Risk-based health care, the cancer survivor, the oncologist, and the primary care physician

Care coordination models for transition and long-term follow-up among childhood cancer survivors: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Childhood cancer survivors may experience complex health issues during transition and long-term follow-up (LTFU); therefore, high-quality healthcare is warranted. Care coordination is one of the essential concepts in advanced healthcare. Care coordination models vary among childhood cancer survivors in transition and LTFU. This study aimed to identify care coordination models for childhood cancer survivors in transition and LTFU and synthesise essential components of the models.

DESIGN

This scoping review was guided by the methodological framework from Arksey and O'Malley and was reported with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted on six databases using possible combinations of terms relevant to childhood cancer survivors, transition/LTFU and care coordination model. Data were analysed by descriptive and content analysis.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search was first conducted in May 2023 and updated in May 2024. Six databases including Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched; meanwhile, a hand search was also conducted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies relevant to describing any models, interventions or strategies about care coordination of transition or LTFU healthcare services among childhood cancer survivors were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened and included studies. Basic information as well as care coordination model-related data in the included studies were extracted. Descriptive summary and content analysis were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

In the 20 545 citations generated by the search strategy, seven studies were identified. The critical determinants of the models in the included studies were the collaboration of the multidisciplinary team, integration of the navigator role and the provision of patient-centred, family-involved, needs-oriented clinical services. The main functions of the models included risk screening and management, primary care-based services, psychosocial support, health education and counselling, and financial assistance. Models of care coordination were evaluated at patient and clinical levels. Based on this review, core concepts of successful care coordination models for childhood cancer survivors in transition or LTFU were synthesised and proposed as the '3 I' framework: individualisation, interaction and integration.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review summarised core elements of care coordination models for childhood cancer survivors' transition and LTFU. A proposed conceptual framework to support and guide the development of care coordination strategies for childhood cancer survivors' transition and LTFU care was developed. Future research is needed to test the proposed model and develop appropriate care coordination strategies for providing high-quality healthcare for childhood cancer survivors' transition and LTFU.

Utilization of a primary care-based cancer survivorship clinic: patterns and patient characteristics

PURPOSE

The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) Clinic was established in 2015 to improve care delivery for the growing cancer survivor population. We aim to describe areas of care addressed by PCCS and factors associated with clinic utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 301 patients' clinic visits. We used negative binomial regression models to identify factors associated with the rate of PCCS clinic visits overall and for cancer surveillance and treatment-related effects.

RESULTS

There were 1702 clinic visits across 301 patients during the study period (77% female, median age 61). The most common areas of care addressed were chronic medical problems (80%), preventive health care (62%), cancer surveillance (59%), treatment-related effects (50%), and new/acute problems (46%). Multivariate analyses found that age > 60 years (IRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-3.0, p = 0.007) and higher number of comorbidities (IRR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 - 1.2, p < 0.001) were associated with more overall PCCS visits, while female gender was associated with fewer visits (IRR = 0.6, CI = 0.4 - 0.8, p = 0.001). Gastrointestinal cancer type, shorter length of survivorship, male gender, and higher number of comorbidities were associated with a higher rate of visits addressing both surveillance and treatment-related effects (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PCCS clinic addressed cancer and non-cancer related needs. Older patients and survivors with more comorbidities had significantly increased clinic utilization.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

As the cancer survivor population grows, increasing access to survivorship clinics based in primary care may help meet these patients' diverse oncologic and general health needs.

A scoping review of the evidence on survivorship care plans among minority, rural, and low-income populations

PURPOSE

Despite recent advances in cancer control and the number of cancer survivors increasing substantially over the past years, some cancer survivors continue to experience disparities due to barriers to recommended survivorship care. The use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) may be a way to help care for these individuals and their respective issues after they complete their primary treatment. The purpose of this scoping review is to understand the evidence on SCPs among minority, rural, and low-income populations: groups that experience disproportionately poorer cancer health outcomes.

METHODS

Computer-based searches were conducted in four academic databases. We included peer-reviewed studies published in the English language and conducted in the USA. We systematically extracted information from each paper meeting our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our search identified 45 articles. The 4 major themes identified were (1) disparities in the receipt of SCPs where populations experience unmet needs; (2) benefits of SCPs, including improved care coordination and self-management of cancer; (3) needs and preferences for survivorship care; and (4) barriers and facilitators to using SCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential benefits, underserved cancer survivors experience disparities in the receipt of SCPs and continue to have unmet needs in their survivorship care. Survivorship care may benefit from a risk-stratified approach where SCPs are prioritized to survivors belonging to high-risk groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

SCPs are a tool to deliver quality care for cancer survivors. While evidence is mixed on SCPs' benefits among the general population, SCPs show promise for underserved populations when it comes to proximal outcomes that contribute to disparities.

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

Parent caregivers' preferences and satisfaction with currently provided childhood cancer survivorship care

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the level of satisfaction of parent caregivers of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) with currently provided survivorship care and their preferences for survivorship care provider.

METHODS

Study subjects were parent caregivers recruited at three hospitals in Korea. Study data were collected from self-administered questionnaires and medical records. We assessed parent caregivers' levels of satisfaction with specific survivorship care contents and preferred types of survivorship care provider among oncologists, primary care physicians (PCPs), and institutional general physicians (IGPs). Factors associated with parent caregivers' preferences for survivorship care provider were evaluated by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

680 parent caregivers (mother 62.1% and father 37.9%) of 487 CCSs (mean age at diagnosis: 6.9 ± 5.1 years; mean time since treatment completion 5.4 ± 4.4 years) were included. Parent caregivers' dissatisfaction was the highest with screening for second primary cancer, followed by psychosocial problem management. Higher educational level of parent caregiver, parent caregiver's higher level of dissatisfaction with currently provided care, higher age of CCSs at cancer diagnosis, history of receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and longer time lapse after cancer treatment were significantly associated with parent caregivers' higher preference for PCPs or IGPs than oncologists. Parent caregiver's multiple comorbidities and higher fear of cancer recurrence were associated with parent caregivers' higher preference for oncologists than PCPs or IGPs. Around 80% of parent caregivers recognized that a shared care system was helpful for promoting the health of CCSs.

