Effect of general practitioner-led versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care, with or without eHealth support, on quality of life (I CARE): an interim analysis of 1-year results of a randomised, controlled trial

Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Increased cancer survival leads to more patients requiring oncological follow-up. Debate about how best to coordinate this care has led to the proposed involvement of general practitioners (GPs) rather than continued reliance on hospital care. However, we still require patient opinions to inform this debate.

METHODS

This qualitative interview study explored opinions about organization of follow-up care of patients treated curatively for breast and colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis was applied.

RESULTS

We interviewed 29 patients and identified three themes concerning care substitution: "benefits and barriers," "requirements," and "suitable patient groups." Benefits included accessibility, continuity, contextual knowledge, and psychosocial support. Barriers included concerns about cancer-specific expertise of GPs and longer waiting times. Requirements were sufficient time and remuneration, sufficient training, clear protocols, and shared-care including efficient communication with specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

According to patients with cancer, formal GP involvement appears feasible, although important barriers must be overcome before instituting care substitution. A possible solution are personalized follow-up plans based on three-way conversations with the specialist and the GP after the initial hospital care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With adequate training, time, and remuneration, formal GP involvement could ensure more comprehensive care, possibly starting with less complex cases.

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.

Application Value of High-Quality Nursing in Operating Room in Rectal Cancer Operation and its Influence on Postoperative Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To study the value of high-quality care in operating room during operation of patients with rectal cancer and the effect of this nursing model on postoperative rehabilitation.

METHODS

This study recruited 72 patients with rectal cancer, including 36 in the control group and 36 in the observation group. Patients in the control group received routine care, and those in the observation group received high-quality care in operating room.

RESULTS

The anxiety score (5.50 ± .77 vs 10. 08 ± 1.13), stress score (6.97 ± .60 vs 8.61 ± .99), and depression score (4.02 ± .65 vs 5.50 ± .91) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The measured values of diastolic blood pressure (73.19 ± 1.96 vs 86.13 ± 2.0), systolic blood pressure (121.08 ± 1.62 vs 130.63 ± 2.84), heart rate (73.05 ± 1.63 vs 87.11 ± 2.91) and adrenaline E(E) (58.40 ± 3.02 vs 61.42 ± 3.86) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The cooperation degree (94.44 vs 75.00) in the observation group was greater than the control group, but the operation time (308.47 ± 9.92 vs 339.47 ± 12.70), postoperative intestinal function recovery time (16.30 ± 1.14 vs 30.94 ± 2.10) and length of stay (10.47 ± 1.85 vs 13.33 ± 1.95) were all shorter than the control group (P < .05). The nasopharyngeal temperature in the observation group was greater than the control group at 30 minutes during operation (36.16 ± .50 vs 35.19 ± .40) and after operation, and fear score (2.22 ± .42 vs 3.63 ± .72) was less than the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The application of high-quality care in the operating room during rectal cancer surgery has a significantly good clinical outcome.

Cancer worry is associated with increased use of supportive health care-results from the multinational InCHARGE study

PURPOSE

To assess use of health care following a diagnosis of endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark. Furthermore, to analyze the association between cancer worry and use of supportive care.

METHODS

An international multicenter cross-sectional questionnaire study was undertaken among female cancer survivors with endometrial, cervical, or ovarian cancer 1-7 years post diagnosis. We investigated different aspects of cancer survivorship and follow-up care. Health care use included information on the use of supportive health care, general practitioner (GP), and follow-up visits to the department of gynecology. Cancer worry was assessed with the Impact of Cancer (IoCv2) questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 1433 women completed the questionnaire. Health care use decreased from time of diagnosis and was higher among cervical and ovarian cancer survivors than endometrial cancer survivors. Twenty-five percent of the women with ovarian cancer reported severe cancer worry, in contrast to 10 and 15% of women diagnosed with endometrial and cervical cancer, respectively. Women with severe worry had significantly higher use of supportive care activities. In a multivariable regression analysis, cancer worry remained a significant correlate for use of supportive health care services irrespective of disease severity or prognosis. The strongest association was found for use of a psychologist (OR 2.1 [1.71-2.58]).

CONCLUSION

Cancer worry is associated with increased use of supportive care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Targeted, timely, and accessible psychological support aimed at severe cancer worry may improve survivorship care and ensure optimal referral of patients in need of additional care.

eHealth interventions to support colorectal cancer patients' self-management after discharge from surgery-an integrative literature review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) creates elevated self-management demands and unmet support needs post-discharge. Follow-up care through eHealth post-primary surgery may be an effective means of supporting patients' needs. This integrative review describes the evidence regarding eHealth interventions post-hospital discharge focusing on delivery mode, user-interface and content, patient intervention adherence, impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences of eHealth.

METHODS

A university librarian performed literature searches in 2021 using four databases. After screening 1149 records, the authors read 30 full-text papers and included and extracted data from 26 papers. Two authors analysed the extracted data using the 'framework synthesis approach'.

