Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months

Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current follow-up models in cancer are seen to be unsustainable and inflexible, and there is growing interest in alternative models, such as patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). It is therefore important to understand whether PIFU is acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification (to January 2022), selection and data extraction. Thematic synthesis was undertaken for qualitative data, and survey findings were tabulated and described.

RESULTS

Nine qualitative studies and 22 surveys were included, mainly in breast and endometrial cancer. Women treated for breast or endometrial cancer and HCPs were mostly supportive of PIFU. Facilitators for PIFU included convenience, control over own health and avoidance of anxiety-inducing clinic appointments. Barriers included loss of reassurance from scheduled visits and lack of confidence in self-management. HCPs were supportive of PIFU but concerned about resistance to change, unsuitability of PIFU for some patients and costs.

CONCLUSION

PIFU is viewed mostly positively by women treated for breast or endometrial cancer, and by HCPs, but further evidence is needed from a wider range of cancers, men, and more representative samples. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181412).

Quality of life and symptom burden after rectal cancer surgery: a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led versus standard follow-up

PURPOSE

After curatively intended rectal cancer (RC) surgery, new follow-up strategies are warranted, seeking more individualised care and targeting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. The FURCA trial aimed to investigate the effect of patient-led follow-up on HRQoL and symptom burden 3 years after surgery.

METHODS

RC patients from four Danish centres were randomised 1:1 to intervention (patient-led follow-up with patient education and self-referral to a specialist nurse) or control (standard follow-up with five routine doctor visits). Patients in both groups had a computed tomography (CT) at 1 and 3 years. The primary outcome (HRQoL) was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - colorectal (FACT-C) score (Ward et al. in Qual Life Res. 8(3):181-95, 18). Secondary outcomes were functional measures, patient involvement and satisfaction and cancer recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

From Feb 2016 to Aug 2018, 336 patients were included of whom 248 completed 3 years of follow-up. Between-group differences were found neither for the primary endpoint, nor for functional outcomes. The recurrence rate did not differ between the groups. Patient involvement and satisfaction were higher in the intervention group with statistical significance in almost half of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no effect on HRQoL and symptom burden from patient-led follow-up, although it may improve patient-perceived involvement and satisfaction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The findings in this study suggest that patient-led follow-up is a more tailored approach to meet cancer survivors' needs and might improve their ability to cope with survivorship.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

R97-A6511-14-S23.

Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous trials found that more intensive postoperative surveillance schedules did not improve survival. Oncological follow-up also provides an opportunity to address psychological issues (for example anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence). This systematic review assessed the impact of a less intensive surveillance strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emotional well-being, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing different follow-up strategies after oncological surgery and their effect on HRQoL and patient satisfaction, published before 4 May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on the most relevant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscales.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were identified, focusing on melanoma (4), colorectal (10), breast (7), prostate (4), upper gastrointestinal (4), gynaecological (3), lung (2), and head and neck (1) cancers. Twenty-two studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, of which 14 showed no significant difference in HRQoL between follow-up approaches. Five studies with a low risk of bias showed improved HRQoL or emotional well-being with a less intensive follow-up approach and three with an intensive approach. Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes revealed no negative effects for patients receiving less intensive follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Low-intensity follow-up does not diminish HRQoL, emotional well-being, or patient satisfaction.

Exploring the views of patients' and their family about patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' and their family members' views on acceptability and feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), including concerns and anticipated benefits.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from UK HNC clinics, support groups and advocacy groups. They completed a survey (n = 144) and/or qualitative interview (n = 30), three with a family member. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, quantitative data using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Preference for follow-up care in HNC was complex and individual. Many patients thought PIFU could beneficially reallocate health care resources and encourage self-management. Patients' main concerns with PIFU were losing the reassurance of regular clinic appointments and addressing mental well-being needs within PIFU, possibly using peer support. Patients were concerned about their ability to detect recurrence due to lack of expertise and information. They emphasised the importance of a reliable, direct and easy urgent appointment service and of feeling supported and heard by clinicians. Patients believed family and friends need support.

CONCLUSION

PIFU may be feasible and acceptable for certain HNC patients, providing it addresses support for mental well-being, provides quick, reliable and direct clinician access and information on "red flag" symptoms, and ensures patients and their caregivers feel supported.

