Identifying and describing cancer survivors: Implications for cancer survivorship research and clinical care

From active treatment to surveillance: how the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients

PURPOSE

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery, and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of (a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, (b) a broader survey of clinicians, and (c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors.

RESULTS

Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely (1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care, (2) lack of mental health services, (3) lack of side effect education, (4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans, (5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect, and (6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that telehealth has the potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

Current practices of follow-up programs for childhood cancer survivors in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Quality of life in childhood cancer survivors is largely affected by survivorship care and transition from treatment to long-term follow-up (LTFU). Referring to evidence-based recommendations, we wanted to evaluate LTFU care for survivors through a survey among the Italian Association for Pediatric Hematology-Oncology (AIEOP) centers. The project aimed to evaluate the availability of services in Italy, investigate strengths and weaknesses, analyze improvements of awareness in the field, and identify the gaps that need to be addressed by different centers.

METHODS

Together with the family representatives, on behalf of AIEOP's Late Effects Working Group, we developed a questionnaire on assisting childhood cancer survivors. All AIEOP centers received one questionnaire including information on local health system organizations; LTFU for childhood cancer survivors; services for adult survivors of childhood cancer; information provided to survivors/caregivers and care plan delivery.

RESULTS

Forty-eight AIEOP centers were contacted and 42 replied, with a response rate of 87.5%. The majority of respondents confirmed their interest in assisting patients with a survivorship care plan (95.2%), regardless of a clinic or dedicated staff.

DISCUSSION

This is the first overview of LTFU in Italy, which provides detailed results at national levels, prompting consideration of improvements in the last decade. Although there is a high level of interest in survivorship care, many centers lack resources to implement such programs. The identification of these challenges is useful for planning future strategies.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort.

METHODS

We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Cannabis use among cancer survivors in 22 states: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2020

BACKGROUND

This study identified factors associated with recent cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes among cancer survivors relative to individuals without a history of cancer.

METHODS

Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed for the 22 states completing the optional cannabis module in 2020. Weighted multiple logistic regression was performed to explore variables associated with past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes, stratified by history of cancer. Covariates included state-level cannabis policy, sociodemographic characteristics, health status indicators, and substance use.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was lower among cancer survivors compared to individuals with no history of cancer (7.57% vs. 10.83%). However, a higher proportion of cancer survivors reported use for medical purposes (82.23% vs. 62.58%). After adjusting for state-level policy, biological sex, age, educational attainment, self-reported race/ethnicity, home ownership, mental health status and physical health status, current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 5.14 vs. 3.74) and binge drinking (OR, 2.71 vs. 2.69) were associated with cannabis use in both groups. Characteristics associated with medical cannabis use varied for the two groups; however, daily use (20-30 days; OR, 1.72 vs. 2.43) was associated with cannabis use for medical purposes in both groups after adjusting for other variables in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of individuals report cannabis use for medical purposes with higher rates among cancer survivors. Findings support the urgent need for ongoing cannabis research to better understand and inform its use for medical purposes, as well as the development of high-quality standardized education materials and clinical practice guidelines.

From active treatment to surveillance: How the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients

Purpose

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of: a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, b) a broader survey of clinicians, and c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors.

Results

Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely: 1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care; 2) lack of mental health services; 3) lack of side effect education; 4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans; 5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect; and 6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that telehealth has potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

Association of patient-reported financial barriers with healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer

PURPOSE

We examined characteristics associated with financial barriers to healthcare and the association of financial barriers with adverse healthcare events among US adult cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare.

METHODS

We used nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data (2011-2013, 2015-2017) to identify adults with a history of non-skin cancer. We defined financial barriers as cost-related trouble accessing and/or delayed care in the prior year. Using propensity-weighted multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between financial barriers and adverse healthcare events (any ED visits, any inpatient hospitalizations).

RESULTS

Overall, 11.0% of adult Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer reported financial barriers in the prior year, with higher burden among beneficiaries < 65 years of age vs. ≥ 65 (32.5% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.0001) and with annual income < $25,000 vs. ≥ $25,000 (18.1% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.0001). In bivariate models, financial barriers were associated with a 7.8 percentage point (95% CI: 1.5-14.0) increase in the probability of ED visits. In propensity-weighted models, this association was not statistically significant. The association between financial barriers and hospitalizations was not significant in the overall population; however, financial barriers were associated with a decreased probability of hospitalization among Black/African American beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite Medicare coverage, beneficiaries with a history of cancer are at risk for experiencing financial barriers to healthcare. In the overall population, financial barriers were not associated with ED visits or hospitalizations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Policies limiting Medicare patient out-of-pocket spending and care models addressing health-related social needs are needed to reduce financial barriers experienced.

