surveillance, including carcinoembryonic antigen testing (CEA), endoscopy, and imaging, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2,482 individuals met the inclusion criteria: 21% (n = 514) had CR-only and 79% had conventional treatment (ie chemoradiation plus proctectomy). Only 2.5% and 3.4% of those in the CR-only and conventional treatment groups, respectively, were in complete compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network surveillance guidelines during the first 2 years post-treatment (p < 0.01). The CR-only group was less likely than the conventional treatment group to receive: CEA (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.65), endoscopy (aRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87), and office visits (aRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. However, there were similar rates of cross-sectional imaging between groups (aRR 1.31; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance was poor for all Medicare patients with rectal cancer. Despite recommendations for closer follow-up, patients treated with CR-only were less likely to receive surveillance than those treated with conventional treatment. Efforts should be made to increase adherence to surveillance guidelines for all rectal cancer patients treated with curative intent, but particularly for those with higher risk of recurrence, such as those treated with CR-only.

Health care use during cancer survivorship: Review of 5 years of evidence

Improvements in treatment strategies have resulted in increasing survival rates among patients diagnosed with cancer but also result in a growing population of individuals who have greater health care needs. These needs will persist from diagnosis throughout the continuing phase of care, or the survivorship phase. To better define models of survivorship care, there must be a strong evidence base in survivor health care use patterns. The objective of this review, which covers studies from 2012 to January 2018, was to evaluate the available evidence on patterns of health care visits among survivors of adult cancers and to understand what is known about the rate of health care visits, the physician specialties associated with these visits, and/or the types health care settings (eg, outpatient, emergency room). The findings underscore the importance of primary care, with the majority of studies reporting that >90% of survivors visited a primary care provider in the prior year. Visits to oncologists and/or other physician specialties were positively associated with receiving cancer screenings and obtaining quality care for noncancer-related conditions. High care density/low care fragmentation between physician specialties had lower costs and a lower likelihood of redundant health care utilization. The follow-up in almost all studies was 3 years, providing short-term evidence; however, as the survivorship period lengthens with improved treatments, longer follow-up will be required. The long-term patterns with which survivors of cancer engage the health care system are critical to designing long-term follow-up care plans that are effective in addressing the complex morbidity that survivors experience.

Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States

Introduction

Guideline-recommended surveillance reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence, yet surveillance rates are low in the United States (US). Little is known about CRC surveillance rates among patients without health insurance and their primary care clinicians/oncologists' attitudes towards surveillance care.

Methods

A retrospective study of 205 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III CRC from 2008-2010 was conducted in an integrated system with a network of providers delivering care to patients lacking health insurance coverage. Surveillance patterns were characterized from medical records and logistic regression models examined correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance. 41 Parkland primary care physicians (PCPs) and 24 oncologists completed surveys to assess their attitudes and practices regarding CRC surveillance.

Results

38% of CRC patients received guideline-concordant surveillance; those with early stage cancers were less likely to receive surveillance (OR=0.35; 95 CI: 0.14, 0.87). PCPs and oncologists differed markedly on who is responsible for cancer surveillance care. 77% of oncologists responded that PCPs evaluated patients for cancer recurrence while 76% of PCPs responded that these services were either ordered by oncologists or shared with PCPs. 67% of oncologists said they rarely provide a treatment and surveillance care plan to survivors and over half said that they infrequently communicate with patients' other physicians about who will follow patients for their cancer and other medical issues.

Discussion

Care coordination between PCP and oncologist is needed to improve CRC surveillance. New models of shared care clearly delineating roles for oncologists and PCPs are needed to improve CRC survivorship care.