RESULTS

The 26 papers were published between 2012 and 2022. The eHealth interventions were mainly delivered by telephone with the assistance of healthcare professionals, combined with text messages or video conferencing. The user interfaces included websites, applications and physical activity (PA) trackers. The interventions comprised the monitoring of symptoms or health behaviours, patient information, education and counselling. Evidence showed a better psychological state and improved PA. Patients reported high satisfaction with eHealth. However, patient adherence was inadequately reported.

CONCLUSIONS

eHealth interventions may positively impact CRC patients' anxiety and PA regardless of the user interface. Patients prefer technology combined with a human element.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.

METHODS

The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.

FINDINGS

150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.

INTERPRETATION

SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Effects of Patient-Reported Outcome Tracking and Health Information Provision via Remote Patient Monitoring Software on Patient Outcomes in Oncology Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to 1) review the literature on the remote care model that uses remote patient monitoring software (RPMS) as key mechanisms in oncology care for symptom tracking and health information provision and (2) compare the remote care model to standard care in terms of health-related quality of life, symptom burden, health management self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression.

DATA SOURCES

The search was conducted on March 23, 2022, in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases.

RESULTS

The primary strategies for applying digital technology in remote care models are patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tracking and health information delivery. Common PRO measurements applied in the RPMS include quality of life, symptom burden, self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression. Nine randomized controlled trials testing seven RPMS interventions were examined. Compared to standard care, remote patient monitoring via RPMS was related to greater quality of life and lower physical symptom burden during cancer therapy. The RPMS incorporated into routine clinical care with nurses providing remote monitoring performed better on PRO than that not integrated.

CONCLUSION

The RPMS-based remote care model improves patient outcomes during cancer treatment, and it is not inferior to standard care until the RPMS function is more integrated with existing clinical care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are well-positioned to engage patients in self-care skills via RPMS and can play a vital role in integrating such a model of remote patient care into routine care practices.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164.

CONCLUSIONS

GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

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.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Telehealth Chronic Disease Management System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Long-term daily health monitoring and management play a more significant role in telehealth management systems nowadays, which require evaluation indicators to present patients' general health conditions and become applicable to multiple chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of subjective indicators of telehealth chronic disease management system (TCDMS).

METHODS

We selected Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane library, IEEE, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang, a Chinese medical database, and searched papers published from January 1, 2015, to July 1, 2022, regarding randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of the telehealth system on patients with chronic diseases. The narrative review summarized the questionnaire indicators presented in the selected studies. In the meta-analysis, Mean Difference (MD) and Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) with a 95% CI were pooled depending on whether the measurements were the same. Subgroup analysis was conducted if the heterogeneity was significant, and the number of studies was sufficient.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 4153 patients were included in the qualitative review. Seventeen different questionnaire-based outcomes were found, within which quality of life, psychological well-being (including depression, anxiety, and fatigue), self-management, self-efficacy, and medical adherence were most frequently used. Ten RCTs with 2095 patients remained in meta-analysis. Compared to usual care, telehealth system can significantly improve the quality of life (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.16-0.73; P=.002), whereas no significant effects were found on depression (SMD -0.25; 95% CI -0.72 to 0.23; P=.30), anxiety (SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.27 to 0.07; P=.71), fatigue (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -1.06 to 0.34; P<.001), and self-care (SMD 0.77; 95% CI -0.28-1.81; P<.001). In the subdomains of quality of life, telehealth statistically significantly improved physical functioning (SMD 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29; P=.03), mental functioning (SMD 0.37; 95% CI 0.13-0.60; P=.002), and social functioning (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.00-1.29; P=.05), while there was no difference on cognitive functioning (MD 8.31; 95% CI -7.33 to 23.95; P=.30) and role functioning (MD 5.30; 95% CI -7.80 to 18.39; P=.43).

CONCLUSIONS

TCDMS positively affected patients' physical, mental, and social quality of life across multiple chronic diseases. However, no significant difference was found in depression, anxiety, fatigue, and self-care. Subjective questionnaires had the potential ability to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term telehealth monitoring and management. However, further well-designed experiments are warranted to validate TCDMS's effects on subjective outcomes, especially when tested among different chronically ill groups.

Patient experiences of GP-led colon cancer survivorship care: a Dutch mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer survivorship care constitutes both follow-up and aftercare. GP involvement may help to personalise care.

AIM

To explore patients' experiences of GP-led versus surgeon-led survivorship care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients with stage I to III colon cancer were recruited from eight Dutch hospitals and randomised to receive care by either the GP or surgeon.

METHOD

A mixed-methods approach was used to compare GP-led care with surgeon-led care. After 1 year the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used to measure quality aspects of care. Next, interviews were performed at various time points (3-6 years after surgery) to explore patients' experiences in depth.

RESULTS

A total of 261 questionnaires were returned by patients and 25 semi-structured interviews were included in the study. Overall, patients were satisfied with both GP-led and surgeon-led care (ratings 9.6 [standard deviation {SD} 1.1] versus 9.4 [SD 1.1] out of 10). No important differences were seen in quality of care as measured by CQI. Interviews revealed that patients often had little expectation of care from either healthcare professional. They described follow-up consultations as short, medically oriented, and centred around discussing follow-up test results. Patients also reported few symptoms. Care for patients in the GP-led group was organised in different ways, ranging from solely on patient's initiative to shared care. Patients sometimes desired a more guiding role from their GP, whereas others preferred to be proactive themselves.