Patient initiated follow-up in cancer patients: A systematic review

Background

Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) is increasingly being implemented for oncology patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the necessary reduction in face-to-face hospital outpatient appointments. We do not know if PIFU has a positive (or negative) impact on overall, or progression free, survival.

Objectives

To investigate the impact of PIFU on overall survival, progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, specifically quality of life (QoL) and economic costs compared to hospital follow up (HFU), for any type of cancer.

Methods

We carried out a systematic review using five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were eligible if they were controlled clinical trials comparing PIFU with another form of active follow-up. Effectiveness was assessed using the primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes of progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, QoL and cost effectiveness.

Results

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Only one study included survival as a primary outcome and indicated no significant differences between hospital-based follow-up and PIFU, although not adequately powered to detect a difference in survival. For secondary outcomes, few differences were found between PIFU and other forms of active follow-up. One study reported significant differences in fear of cancer recurrence between PIFU and HFU although did not reach the limit of clinical significance; in the short term, fear decreased significantly more in hospital based follow-up.

Conclusion

We do not have evidence to support the impact of PIFU on survival or progression free survival. Fully powered randomized controlled trials are required to determine the full impact of PIFU in the longer term.

Improved models of care for cancer survivors

The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.

Influence of social networks on cancer survivors' self-management support: A mixed methods study

Objective

The role of social networks, especially weaker ties (e.g. casual acquaintances and hobby groups), in self‐management of long‐term consequences of cancer is unexplored. This study aimed to explore the structure of cancer survivors' social networks and their contribution to self‐management support and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

The study used a sequential, exploratory mixed methods design. Phase 1 surveyed 349 lymphoma, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer survivors. Phase 2 analysed 20 semi‐structured interviews with respondents recruited from Phase 1.

Results

Phase 1 results suggested participants' HRQoL increased if they participated in an exercise group, if their self‐management skills increased, and social distress and negative illness perception decreased (p < 0.0005 adj. R² = 0.631). These findings were explored in Phase 2, identifying underlying mechanisms. Four themes were identified: disrupted networks after cancer treatment; navigating formal support and building individual capacity; peer networks and self‐management knowledge and linking networks to enable adaptation in recovery.

Conclusions

This study suggests engagement with community groups, particularly those not directly related to illness management and social interaction with weak ties, make a valuable contribution to self‐management support, increase HRQoL and enhance well‐being.

Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

AIMS

Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up - lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence - and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.

Patient-led follow-up reduces outpatient doctor visits and improves patient satisfaction. One-year analysis of secondary outcomes in the randomised trial Follow-Up after Rectal CAncer (FURCA)

BACKGROUND

FURCA (Follow-Up after Rectal Cancer) is a multi-centre randomised trial comparing patient-led follow-up with standard outpatient follow-up. This paper reports one-year follow-up data from the FURCA trial on selected secondary outcomes including type and number of contacts, patient-reported involvement and satisfaction with health care services during follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer (stage < IV) from four Danish surgical centres were randomised (1:1) into intervention (education and self-referral to project nurse) or standard follow-up (routine clinical doctor visits). The present analysis involved data on hospital contacts during the first year after surgery, patient involvement and satisfaction measured at one year, and baseline patient-reported and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Of 512 eligible patients, 168 were allocated to patient-led follow-up (intervention) and 168 to standard follow-up (control). The total number of hospital contacts in the intervention arm did not differ significantly from the number of contacts in the control arm (p = 0.44). More patients had ≥15 contacts in the intervention arm than in the control arm (p = 0.004). The total number of outpatient doctor visits was significantly lower in the intervention arm (p < 0.001). Patients in both arms rated involvement and satisfaction high; yet patients in the intervention arm scored significantly higher on two of six items regarding involvement and all five items regarding satisfaction. Of the 168 patients in the intervention arm, 43% made direct contact (self-referral) to the project nurse, and 14 of these patients (8%) had ≥4 contacts. The primary reason for self-referral was bowel dysfunction.

DISCUSSION

The findings indicate the value of a patient-led follow-up program in terms of direct access and more individually tailored intervention based on patients' needs, with most tasks being managed by nurses. Patient-led follow-up came with improved patient-perceived involvement and satisfaction; thus, it was both acceptable and favourable for the patients.