Post-treatment surveillance testing of patients with colorectal cancer and the association with survival: protocol for a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database

INTRODUCTION

Although the colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rate has significantly improved over the past several decades, many patients will have a recurrence following curative treatment. Despite this high risk of recurrence, adherence to CRC surveillance testing guidelines is poor which increases cancer-related morbidity and potentially, mortality. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with varying surveillance strategies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the survival benefit associated with surveillance testing. However, due to differences in study protocols and limitations of sample size and length of follow-up, the RCT may not be the best study design to evaluate this relationship. An observational comparative effectiveness research study can overcome the sample size/follow-up limitations of RCT designs while assessing real-world variability in receipt of surveillance testing to provide much needed evidence on this important clinical issue. The gap in knowledge that this study will address concerns whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network CRC surveillance guidelines improves survival.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with colon and rectal cancer aged 66-84 years, who have been diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 and have been included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, are eligible for this retrospective cohort study. To minimise bias, patients had to survive at least 12 months following the completion of treatment. Adherence to surveillance testing up to 5 years post-treatment will be assessed in each year of follow-up and overall. Binomial regression will be used to assess the association between patients' characteristics and adherence. Survival analysis will be conducted to assess the association between adherence and 5-year survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the National Cancer Institute and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida. The results of this study will be disseminated by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, presentation at national/international scientific conferences and posting through social media.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study

PURPOSE

We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test.

RESULTS

Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.

Cancer survivorship: Advancing the concept in the context of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Previous conceptualizations of cancer survivorship have focused on heterogeneous cancer survivors, with little consideration of the validity of conclusions for homogeneous tumour groups. This paper aims to examine the concept of cancer survivorship in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

Rodgers' (1989) Evolutionary Method of Concept Analysis guided this study. A systematic search of PUBMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2016 to identify studies of CRC survivorship. The Braun and Clarke (2006) framework guided the analysis and interpretation of data extracted from eighty-five publications.

RESULTS

Similar to general populations of cancer survivors, CRC survivors experience survivorship as an individual, life-changing process, punctuated by uncertainty and a duality of positive and negative outcomes affecting quality of life. However, CRC survivors experience specific concerns arising from the management of their disease. The concept of cancer survivorship has evolved over the past decade as the importance of navigating the healthcare system and its resources, and the constellation of met and unmet needs of cancer survivors are realised.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight core similarities between survivorship in the context of CRC and other tumour groups, but underlines issues specific to CRC survivorship. Communication and support are key issues in survivorship care which may detrimentally affect CRC survivors' well-being if they are inadequately addressed. Healthcare professionals (HCP's) therefore have a duty to ensure cancer survivors' health, information and supportive care needs are met in the aftermath of treatment.

Racial differences in colorectal cancer survival at a safety net hospital

BACKGROUND

While racial disparity in colorectal cancer survival have previously been studied, whether this disparity exists in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving care at safety net hospitals (and therefore of similar socioeconomic status) is poorly understood.

METHODS

We examined racial differences in survival in a cohort of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated at the largest safety net hospital in the New England region, which serves a population with a majority (65%) of non-Caucasian patients. Data was extracted from the hospital's electronic medical record. Survival differences among different racial and ethnic groups were examined graphically using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A univariate cox proportional hazards model and a multivariable adjusted model were generated.

RESULTS

Black patients had significantly lower overall survival compared to White patients, with median overall survival of 1.9 years and 2.5 years respectively. In a multivariate analysis, Black race posed a significant hazard (HR 1.70, CI 1.01-2.90, p=0.0467) for death. Though response to therapy emerged as a strong predictor of survival (HR=0.4, CI=0.2-0.7, p=0.0021), it was comparable between Blacks and Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite presumed equal access to healthcare and socioeconomic status within a safety-net hospital system, our results reinforce findings from previous studies showing lower colorectal cancer survival in Black patients, and also point to the importance of investigating other factors such as genetic and pathologic differences.

Trends in surveillance for resected colorectal cancer, 2001-2009

BACKGROUND

Little is known about recent trends in surveillance among the more than 1 million US colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Moreover, for stage I disease, which accounts for more than 30% of survivors, the guidelines are limited, and the use of surveillance has not been well studied. Guidelines were changed in 2005 to include recommendations for computed tomography (CT) surveillance in select patients, but the impact of these changes has not been explored.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who were identified in the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and underwent resection of stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009 was performed. The receipt of guideline-determined sufficient surveillance, including office visits, colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and CT imaging, in the 3 years after resection was evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 23,990 colon cancer patients and 5665 rectal cancer patients. Rates of office visits and colonoscopy were high and stable over the study period. Rates of CEA surveillance increased over the study period but remained low, even for stage III disease. Rates of CT imaging increased gradually during the study period, but the 2005 guideline change had no effect. Stage II patients, including high-risk patients, received surveillance at significantly lower rates than stage III patients despite similar recommendations. Conversely, up to 30% of stage I patients received nonrecommended CEA testing and CT imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be substantial underuse of surveillance for CRC survivors and particularly for stage II patients, who constitute almost 40% of survivors. The 2005 guideline change had a negligible impact on CT surveillance. Conversely, although guidelines are limited, many stage I patients are receiving intensive surveillance.