CONCLUSION

Patients experienced a high quality of colon cancer survivorship care from both GPs and surgeons. If the GP is going to be more involved, patients require a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe

BACKGROUND

The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research.

RESULTS

We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.

Addressing colon cancer patients' needs during follow-up consultations at the outpatient clinic: a multicenter qualitative observational study

Purpose

To describe colon cancer patients’ needs and how healthcare providers respond to these needs during routine follow-up consultations in hospital.

Methods

A multicenter qualitative observational study, consisting of follow-up consultations by surgeons and specialized oncology nurses. Consultations were analyzed according to Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences. Patients’ questions, cues, and concerns were derived from the data and categorized into supportive care domains. Responses of healthcare providers were defined as providing or reducing space for disclosure. Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a short questionnaire.

Results

Consultations with 30 patients were observed. Questions typically centered around the health system and information domain (i.e., follow-up schedule and test results; 92%). Cues and concerns were mostly associated with the physical and daily living domain (i.e., experiencing symptoms and difficulties resuming daily routine; 43%), followed by health system and information (i.e., miscommunication or lack of clarity about follow-up; 28%), and psychological domain (i.e., fear of recurrence and complications; 28%). Problems in the sexuality domain hardly ever arose (0%). Healthcare providers provided space to talk about half of the cues and concerns (54%). Responses to cancer-related versus unrelated problems were similar. Overall, the patients were satisfied with the information and communication received.

Conclusions

Colon cancer patients express various needs during consultations. Healthcare providers respond to different types of needs in a similar fashion. We encourage clinicians to discuss all supportive care domains, including sexuality, and provide space for further disclosure. General practitioners are trained to provide holistic care and could play a greater role.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07222-z.

Quality of life in a randomized trial comparing two neoadjuvant regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer-INCAGI004

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), but the emergence of different drug regimens may result in different response rates. Good clinical response translates into greater sphincter preservation, but quality of life (QOL) may be impaired after treatment due to chemoradiotherapy and surgical side effects.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the impact of clinical response and surgical resection on QOL in a randomized trial comparing two different neoCRT regimens.

METHODS

Stage II and III rectal cancer patients were randomized to receive neoCRT with either capecitabine (group 1) or 5-Fu and leucovorin (group 2) concomitant to long-course radiotherapy. Clinical downstaging was accessed using MRI 6-8 weeks after treatment. EORTCs QLQ-C30 and CR38 were applied before treatment (T0), after neoCRT (T1), after rectal resection (T2), early after adjuvant chemotherapy (T3), and 1 year after the end of treatment or stoma closure (T4). The Wexner scale was used for fecal incontinence evaluation at T4. A C30SummaryScore (Geisinger and cols.) was calculated to compare QOL results.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were assigned to group 1 and 31 to group 2. Clinical downstaging occurred in 70.0% of group 1 and 53.3% of group 2 (p = 0.288), and sphincter preservation was 83.3% in group 1 and 80.0% in group 2 (p = 0.111). No significant difference in QOL was detected when comparing the two treatment groups after neoCRT using QLQ-C30. However, the CR38 module detected differences in micturition problems (15.3 points), gastrointestinal problems (15.3 points), defecation problems (11.8 points), and sexual satisfaction (13.3 points) favoring the capecitabine group. C30SummaryScore detected significant improvement comparing T0 to T1 and deterioration comparing T1 to T2 (p = 0.025). The mean Wexner scale score was 9.2, and a high score correlated with symptoms of diarrhea and defecation problems at T4.

CONCLUSIONS

QOL was equivalent between groups after neoCRT except for micturition problems, gastrointestinal problems, defecation problems, and sexual satisfaction favoring the capecitabine arm after. The overall QOL using the C30SummaryScore was improved after neoCRT, but decreased following rectal resection, returning to basal levels at late evaluation. Fecal incontinence was high after sphincter preservation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03428529.

Integrated practice units present an opportunity over siloed survivorship care settings

Given the rapidly rising cancer burden in the USA, the need to innovate survivorship care for oncology patients is rising rapidly. The current body of empirical evidence in survivorship care has focused on care provided by general practitioners (GP) and specialists/surgeons (SS). In particular, current evaluations address cost of care, cancer recurrence, quality of life, and overall survival of patients, with results indicating no statistically significant differences in GP- and SS-led care models and little emphasis on the broader characteristics of care settings. We fill this gap in survivorship care by introducing a perspective on the potential for holistic care delivery with a multidisciplinary team approach at integrated practice units (IPUs). Additionally, we propose a comprehensive examination of survivorship care across GP-, SS-, and IPU-led settings to provide researchers and practitioners with solid ground to determine the optimal survivorship care model, considering four key characteristics: (1) operating mode and skills, (2) cost and accountability of care, (3) health outcome measurement, and (4) workflow and scheduling.

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners

BACKGROUND

With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care

OBJECTIVES

The I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients treated with curative intent for stages I-III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed.

RESULTS

Out of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4860.