CONCLUSION

Parent caregivers were substantially dissatisfied with currently provided care, especially regarding the health issues not directly associated with the primary cancer. Parent caregivers' preferences for survivorship care provider is influenced by multiple factors, including age and survival time of CCSs, characteristics of parent caregivers, satisfaction level with care, and specific survivorship care contents.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The findings of our study suggest that shared survivorship care for CCSs with consideration of specific care contents can complement the current oncologist-led survivorship care system.

Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.

CONCLUSION

Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Are Young Adult Survivors of Pediatric Cancer Being Overlooked? Cognitive Testing Results and Referrals in Child, Adolescent, and Young Adult Survivors

Treatment gaps in meeting the neuropsychological needs of young adult (YA) cancer survivors can be attributed to several clinical and systemic reasons. Access to neurocognitive care can be increased through the effective integration of neuropsychological monitoring and intervention in survivorship care. In this brief report, we aim to compare the efficacy of a brief neuropsychological screener (DIVERGT) in meeting the assessment and referral needs of pediatric and YA cancer survivors (n = 40) as part of a wellness and survivorship clinic. Participants (n = 40) were patients who presented to a pediatric oncology survivorship clinic over the span of 15 months.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US

Importance

Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors.

Objective

To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019.

Results

The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study

PURPOSE

The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention.

RESULTS

There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Identifying the Needs of Primary Care Providers Caring for Breast and Colon Cancer Survivors in the Safety-Net: a Qualitative Study

As the number of cancer survivors continues to increase and given the shortage of oncology clinicians in safety net health care settings, primary care providers (PCPs) in these settings will increasingly provide cancer survivorship care. In order to ensure equitable care for low-income and underserved breast and colon cancer survivors, it is essential to understand the safety-net PCPs' perspective. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews with 11 PCPs working in a safety-net health care system to identify their needs in caring for cancer survivors. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Two coders independently coded the interviews and conducted regular meetings until we reached consensus on the results. Analysis was based in grounded theory and performed using the constant comparative method. Thematic analysis identified six themes as follows: (1) Cancer survivorship care can be integrated with the whole person and chronic disease care management that occurs in primary care; (2) PCPs' perceptions regarding patients' survivorship care needs and their confidence in meeting those needs; (3) preference for a shared care model; (4) coordination of care; (5) PCPs' need for survivorship care education and training; and (6) unique issues involved in the care of older cancer survivors. PCPs in the safety-net believe that providing comprehensive survivorship care requires coordination of care through the cancer continuum. Tools like checklists, electronic health records-based communication, and convenient electronic consultations with cancer specialists would enhance the quality of survivorship care. Respondents advocate the inclusion of survivorship care education in medical education. The continuity of care with PCPs means that they play a particularly important role in the care of older cancer survivors.

Healthcare utilization trajectory among survivors of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To examine healthcare utilization patterns among patients < 65 y with colorectal cancer (CRC) from pre-diagnosis to 3 y into survivorship.

METHODS

Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC between 2014 and 2016, with follow-up until 12/31/2019. Total visits (inpatient and outpatient) were estimated for 6 months intervals from 2 y to 1 months prior to CRC diagnosis (pre-cancer phase) and from a 1-y post-cancer diagnosis to a 3-y post-cancer diagnosis (survivorship phase). Utilization patterns from pre- to post-diagnosis were defined using median and 75th percentile visit counts. Interrupted time series (ITS) analyses examined pre- and post-cancer diagnosis utilization trends. Multivariable regression models estimated pre-cancer factors associated with high and low utilization patterns.

RESULTS

Median age at CRC was 54 y (21-62); 50.6% of the patients were male, 30.9% were diagnosed with rectal cancer. ITS analyses demonstrated four utilization patterns with distinct pre- and post-cancer diagnosis utilization trends. Rectal cancer (RR = 1.13, p < 0.001) and high pre-cancer utilization (RR = 2.05, p < 0.001) were associated with a greater risk of high survivor phase utilization. Gastrointestinal conditions accounted for the greatest proportion of visits in pre-cancer phase (18%) and survivorship (17%), followed by cardiovascular disease (10% and 8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct patterns of healthcare utilization are observed both in the pre-cancer phase and survivorship phase of colorectal cancer and are influenced by cancer location, age, therapeutic exposures, and prior healthcare needs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Not all patients will require the same level or type of long-term follow-up. Identifying indication-specific healthcare utilization patterns that provide evidence for risk stratification may facilitate a more patient-centric and economically sustainable way to deliver care.

Reducing Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Outcome Disparities Through Optimized Care Delivery: A Blueprint from the Children's Oncology Group

Achieving equitable, high-quality cancer care delivery across socioeconomically and biologically diverse populations requires multilevel interventions, including those at the patient, provider, institution, and policy levels that influence cost, quality, and access to care. For adolescent and young adults (AYAs), who experience suboptimal health outcomes compared with younger and older people with cancer, cancer care delivery is influenced by additional contextual factors unique to the patients' developmental stage, psychosocial and economic status, and cancer subtype. In this review, we highlight the most pressing research needs in AYA cancer care delivery and opportunities to improve outcomes for this population.

Patients' acceptance of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A population-based survey using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability

INTRODUCTION

International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).

RESULTS

Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.

Association Between Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Dysfunction in Breast Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) may have a greater risk for cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure and hypertension), which in turn, can affect cognitive dysfunction, a frequent, bothersome, and potentially debilitating symptom.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of cardiovascular disease on cognitive function in BCSs.

