1
|
Qaderi SM, Swartjes H, Custers JAE, de Wilt JHW. Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46:1779-1788. [PMID: 32571636 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2020] [Revised: 05/06/2020] [Accepted: 06/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S M Qaderi
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - H Swartjes
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - J A E Custers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - J H W de Wilt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Deckers EA, Louwman MW, Kruijff S, Hoekstra HJ. Increase of sentinel lymph node melanoma staging in The Netherlands; still room and need for further improvement. Melanoma Manag 2020; 7:MMT38. [PMID: 32399176 PMCID: PMC7212513 DOI: 10.2217/mmt-2019-0018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: To investigate implementation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and associations with socioeconomic status (SES). Patients & methods: Data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry on patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed for all stage IB–II melanoma cases diagnosed 2010–2016, along with SES data from The Netherlands Institute for Social Research. Results: The proportion of SLNB-staged patients increased from 40% to 65% (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that being female, elderly, or having head-and-neck disease reduced the likelihood of SLNB staging. Conclusion: SLNB staging increased by 25% during the study period but lagged among elderly patients and those with head-and-neck melanoma. In The Netherlands, SES no longer affects SLNB staging performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric A Deckers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke Wj Louwman
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Schelto Kruijff
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Harald J Hoekstra
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Qaderi SM, Wijffels NAT, Bremers AJA, de Wilt JHW. Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:22. [PMID: 31906899 PMCID: PMC6945647 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6509-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2019] [Accepted: 12/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined. METHODS Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSIONS Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S M Qaderi
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - N A T Wijffels
- Taskforce Coloproctology, Dutch Society of Surgery, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A J A Bremers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J H W de Wilt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Verstijnen J, Damude S, Hoekstra HJ, Kruijff S, Ten Tije AJ, Louwman WJ, Bastiaannet E, Stuiver MM. Practice variation in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for melanoma patients in different geographical regions in the Netherlands. Surg Oncol 2017; 26:431-437. [PMID: 29113662 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2017] [Revised: 08/13/2017] [Accepted: 08/29/2017] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to the lack of solid evidence for treatment benefit of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) as part of loco-regional surgical treatment of non-distant metastatic melanoma, there might be variation in surgical treatment strategies in the Netherlands. The objective of the current study was to assess differences in the performance of SLNB, in geographical regions in the Netherlands, of non-distant metastatic melanoma patients (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I-III). MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 28 550 melanoma patients, diagnosed between 2005 and 2013, were included in this population based retrospective study. Data were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Treatment strategies in 8 regions of the Netherlands were compared according to stage, excluding patients with distant metastasis (AJCC stage IV). RESULTS Throughout the Netherlands, there was substantial practice variation across the regions. The performance of SLNB in patients with clinically unsuspected lymph nodes and Breslow thickness >1.0 mm was significantly different between the regions. In a post hoc analysis, we observed that patients aged over 60 years, female patients and patients with a melanoma located in head and neck have lower odds to receive a SLNB. CONCLUSION There is considerable loco-regional practice variation which cannot completely be explained by the patient and tumor characteristics, in the surgical treatment of non-distant metastatic melanoma patients in the Netherlands. Although national guidelines recommend considering SLNB in all patients with a melanoma thicker than 1 mm, only half of the patients received a SLNB. Future research should assess whether this practice variation leads to unwanted variations in clinical outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Verstijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
| | - S Damude
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - H J Hoekstra
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - S Kruijff
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - A J Ten Tije
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, VU Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - W J Louwman
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - E Bastiaannet
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Gerontology & Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - M M Stuiver
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lott JP, Wang Q, Titus LJ, Onega T, Nelson HD, Weinstock MA, Elmore JG, Tosteson ANA. Temporal trends in healthcare utilization following primary melanoma diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177:845-853. [PMID: 28369774 DOI: 10.1111/bjd.15530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/25/2017] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known about the impact of primary melanoma diagnosis on healthcare utilization and changes in utilization over time. OBJECTIVES To evaluate population-based temporal trends in healthcare utilization following primary melanoma diagnosis. METHODS We conducted a before-and-after multiple time series study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 66 years with primary melanoma diagnoses between 2000 and 2009 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database. Primary exposure was time from primary melanoma diagnosis at 3-6 months and 6-24 months postdiagnosis. Covariates included tumour-, patient- and geographical-level characteristics and healthcare utilization in the 6 months before diagnosis. Poisson regression was used to estimate population-based risk-adjusted utilization rates for skin biopsies, benign skin excisions, internal medicine office visits and dermatology office visits. RESULTS The study population included 56 254 patients with first diagnoses of primary melanoma. Most patients were ≥ 75 years old (56·8%), male (62·1%), and had in situ melanoma (42·4%) or localized invasive melanoma (45·9%). From 2000 to 2009, risk-adjusted skin biopsy rates 24 months postdiagnosis increased from 358·3 to 541·3 per 1000 person-years (P < 0·001), and dermatology visits increased from 989·0 to 1535·6 per 1000 person-years (P < 0·001). Benign excisions and internal medicine visits remained stable. In 2000, risk-adjusted skin biopsy rates 6 months postdiagnosis increased by 208·5 relative to the 6 months before diagnosis (148·7 vs. 357·2) compared with an observed absolute increase of 272·5 (290·9 vs. 563·1) in 2009. Trends in dermatology visits were similar. CONCLUSIONS Utilization of skin biopsies and dermatology office visits following primary melanoma diagnosis has increased substantially over time. These results may inform optimization of care delivery for melanoma within the Medicare population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P Lott
- Cornell Scott-Hill Health Center, New Haven, CT, U.S.A
| | - Q Wang
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A
| | - L J Titus
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A
| | - T Onega
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A
| | - H D Nelson
- Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, U.S.A.,Department of Medical Informatics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, U.S.A.,Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, U.S.A.,Providence Cancer Center, Providence Health and Services, Portland, OR, U.S.A
| | - M A Weinstock
- Dermatoepidemiology Unit, US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, U.S.A.,Department of Dermatology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, U.S.A.,Department of Dermatology, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, U.S.A.,Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, U.S.A
| | - J G Elmore
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, U.S.A
| | - A N A Tosteson
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.,Department of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Willson ML, Vernooij RW, Gagliardi AR, Armstrong M, Bernhardsson S, Brouwers M, Bussières A, Fleuren M, Gali K, Huckson S, Jones S, Lewis SZ, James R, Marshall C, Mazza D. Questionnaires used to assess barriers of clinical guideline use among physicians are not comprehensive, reliable, or valid: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 86:25-38. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2016] [Revised: 11/27/2016] [Accepted: 12/23/2016] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
|
7
|
Braam HJ, Boerma D, Wiezer MJ, van Ramshorst B. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: experiment or standard care? A survey among oncologic surgeons and medical oncologists. Int J Clin Oncol 2015; 20:928-34. [DOI: 10.1007/s10147-015-0816-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2014] [Accepted: 03/03/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|