Considerations for observational research using large data sets in radiation oncology

The radiation oncology community has witnessed growing interest in observational research conducted using large-scale data sources such as registries and claims-based data sets. With the growing emphasis on observational analyses in health care, the radiation oncology community must possess a sophisticated understanding of the methodological considerations of such studies in order to evaluate evidence appropriately to guide practice and policy. Because observational research has unique features that distinguish it from clinical trials and other forms of traditional radiation oncology research, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics assembled a panel of experts in health services research to provide a concise and well-referenced review, intended to be informative for the lay reader, as well as for scholars who wish to embark on such research without prior experience. This review begins by discussing the types of research questions relevant to radiation oncology that large-scale databases may help illuminate. It then describes major potential data sources for such endeavors, including information regarding access and insights regarding the strengths and limitations of each. Finally, it provides guidance regarding the analytical challenges that observational studies must confront, along with discussion of the techniques that have been developed to help minimize the impact of certain common analytical issues in observational analysis. Features characterizing a well-designed observational study include clearly defined research questions, careful selection of an appropriate data source, consultation with investigators with relevant methodological expertise, inclusion of sensitivity analyses, caution not to overinterpret small but significant differences, and recognition of limitations when trying to evaluate causality. This review concludes that carefully designed and executed studies using observational data that possess these qualities hold substantial promise for advancing our understanding of many unanswered questions of importance to the field of radiation oncology.

Health disparities and the cancer survivor

Disparities on the basis of race and ethnicity have been described in a variety of survivorship outcomes, including late and long-term effects of treatment, surveillance and health maintenance, and psychosocial outcomes. However, the current body of literature is limited in scope and additional research is needed to better define and address disparities among cancer survivors.

Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Regular surveillance decreases the risk of recurrent cancer in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. However, studies suggest that receipt of follow-up tests is not consistent with guidelines. This systematic review aimed to: (1) examine receipt of recommended post-treatment surveillance tests and procedures among CRC survivors, including adherence to established guidelines, and (2) identify correlates of CRC surveillance.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus databases were conducted using terms adapted for each database's keywords and subject headings. Studies were screened for inclusion using a three-step process: (1) lead author reviewed abstracts of all eligible studies; (2) coauthors reviewed random 5 % samples of abstracts; and (3) two sets of coauthors reviewed all "maybe" abstracts. Discrepancies were adjudicated through discussion.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies are included in the review. Overall adherence ranged from 12 to 87 %. Within the initial 12 to 18 months post-treatment, adherence to recommended office visits was 93 %. Adherence ranged from 78 to 98 % for physical exams, 18-61 % for colonoscopy, and 17-71 % for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. By 2 to 3 years post-treatment, cumulative adherence ranged from 70 to 88 % for office visits, 89-93 % for physical exams, 49-94 % for colonoscopy, and 7-79 % for CEA testing. Between 18 and 28 % of CRC survivors received greater than recommended overall surveillance; overuse of physical exams (42 %), colonoscopy (24-76 %), and metastatic disease testing (1-29 %) was also prevalent. Studies of correlates of CRC surveillance focused on sociodemographic and disease/treatment characteristics, and patterns of association were inconsistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Deviation from surveillance recommendations includes both under- and overuse. Examination of modifiable determinants is needed to inform interventions targeting appropriate and timely receipt of recommended surveillance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Among CRC survivors, it remains unclear what modifiable psychosocial factors are associated with the observed under- and overuse of surveillance. Understanding and intervening with these psychosocial factors is critical to improving adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance and thereby reducing mortality among this group of survivors.