METHODS

Baseline data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial for cognitive training of BCSs were examined. Early-stage BCS (stages I-IIIA) who were 21 years or older, completed adjuvant therapy (≥6 months), and reported cognitive concerns completed questionnaires and a brief neuropsychological assessment, including tests of memory, attention and working memory, speed of processing, and verbal fluency. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficient, and separate linear regression models for each cognitive domain were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-seven BCSs, who were on average 57.3 (SD, 8.1) years old, were 58% White, and had some college education (75%), completed the study. Furthermore, 44.7% of the BCS had cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure or hypertension). In linear regression models, cardiovascular disease was significantly related to immediate and delayed memory and attention and working memory ( P < .01-.05).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer survivors who have cardiovascular disease may also be at a greater risk for cognitive dysfunction post treatment. Results from this study inform both clinical practice and future research, specifically by examining the intersection between cancer, cardiovascular disease (cardiotoxicity), and cognition.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses should be aware that BCSs with co-occurring cardiovascular disease are at a higher risk for cognitive dysfunction and work within the multidisciplinary team to optimize BCS health and function.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

Cardiometabolic Comorbidities in Cancer Survivors

There are nearly 17 million cancer survivors in the United States, including those who are currently receiving cancer therapy with curative intent and expected to be long-term survivors, as well as those with chronic cancers such as metastatic disease or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, who will receive cancer therapy for many years. Current clinical practice guidelines focus on lifestyle interventions, such as exercise and healthy eating habits, but generally do not address management strategies for clinicians or strategies to increase adherence to medications. We discuss 3 cardiometabolic comorbidities among cancer survivors and present the prevalence of comorbidities prior to a cancer diagnosis, treatment of comorbidities during cancer therapy, and management considerations of comorbidities in long-term cancer survivors or those on chronic cancer therapy. Approaches to support medication adherence and potential methods to enhance a team approach to optimize care of the individual with cancer across the continuum of disease are discussed.

•

Cancer survivors are at increased risk for several chronic conditions, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes.

•

Determining optimal management of comorbidities for patients with cancer is critical.

•

A multidisciplinary care approach is recommended throughout the continuum of active cancer treatment and survivorship.

•

Survivorship research should focus on medication adherence and coordination of care.

Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada

After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.

Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: Survivorship and Special Considerations

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) who have cancer face a distinct set of challenges beginning during the initial diagnosis, extending throughout treatment, and continuing into survivorship. Owing to significant strides made in cancer therapy in recent decades, more than 80% of this group will go on to become long-term survivors. Despite these improvements, however, many AYAs continue to have poorer outcomes when compared with older and younger patients. The purpose of this article is to underscore the unique set of multifaceted obstacles that this vulnerable group encounters and to pinpoint critical areas of attention and intervention throughout the health care journey. Moreover, it aims to highlight the importance of the role of the primary care provider as a constant partner in safeguarding the long-term physical and mental health of this diverse population within a complex and, at times, trying health care system. [Pediatr Ann. 2022;51(1):e27-e33.].

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Low-touch, team-based care for co-morbidity management in cancer patients: the ONE TEAM randomized controlled trial

Background

As treatments for cancer have improved, more people are surviving cancer. However, compared to people without a history of cancer, cancer survivors are more likely to die of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increased risk for CVD-related mortality among cancer survivors is partially due to lack of medication adherence and problems that exist in care coordination between cancer specialists, primary care physicians, and cardiologists.

Methods/Design

The Onco-primary care networking to support TEAM-based care (ONE TEAM) study is an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial with clustering at the primary care clinic level. ONE TEAM compares the provision of the iGuide intervention to patients and primary care providers versus an education-only control. For phase 1, at the patient level, the intervention includes video vignettes and a live webinar; provider-level interventions include electronic health records-based communication and case-based webinars. Participants will be enrolled from across North Carolina one of their first visits with a cancer specialist (e.g., surgeon, radiation or medical oncologist). We use a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design.

Outcomes (measured at the patient level) will include Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures of management of three CVD comorbidities using laboratory testing (glycated hemoglobin [A1c], lipid profile) and blood pressure measurements; (2) medication adherence assessed pharmacy refill data using Proportion of Days Covered (PDC); and (3) patient-provider communication (Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care, PCC-Ca-36).

Primary care clinics in the intervention arm will be considered non-responders if 90% or more of their participating patients do not meet the modified HEDIS quality metrics at the 6-month measurement, assessed once the first enrollee from each practice reaches the 12-month mark. Non-responders will be re-randomized to either continue to receive the iGuide 1 intervention, or to receive the iGuide 2 intervention, which includes tailored videos for participants and specialist consults with primary care providers.

Discussion

As the population of cancer survivors grows, ONE TEAM will contribute to closing the CVD outcomes gap among cancer survivors by optimizing and integrating cancer care and primary care teams. ONE TEAM is designed so that it will be possible for others to emulate and implement at scale.

Trial registration

This study (NCT04258813) was registered in clinicaltrals.gov on February 6, 2020.

Understanding the Delivery of Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Planning: An Exploratory Interview Study With Complex Cancer Survivors

Introduction:

Understanding key elements of the survivorship care planning process, such as patient-centered communication (PCC) and health self-efficacy, are critical for delivering patient-centered survivorship care to cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (“complex cancer survivors”). Building upon our team’s recent research efforts to examine the survivorship care planning process from a patient-centered lens, this exploratory study leveraged an ongoing quasi-experimental trial to elucidate the experience of complex cancer survivors with survivorship care planning and post-treatment management.

Methods:

We conducted a hypothesis-generating thematic content analysis on 8 interview transcripts.

Results:

Survivors reported positive experiences communicating with their oncology care team but the presence of multiple chronic conditions in addition to cancer creates additional barriers to patient-centered survivorship care.

Conclusion:

These findings support the need for further in-depth research aimed at improving PCC across all care teams and enabling self-management by delivering more personalized survivorship care planning that aligns with survivor’s needs, values, and preferences.

Cancer survivorship care for young adults: a risk-stratified, multicenter randomized controlled trial to improve symptoms

PURPOSE

Young adult (YA) cancer survivors have high rates of adverse health and psychosocial outcomes. This risk-stratified, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared a self-management survivorship intervention to usual care in YA survivors with symptoms of cancer-related distress, insomnia, fatigue, pain, and/or depression.

METHODS

Eligibility included age 18-39 at diagnosis with an invasive malignancy in the previous 1-5 years. Baseline assessment determined "high need" participants, with 2-5 elevated targeted symptoms. We randomized high need participants to intervention or usual care and offered intervention participants a survivorship clinic visit, which included mutually decided action plans for symptoms. Follow-up calls at 1 and 3 months after the clinic visit reviewed action plan progress. Outcomes compared rates of improved symptoms for intervention vs usual care at 6 months and 12 months.

RESULTS

N = 344 completed baseline assessment, with n = 147 (43%) categorized as high need and randomized. Of n = 73 randomized to the intervention, n = 42 (58%) did not attend their survivorship clinic visit. In intent-to-treat analyses, aggregate symptom scores did not differ between arms, though distress improved for 46% in the intervention arm at 6 months compared to 18% in usual care (p = 0.03) among those with elevated distress at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Distress improved for YAs who received self-management survivorship care. However, the study demonstrates a need for alternative strategies for providing YA survivorship care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02192333 IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: While YA survivors demonstrate some improved distress when provided survivorship care, to make care accessible and effective, they require options such as remote delivery of care.

Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.

Characterizing Low-Risk Breast and Gynecological Cancer Patients for Transition into an Oncology/Primary Care Coordinated Care Model: Findings from a Survey of Diverse Survivors in a Rural U.S. State

We conducted a survey to characterize the key attributes of racial/ethnic and geographically diverse low-risk breast and gynecologic cancer patients. We collected data regarding patients' access to primary care (PC); compliance with screening recommendations; treatment for comorbidities; logistical barriers to clinic visits; and receipt of survivorship care documentation (SCD). Survey findings informed the development of an oncology/Primary Care Provider (PCP) care coordination intervention to improve care. We distributed a cross-sectional survey among a convenience sample of 150 cancer survivors. Responses were calculated using descriptive statistics and compared based on the distance participants traveled to their appointments at the cancer center (≤30 vs. >30 miles). Of the 150 respondents, 35% traveled >30 miles for follow-up care and 78% reported having one or more comorbid condition(s). PC utilization was high: 88% reported having a PCP, and 91% indicated ≤1 yearly follow-up visit. Participants traveling >30 miles reported higher rates of logistical challenges associated with cancer center visits compared to those traveling ≤30 miles. Nearly half of respondents (46%) had not received SCD. In conclusion, survey studies such as these allow for the systematic assessment of survivor behaviors and care utilization patterns to inform the development of care coordination interventions for diverse, low-risk cancer patients.

Follow-Up Care for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Across the Globe: Survey Findings From 27 Countries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe follow-up care for breast and colorectal cancer survivors in countries with varying levels of resources and highlight challenges regarding posttreatment survivorship care.

METHODS

We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.

Lifestyle and Empowerment Techniques in Survivorship of Gynaecologic Oncology (LETSGO study): a study protocol for a multicentre longitudinal interventional study using mobile health technology and biobanking

INTRODUCTION

The number of gynaecological cancer survivors is increasing and there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Today's follow-up model is time-consuming and patients have reported unmet needs regarding information about their cancer and strategies for managing the consequences of treatment. The main aim of this study is to assess health-related empowerment-in terms of patient education, psychosocial support, and promotion of physical activity-in a new follow-up model by comparing it to standard follow-up in a quasi-randomised study involving intervention hospitals and control hospitals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

At the intervention hospitals, patients will be stratified by risk of recurrence and late effects to either 1 or 3 years' follow-up. Nurses will replace doctors in half of the follow-up visits and focus in particular on patient education, self-management and physical activity. They will provide patients with information and guide them in goal setting and action planning. These measures will be reinforced by a smartphone application for monitoring symptoms and promoting physical activity. At the control hospitals, patients will be included in the standard follow-up programme. All patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Blood samples will be collected for biobanking at 3, 12 and 36 months. The primary outcome is health-related empowerment. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, adherence to physical activity recommendations, time to recurrence, healthcare costs and changes in biomarkers. Changes in these outcomes will be analysed using generalised linear mixed models for repeated measures. Type of hospital (intervention or control), time (measurement point), and possible confounders will be included as fixed factors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (2019/11093). Dissemination of findings will occur at the local, national and international levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04122235.

Gastrointestinal Disease-Specific Survivorship Care: A New Personalized Model Integrating Onco-Wellness

Although the number of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer survivors is projected to increase in the coming years, there are currently no survivorship care models that address the specific and growing needs of this population. Current survivorship care models were evaluated to assess their suitability for GI cancer survivors. A survivorship care model based on foundational wellness principles is under development to address the specific needs of GI cancer survivors. This model delivers a cohesive and collaborative care continuum for survivors of different GI malignancies. Oncology providers in GI departments and internal medicine providers in survivorship programs are positioned to provide a comprehensive approach for the care of patients treated with curative intent. Survivorship care is introduced at the conclusion of active treatment in the form of an Onco-wellness consultation, an in-person or telemedicine comprehensive care plan creation and review by our Survivorship Program. Personalized care plan including long term and late effects of treatment, nutrition, physical activity and rehabilitation recommendations, prevention of secondary malignancies and psychosocial needs are reviewed. As patients transition from active treatment to survivorship within the GI Program, the GI Advance Practice Professionals (APPs) are well-positioned to deliver comprehensive survivorship care specific to the GI patient’s needs while integrating recommendations and principles from the Onco-wellness consultation. With projected shortages of both oncology and primary care physicians, such an APP-based model has the potential to bridge gaps in the survivorship care continuum and mutually benefit patients and physicians.

Identifying Priorities for Harmonizing Guidelines for the Long-Term Surveillance of Childhood Cancer Survivors in the Chinese Children Cancer Group (CCCG)

PURPOSE

Survivors of childhood cancer often experience treatment-related chronic health conditions. Given its vast population, China shares a large proportion of the global childhood cancer burden. Yet, screening and treatment of late effects in survivors of childhood cancer remain underaddressed in most regions of China. This study aimed to identify high-priority late effects for harmonizing screening guidelines within the Chinese Children's Cancer Group (CCCG), as well as barriers and enablers of the implementation of surveillance recommendations in local practice.

METHODS

To establish clinical consensus, 12 expert panelists who represent major institutions within the CCCG completed a Delphi survey and participated in a focus group discussion. The survey solicited ratings of the prevalence, severity, and priority for screening of 45 late effects. Major themes identified from the focus group were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey identified eight high-priority late effects for harmonization within CCCG: osteonecrosis, osteoporosis, left ventricular dysfunction, secondary brain tumors, treatment-related myeloid leukemia, gonadal dysfunction, growth hormone deficiency, and neurocognitive deficits. The common barriers to implementing survivorship programs include lack of support and resources for clinicians to provide follow-up care. Patients were also concerned about privacy issues and lacked awareness of late effects. Many institutions also lacked rehabilitation expertise and referral pathways.

CONCLUSION

By identifying obstacles related to the professional setting, patient behavior, and organization of care, our study identified resources and a framework for establishing collaborative strategies to facilitate follow-up care of childhood cancer survivors in China.

Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are a vulnerable population with unique needs that are under-recognized and often overlooked by healthcare providers. This review focuses on identifying and meeting some of those needs including adherence to treatment, financial implications, impact on fertility and intimacy, issues with work/school, isolation, challenges with re-entry, and long-term side effects and survivorship.

RECENT FINDINGS

Survival rates have not improved in adolescents and young adults with cancer at the same rate as in children and older adults (the so called "AYA gap"). Restricted or delayed access to care and inconsistent cancer treatment and follow-up care contribute to this. Importantly, fertility preservation options have broadened and efforts to provide age appropriate counseling prior to treatment have improved. Additionally, AYAs face a variety of psychosocial issues while dealing with a cancer diagnosis during critical developmental years, and yet data pertaining to the successful identification and management of these issues is lacking. As a result, there has been recent increasing awareness that this patient population warrants strong advocates, additional research, and requires age group specific resources to be successful in navigating their cancer experience during treatment and into survivorship care. Members of the healthcare team should familiarize themselves with the unique needs of AYA cancer patients to provide optimal patient care. In order to build upon early progress, this group calls for additional study particularly when it comes to barriers to enrollment for AYA-specific research (including clinical trials), recognizing psychosocial needs (both during and after treatment), transition planning for returning to life after cancer, and managing long-term effects of treatment (including neuro cognitive changes). In addition, access to financial resources and appropriate mental health support needs to be improved.

Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Patient Self-Administered Financial Effects (P-SAFE) Questionnaire to Assess the Financial Burden of Cancer in French-Speaking Patients

People living with and beyond cancer (PLC) experience financial hardship associated with the disease and its treatment. Research demonstrates that the "economic toxicity" of cancer can cause distress and impair well-being, health-related quality of life and, ultimately, survival. The Patient Self-Administered Financial Effects (P-SAFE) questionnaire was created in Canada and tested in English. The objective of this study is to describe the processes of translation and cultural adaptation of the P-SAFE for use with French speaking PLC in Canada. The Canadian P-SAFE questionnaire was translated from English to French in collaboration with the developer of the initial version, according to the 12-step process recommended by the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium. These steps include forward and backward translation, a multidisciplinary expert committee, and cross-cultural validation using think-aloud, probing techniques, and clarity scoring during cognitive interviewing. Translation and validation of the P-SAFE questionnaire were performed without major difficulties. Minor changes were made to better fit with the vocabulary used in the public healthcare system in Quebec. The mean score for clarity of questions was 6.4 out of a possible 7 (totally clear) Cognitive interviewing revealed that lengthy questionnaire instructions could be confusing. Our team produced a Canadian-French version of the P-SAFE. After minor rewording in the instructions, the P-SAFE questionnaire appears culturally appropriate for use with French-speaking PLC in Canada. Further testing of the French version will require evaluation of psychometric properties of validity and reliability.

Management of Cardiac Toxicity Induced by Chemotherapy

Cardiotoxicity encompasses a spectrum of adverse cardiological effects experienced by cancer patients during and after receiving antineoplastic treatments. The intersection of cancer care with the management of the multiple comorbid non-communicable diseases carried by patients or related to cancer treatments motivates the need for an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to therapeutic clinical decision-making. This present review aimed to provide a perspective and an update of the current pharmacotherapy approaches for the prevention and management of cardiotoxicity from antiblastic chemotherapy; as such, it addresses myocardial, vascular, and arrhythmic disorders associated to chemotherapy, by navigating the current knowledge and clinical indications in support of the medical interventions. Clinical scenarios of pharmacological interventions take place with patients receiving anthracycline and, by extrapolation, other agents with cardiotoxic potentials and non-chemotherapy agents, including various small molecules and immunotherapy agents. Analysis of these scenarios aims to provide practical evidence-based guidance for the management of drug-induced cardiac dysfunctions. The possible role of new biomarkers for the early recognition of cardiotoxicity is mentioned across the clinical studies, with reference to the pharmacological biomarker-driven interventions delivered. To best inform survivorship care, the management and context of cardio-oncology services are discussed within the broader network of providers and settings of care.

Primary Care Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care

CONTEXT

While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about their role in thyroid cancer survivorship.

OBJECTIVE

To understand PCP involvement and confidence in thyroid cancer survivorship care.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed PCPs identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Georgia and LA SEER registries (n = 162, response rate 56%). PCPs reported their involvement in long-term surveillance and confidence in handling survivorship care (role of random thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasound, and when to end long-term surveillance and refer back to the specialist). We examined: 1) PCP-reported factors associated with involvement using multivariable analyses; and 2) bivariate associations between involvement and confidence in handling survivorship care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PCP involvement (involved vs not involved) and confidence (high vs low).

RESULTS

Many PCPs (76%) reported being involved in long-term surveillance. Involvement was greater among PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as the most influential source in guiding treatment (OR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.56-11.82). PCPs reporting high confidence in handling survivorship varied by aspects of care: refer patient to specialist (39%), role of neck ultrasound (36%) and random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs reporting involvement were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs 7.9% not involved; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While PCPs reported being involved in long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling survivorship care. Thyroid cancer survivorship guidelines that delineate PCP roles present one opportunity to increase confidence about their participation.

Self-reported health, lifestyle and social circumstances of Australian adult cancer survivors: A propensity score weighted cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

With the prevalence of cancer survivors increasing, their unique needs must be better understood. We examined the health, lifestyles and social circumstances of adults with and without a history of cancer.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study, using exposure and outcome data from the baseline survey (2006-2009) of participants in the 45 and Up Study, a prospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia. We compared 20,811 cancer registry-verified adult cancer survivors with 207,148 participants without a history of cancer using propensity score weighting and accounting for multiple testing. The propensity weighting included age, sociodemographic factors and number of self-reported co-morbidities.

RESULTS

Cancer survivors were more likely to report poorer physical and psychological health and quality of life compared to those without a cancer history, with most deficits still evident more than 10 years after cancer diagnosis. Cancer survivors were more likely to have a higher body mass index, but were less likely to smoke. Cancer survivors had greater functional limitations, including sexual, and were less likely to work full time, volunteer and spend time outdoors. Their social connectedness was, however, similar. Those with haematological cancer, lung cancer, or distant metastases, and those diagnosed at an older age, had the greatest health deficits and functional limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

A history of cancer is associated with poorer health and less paid and unpaid work. Our findings reinforce the importance of routine long-term, integrated multidisciplinary care for cancer survivors and indicate the subgroups with the greatest unmet needs.