Provision and delivery of survivorship care for adult patients with haematological malignancies: A scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Haematological malignancies are a heterogenous group of blood and lymphatic cancers. Survivorship care is a similarly diverse term concerning patients' health and wellbeing from diagnosis to end of life. Survivorship care for patients with haematological malignancies has traditionally been consultant-led and secondary care-based, although shifts away from this model have been occurring, largely via nurse-led clinics and interventions with some remote monitoring. However, there remains a lack of evidence regarding which model is most appropriate. Although previous reviews exist, patient populations, methodologies, and conclusions are varied, and further high-quality research and evaluation has been recommended.

AIMS

The aim of the scoping review this protocol describes is to summarise current evidence on the provision and delivery of survivorship care for adult patients diagnosed with a haematological malignancy, and to identify existing gaps to inform future research.

METHODOLOGY

A scoping review will be carried out utilising Arksey and O'Malley's guidelines as its methodological framework. Studies published in the English language from December 2007 to the present will be searched on bibliographic databases, including Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus. Papers' titles, abstracts, and full text will predominantly be screened by one reviewer with a second reviewer blind screening a proportion. Data will be extracted using a customised table developed in collaboration with the review team, and presented in tabular and narrative format, arranged thematically. Studies included will contain data regarding adult (25+) patients diagnosed with any haematological malignancy in combination with aspects related to survivorship care. The survivorship care elements could be delivered by any provider within any setting, but should be delivered pre- or post-treatment, or to patients on a watchful waiting pathway.

REGISTRATION

The scoping review protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository Registries (https://osf.io/rtfvq; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RTFVQ).

Breast Cancer Survivors and Healthy Women: Could Gut Microbiota Make a Difference?-"BiotaCancerSurvivors": A Case-Control Study

In this first analysis, samples from 23 BC survivors (group 1) and 291 healthy female controls (group 2) were characterised through the V3 and V4 regions that encode the "16S rRNA" gene of each bacteria. The samples were sequenced by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and the taxonomy was identified by resorting to Kraken2 and improved with Bracken, using a curated database called 'GutHealth_DB'. The α and β-diversity analyses were used to determine the richness and evenness of the gut microbiota. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to assess differential abundance between both groups. The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio was calculated using a Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared test. The α-diversity was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.28 × 10^-12 for the Chao index and p = 1.64 × 10^-12 for the ACE index). The Shannon index, a marker of richness and evenness, was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.72). The microbiota composition was different between the two groups: a null hypothesis was rejected for PERMANOVA (p = 9.99 × 10^-5) and Anosim (p = 0.04) and was not rejected for β-dispersion (p = 0.158), using Unifrac weighted distance. The relative abundance of 14 phyla, 29 classes, 25 orders, 64 families, 116 genera, and 74 species differed significantly between both groups. The F/B ratio was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2, p < 0.001. Our study allowed us to observe significant taxonomic disparities in the two groups by testing the differences between BC survivors and healthy controls. Additional studies are needed to clarify the involved mechanisms and explore the relationship between microbiota and BC survivorship.

Prediction of cancer survivors' mortality risk in Korea: a 25-year nationwide prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting cancer survival and develop a mortality prediction model for Korean cancer survivors. Our study identified lifestyle and mortality risk factors and attempted to determine whether health-promoting lifestyles affect mortality.

METHODS

Among the 1,637,287 participants in the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS) cohort, 200,834 cancer survivors who were alive after cancer diagnosis were analyzed. Discrimination and calibration for predicting the 10-year mortality risk were evaluated. A prediction model was derived using the Cox model coefficients, mean risk factor values, and mean mortality from the cancer survivors in the KCPS cohort.

RESULTS

During the 21.6-year follow-up, the all-cause mortality rates of cancer survivors were 57.2% and 39.4% in men and women, respectively. Men, older age, current smoking, and a history of diabetes were high-risk factors for mortality, while exercise habits and a family history of cancer were associated with reduced risk. The prediction model discrimination in the validation dataset for both KCPS all-cause mortality and KCPS cancer mortality was shown by C-statistics of 0.69 and 0.68, respectively. Based on the constructed prediction models, when we modified exercise status and smoking status, as modifiable factors, the cancer survivors' risk of mortality decreased linearly.

CONCLUSIONS

A mortality prediction model for cancer survivors was developed that may be helpful in supporting a healthy life. Lifestyle modifications in cancer survivors may affect their risk of mortality in the future.