Unmet supportive care needs of breast, colorectal and testicular cancer survivors in the first 8 months post primary treatment: A prospective longitudinal survey

Objectives

To explore the supportive care needs of cancer survivors, the characteristics of patients with high levels of unmet need, changes in unmet need after treatment ends and differences in unmet needs of breast, colorectal and testicular survivors.

Methods

The method used was a prospective longitudinal mailed survey. Unmet needs, measured by 25‐item modified Cancer Survivors Unmet Needs survey at baseline (immediately post‐treatment) and 8 months later, were analysed descriptively.

Results

Of 434 breast, 186 colorectal and 75 testicular patients responding at baseline, 56.2%, 65.6% and 50.7%, respectively, had no unmet needs, the top decile having ≥10 (breast) or seven (colorectal and testicular) different needs and seven different unmet needs. The most frequently reported unmet need (all groups) was fear of cancer recurrence. Unmet needs fell significantly at 8 months for breast patients. Some patients reported new needs. Needs were lowest amongst colorectal survivors and differed between the three groups. Higher levels of unmet needs (breast and colorectal) were associated with having had chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Most survivors reported few unmet needs, but a small proportion have persisting or emerging needs. Routine or regular monitoring of unmet needs is required so that healthcare professionals can deliver personalised care based on individual needs, preferences and circumstances.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Differences in baseline characteristics and 1-year psychological factors between participants and non-participants in the randomized, controlled trial regarding patient-led follow-up after rectal cancer (FURCA)

Background: The ongoing multi-center randomized FURCA-trial investigates the effect of patient-led follow-up after rectal cancer, aiming at improving management of late effects and survivorship care. The purpose of this present sub-study was to identify potential systematic differences between participants and non-participants in the FURCA-trial, in regard to demographic and clinical factors at baseline, and in quality of life (QoL) and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) after one year. Material and methods: The population comprised patients invited to the FURCA-trial during the first 13 months' recruitment. Clinical and demographic data was obtained at baseline and differences were significance tested. Non-participants were requested to fill in a short survey one year after primary surgery, while participants received the questionnaires as part of more comprehensive one-year follow-up. Results: In the first 13 months of the trial, 113 out of the 262 patients invited, declined to participate. The main reason reported for this was lack of energy surplus. Participants were younger than non-participants (p < .01), and nonparticipation was particularly evident among patients ≥ 80 years. More than half of the invited females declined to participate. Good WHO Performance status was associated with participation (p = .01), yet there were no statistically significant differences in Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of surgery, oncological treatment or UICC stages between participants and non-participants. By one year after surgery, there was no difference in FCR-level (p = .92) and QoL (p = .25) between the non-participants and control group participants. Conclusion: The sub-study found that participants and non-participants differed at baseline in regard to age, gender and performance status, which is supported by results from other studies. No between-group differences were found in psychological factors after one year. These findings are important for the generalisability of the upcoming results from the trial.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme

BACKGROUND

Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management.

METHODS

This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients.

CONCLUSION

The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

Consensus and controversies regarding follow-up after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: a synopsis of guidelines used in countries represented in the European Society of Coloproctology

AIM

It is common clinical practice to follow patients for a period of years after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, but follow-up strategies vary widely. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of recommendations on this topic in guidelines from member countries of the European Society of Coloproctology, with supporting evidence.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the guideline databases Trip database, BMJ Best Practice and Guidelines International Network was performed. Quality assessment included use of the AGREE-II tool. All topics with recommendations from included guidelines were identified and categorized. For each subtopic, a conclusion was made followed by the degree of consensus and the highest level of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one guidelines were included. The majority recommended that structured follow-up should be offered, except for patients in whom treatment of recurrence would be inappropriate. It was generally agreed that clinical visits, measurement of carcinoembryoinc antigen and liver imaging should be part of follow-up, based on a high level of evidence, although the frequency is controversial. There was also consensus on imaging of the chest and pelvis in rectal cancer, as well as endoscopy, based on lower levels of evidence and with a level of intensity that was contradictory.

CONCLUSION

In available guidelines, multimodal follow-up after treatment with curative intent of colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the exact content and intensity are highly controversial. International agreement on the optimal follow-up schedule is unlikely to be achieved on current evidence, and further research should refocus on individualized 'patient-driven' follow-up and new biomarkers.