Investigating whether shared video-based consultations with patients, oncologists, and GPs can benefit patient-centred cancer care: a qualitative study

Background

Guidelines have proposed that GPs should have a central role as coordinators of care and support patients with cancer during all stages of treatment, follow-up, and rehabilitation. Multidisciplinary video consultation involving the patient with cancer, the oncologist, and the GP may help to define roles and tasks, and this resulting clarity may enable greater support for patients with cancer.

Aim

To explore the consultation structure, content, and task clarification when a GP and an oncologist are attending a video consultation with a patient with cancer.

Design & setting

A qualitative study took place in the Region of Southern Denmark to investigate multidisciplinary video consultations, based on thematic analysis.

Method

Recordings of 12 video consultations were analysed using the framework method. A combined deductive and inductive approach was undertaken. The deductive themes were selected based on a consultation guide given to the doctors before the consultations.

Results

The study identified 15 themes, which were grouped into the following three categories: the implications of sharing a consultation; consultation structure; and health concerns.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary video-based consultations with a patient and two health professionals succeeded in having a patient-centred communication style. In clarifying tasks between the GP and oncologist to support the patient, work-related issues and professional support for psychosocial challenges were always a task for the GP. Dissemination of this first-line evidence may improve acceptability among medical specialists and help assist GPs in supporting patients with cancer. However, focus on the involvement of relatives should be emphasised.

Developing a Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework: Implications for Clinical Care, Research, and Policy

There are now close to 17 million cancer survivors in the United States, and this number is expected to continue to grow. One decade ago the Institute of Medicine report, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, outlined 10 recommendations aiming to provide coordinated, comprehensive care for cancer survivors. Although there has been noteworthy progress made since the release of the report, gaps remain in research, clinical practice, and policy. Specifically, the recommendation calling for the development of quality measures in cancer survivorship care has yet to be fulfilled. In this commentary, we describe the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based cancer survivorship care quality framework and propose the next steps to systematically apply it in clinical settings, research, and policy.

Engaging hematopoietic cell transplantation patients and caregivers in the design of print and mobile application individualized survivorship care plan tools

PURPOSE

INSPIRE (INteractive Survivorship Program with Information and REsources) is an online health program that includes a mobile app, website, health action plan, and individualized survivorship care plans for adult hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors. The INSPIRE program integrates two previously effective randomized control trials that tested an internet-based program and patient-centered survivorship care plans for HCT survivors.

METHODS

Three focus groups were conducted with a total of 22 participants (20 patients, 2 caregivers/patient advocates) to explore patient and caregiver preferences and to optimize the patient-centered emphasis of INSPIRE. Adult (age > 18 years at the time of study entry) HCT recipients had to be at least 1-year post-HCT to participate; caregivers/patient advocates were also eligible. Participants had to be able to communicate in English, could have any diagnosis, transplant type, or donor source, and could have had multiple transplants.

RESULTS

All patient participants received an allogeneic HCT; average time since HCT was 8 years (range 2-22 years). The majority of participants were female (77.3%). Overall, the tools were well received by participants in this study, particularly the personalized features of all the tools. Major themes included interest in having the ability to tailor features to individual needs, and an interest in tracking information over time.

DISCUSSION

Engaging patients and caregivers is invaluable to optimize tools designed to improve HCT survivorship care. Print, online, and mobile-based tools, tailored to individual patients' treatment history and requisite follow-up care, can provide otherwise unavailable expertise and guidelines for care.

Comorbidities, treatment-related consequences, and health-related quality of life among rural cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We explored how lifetime comorbidities and treatment-related cancer symptoms were associated with quality of life (QOL) in rural cancer survivors.

METHODS

Survivors (n = 125) who were rural Illinois residents aged 18+ years old were recruited from January 2017 to September 2018. We conducted 4 multivariable regressions with QOL domains as outcomes (social well-being, functional well-being, mental health-MHQOL, physical health-PHQOL); the number of physical and psychological comorbidities (e.g., arthritis, high blood pressure, stroke) and treatment-related cancer symptoms (e.g., worrying, feeling sad, lack of appetite, lack of energy) as predictors; and, cancer-related and demographic factors related to these variables as covariates.

RESULTS

The number of comorbidities and number of treatment-related symptoms were inversely associated with functional well-being (Std β = - 0.36, p < 0.0001 and - 0.18, p = 0.03), and MHQOL (Std β = - 0.30, p = 0.001 and Std β = - 0.25, p = 0.004). Comorbidities were associated inversely with social well-being (Std β = - 0.27, p = .003). Comorbidities and treatment-related symptoms were not associated with PHQOL (p = 0.20-0.24). Sensitivity analyses suggested that psychological comorbidities, treatment-related psychological symptoms, and physical comorbidities were associated with social well-being, functional well-being, and MHQOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the utility of risk-based survivorship care plans to address the negative, additive impact of comorbidities and the treatment-related symptoms to improve the health-related QOL among rural survivors. Future research should assess how contextual factors (e.g., geographic distance to oncologists and other providers) should be incorporated in survivorship care planning and implementation for rural survivors.

The association between cancer care coordination and quality of life is stronger for breast cancer patients with lower health literacy: A Greater Plains Collaborative study

PURPOSE

Health literacy (HL) and cancer care coordination (CCC) were examined for their relationship to quality of life (QOL) among breast cancer survivors. CCC was hypothesized to have a stronger relationship to QOL for women with lower HL.

METHODS

Women (N = 1138) who had completed treatment for Stage 0-III, ductal carcinoma breast cancer between January 2013 and May 2014 at one of eight large medical centers responded to a mailed questionnaire. Responses to questions about survivorship care planning and presence of professional care coordinator were combined to form an index of CCC. An index of HL was also derived. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) scales.

RESULTS

74.3% (N = 845) of patients reported having a health professional coordinate their care during treatment and 78.8% (N = 897) reported receiving survivorship care planning. CCC was classified as none, partial, or high for 7.1%, 32.7%, and 60.2% of the patients, respectively. Except for emotional well-being, the interaction between HL and CCC was significant for all QOL domains (p < .05); the effect of CCC on FACT-B scores was largest for people with lower HL. For the 39.8% of patients with less than high CCC, 111 (27.3%) had a level of HL associated with clinically meaningful lower QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between CCC and later QOL is strongest for people who have lower HL. Prioritizing care coordination for patients with lower health literacy may be an effective strategy in a setting of limited resources.

Healthcare utilisation in general practice and hospitals in the year preceding a diagnosis of cancer recurrence or second primary cancer: a population-based register study

Background

The organisation of cancer follow-up is under scrutiny in many countries, and general practice is suggested to become more involved. A central focus is timely detection of recurring previous cancer and new second primary cancer. More knowledge on the patient pathway before cancer recurrence and second primary cancer is warranted to ensure the best possible organisation of follow-up. We aimed to describe the healthcare utilisation in the year preceding a diagnosis of cancer recurrence or second primary cancer.

Methods

This nationwide register study comprises patients diagnosed with bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, malignant melanoma and ovarian cancer in Denmark in 2008–2016. The frequency of healthcare contacts during the 12 months preceding a cancer recurrence or second primary cancer was estimated and compared to the frequency of cancer survivors in cancer remission. The main analyses were stratified on sex and healthcare setting. Furthermore, two sub-analyses were stratified on 1) sex, healthcare setting and age group and on 2) sex, healthcare setting and comorbidity status.

Results

The study population consisted of 7832 patients with recurrence and 2703 patients with second primary cancer. On average, the patients were in contact with general practice one time per month in the 12th month preceding a new cancer diagnosis (recurrence or second primary cancer). Increasing contact rates were seen from 7 months before diagnosis in general practice and from 12 months before diagnosis in hospitals. This pattern was more pronounced in patients with cancer recurrence, younger patients and patients with no comorbidity. For instance, the contact rate ratios for hospital contacts in non-comorbid women with recurrence demonstrated 30% more contacts in the 12th month before recurrence and 127% more contacts in the 2nd month before recurrence.

Conclusions

The results show that cancer survivors are already seen in general practice on a regular basis. The increasing contact rates before a diagnosis of cancer recurrence or second primary cancer indicate that a window of opportunity exists for more timely diagnosis; this is seen in both general practice and in hospitals. Thus, cancer survivors may benefit from improvements in the organisation of cancer follow-up.

Defining Survivorship Trajectories Across Patients With Solid Tumors: An Evidence-Based Approach

Importance

Survivorship involves a multidisciplinary approach to surveillance and management of comorbidities and secondary cancers, overseen by oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Optimal timing and coordination of care, however, is unclear and often based on arbitrary 5-year cutoffs.

Objective

To determine high- and low-risk periods for all tumor types that could define when survivorship care might best be overseen by oncologists and when to transition to primary care physicians.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this pan-cancer, longitudinal, observational study, excess mortality hazard, calculated as an annualized mortality risk above a baseline population, was plotted over time. The time this hazard took to stabilize defined a high-risk period. The percent morality elevation above age- and sex-matched controls in the latter low-risk period was reported as a mortality gap. The US population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database defined the cancer population, and the US Census life tables defined controls. Incident cases of patients with cancer were separated into tumor types based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions.

Exposures

Population-level data on incident cancer cases was compared with the general US population.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall mortality and cause of death were reported on observed cancer cases.

Results

A total of 2 317 185 patients (median age, 63 years; 49.8% female) with 66 primary tumor types were evaluated. High-risk surveillance period durations ranged from less than 1 year (breast, prostate, lip, ocular, and parathyroid cancers) up to 19 years (unspecified gastrointestinal cancers). The annualized mortality gap, representing the excess mortality in the stable period, ranged from a median 0.26% to 9.33% excess annual mortality (thyroid and hypopharyngeal cancer populations, respectively). Cluster analysis produced 6 risk cluster groups: group 1, with median survival of 16.2 (5th to 95th percentile range [PR], 10.7-40.2) years and median high-risk period of 2.5 (PR, 0-5.0) years; group 2, 8.3 (PR, 5.1-23.3) and 2.5 (PR, 4.0-8.0) years; group 3, 2.8 (PR, 1.4-3.7) and 7.0 (PR, 6.0-11.1) years; group 4, 1.6 (PR, 1.5-1.8) and 6.0 (PR, 5.1-11.4) years; group 5, 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) and 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) years; and group 6, 0.5 (PR, 0.4-0.8) and 12.0 (PR, 9.3-12.9) years, respectively. Subanalyses of selected tumor types in these groups revealed that stratifying on stage and histologic type can change the risk cluster and guidance for care.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings indicate that a standardized 5-year surveillance period is inadequate for some cancers while excessive for others. High-risk cancers require the most resources with the longest high-risk period, highest persistent baseline mortality risk, and longest period of primary cancer mortality, all arguing for longer follow-up with an oncologist in these cancers.

Understanding Long-Term Cancer Survivors' Preferences for Ongoing Medical Care

BACKGROUND

Due to risk for treatment-related late effects and concerns about cancer recurrence, long-term cancer survivors have unique medical needs. Survivors' preferences for care may influence adherence and care utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To describe survivors' preferences for care and factors associated with preferred and actual care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of participants in a longitudinal study using mailed questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS

Survivors of ten common cancers (n = 2,107, mean years from diagnosis 8.9).

MAIN MEASURES

(1) Survivors' preferences for primary care physician (PCP) and oncologist responsibilities across four types of care: cancer follow-up, cancer screening, preventive health, and comorbid conditions. (2) Survivor-reported visits to PCPs and oncologists.

KEY RESULTS

The response rate was 42.1%. Most long-term survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up (63%) and subsequent screening (65%), while preferring PCP-led preventive health (77%) and comorbid condition (83%) care. Most survivors (88%) preferred oncologists involved in cancer follow-up care, but only 60% reported an oncologist visit in the previous 4 years, and 96% reported a PCP visit in the previous 4 years. In multivariable regressions, those with higher fear of cancer recurrence were less likely to prefer PCP-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.93-0.98), as did survivors with advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.56, CI = 0.39-0.79). Those with higher fear of recurrence (OR = 1.03, CI = 1.01-1.04) or who preferred oncologist-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.63-2.65) had greater odds of seeing an oncologist in the last 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cancer survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up and screening, yet many had not seen an oncologist recently. Survivors preferred PCP-led care for other preventive services and management of comorbid conditions. These findings highlight the important role PCPs could play in survivor care, suggesting the need for PCP-oriented education and health system policies that support high-quality PCP-led survivor care.

Improving Interorganizational Coordination Between Primary Care and Oncology: Adapting a Chronic Care Management Model for Patients With Cancer

The objective of this study was to explore the implementation of a payment and delivery system innovation to improve coordination and communication between primary care and oncology. We employed a qualitative case study approach, conducting interviews (n = 18), and reviewing archival materials. Chronic care coordinators and the cancer center social worker acted as boundary spanners. The chronic care coordinator role built on medical home infrastructure, applying the chronic care model to cancer care. Coordination from primary care to oncology became more routinized, with information sharing prompted by specific events. These new boundary spanner roles enabled greater coordination around uncertain and interdependent tasks. Recommendations for scaling up include the following: establish systematic approaches to learning from implementation, leverage existing capacity for scalability, and attend to the content and purpose of information sharing.

After Childhood Cancer: a Qualitative Study of Family Physician, Parent/Guardian, and Survivor Information Needs and Perspectives on Long-Term Follow-up and Survivorship Care Plans

Despite support for the provision of a survivorship care plan (SCP) to every cancer survivor, there is a lack of understanding of the needs and preferences of key stakeholders. We examined perspectives of a novel personalized SCP for childhood cancer survivors (CCS), their family, and family physicians (FP). We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposefully selected sample of CCS, parents/guardians, and FPs. Data included responses to stakeholder cancer care information needs, concerns with or gaps in communication, the perceived role of the FP in the long-term management of CCS care, utility of the SCP, preferred format, and suggestions for improvement. A deductive content analysis was conducted. Twenty-four participants including 8 CCS, 10 parents/guardians, and 6 FPs completed an interview. Four main and several sub-categories emerged. Core categories were coded as (1) informative reference, (2) coordination of follow-up, (3) barriers to follow-up care, and (4) suggestions for improvement and future implementation. The majority of participants preferred an electronic- or web-based format. Overall, the SCP was seen as an informative and concise resource. The SCP was thought to be a valuable tool to foster communication and empower CCSs to become more fully engaged in their own cancer-related health care. FPs viewed the SCP as a useful resource to facilitate and guide the long-term management of the CCS. In addition to the treatment summary, a comprehensive follow-up timeline, personalized lifestyle information, and details on how to access additional psychosocial support were highlighted as important components.

A comparison of two models of follow-up care for adult survivors of childhood cancer

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared follow-up-care models for adult survivors of childhood cancer (ASCCs), though choice of model could impact medical test adherence, and health-related quality of life (QOL). This study compared two follow-up-care models, cancer-center-based versus community-based, for ASCCs in Alberta, Canada, to determine which model would demonstrate greater ASCC adherence to guideline-recommended medical screening tests for late effects, QOL, physical symptoms, and adherence to yearly follow-up.

METHODS

ASCC discharged to a community model (over 15 years) and those with comparable birth years (1973-1993) currently followed in a cancer center model were recruited via direct contact or multimedia campaign. Chart review identified chemotherapeutic and radiation exposures, and required medical late effect screening tests. ASCCs also completed questionnaires assessing QOL, physical symptoms, and follow-up behavior.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six survivors participated (community (n = 86); cancer center (n = 70)). Primary analysis indicated that cancer center ASCCs guideline-recommended total test adherence percentage (Mdn = 85.4%) was significantly higher than the community model (Mdn = 29.2%, U = 3996.50, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in QOL for cancer center ASCCs (M = 83.85, SD = 20.55 versus M = 77.50, SD = 23.94; t (154) = 1.77, p = 0.078) compared to community-based ASCCs. Cancer center-based ASCCs endorsed from 0.4-7.1% fewer physical symptom clusters, and higher adherence to follow-up behavior in comparisons using effect sizes without p values.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the cancer center model's superiority for adherence to exposure-based medical late effect screening guidelines, cancer-specific follow-up behaviors, and the reporting of fewer physical complaints in ASCCs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

ASCCs followed in a cancer center model likely benefit from earlier late-effects detection and opportunities for early intervention.

Clinical ascertainment of health outcomes in Asian survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Survivorship in children with cancer comes at a cost of developing chronic treatment-related complications. Yet, it is still an under-researched area in Asia, which shares the largest proportion of the global childhood cancer burden given its vast population. This systematic review summarizes existing literature on clinically ascertained health outcomes in Asian survivors of childhood cancer.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Ovid Medline and EMBASE for studies that focused on survivors of childhood cancer from countries in East and Southeast Asia; adopted post-treatment clinical ascertainment of organ-specific toxicities or/and secondary malignancy. Studies were excluded if health outcomes were assessed during the acute treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies, enrolling a total of 13,442 subjects, were conducted on survivors of leukemia (34%), CNS tumor (14%), and cohorts of survivors with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses (52%). The studies used different medical evaluation methods to assess cardiovascular (15%), metabolic and infertility (32%), and neurological/neurocognitive (20%) outcomes in survivors. The collective findings suggest potential differences in the prevalence of certain late effects (e.g., secondary malignancy and obesity) among Asian and non-Asian populations, which may reflect differences in treatment regimens, practice, genetic variations, or/and socioeconomic disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend developing collaborative initiatives to build a regional repository of systematically assessed health outcomes and biospecimens to investigate treatment, social-environmental and genetic predictors, and interventions for late effects in this population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The existing types of chronic health problems identified in this review suggest the need for active screening, better access to survivorship care, and promotion of protective health behavior in Asia.

Challenges and opportunities in the care of survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer are an understudied group. Much of what is known about long-term outcomes after AYA cancer has been derived from cohorts of childhood cancer survivors, which seldom include patients at the older end of the AYA age spectrum. In general, AYA cancer survivors have a lower risk for premature mortality, subsequent primary neoplasms and chronic health conditions than childhood cancer survivors. However, AYA cancer survivors are vulnerable to psychosocial challenges, concerns about fertility and relationships and financial toxicity. No single model is optimal for the care of these survivors, but it is generally agreed that all survivors require a survivor care plan that promotes their adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines. There is a need to create survivor cohorts that include the full range of AYA ages and diagnoses to be able to address the many pressing questions that remain unanswered in this vulnerable population.