Questioning specialists' attitudes to breast cancer follow-up in primary care

Assessing Mode of Recurrence in Breast Cancer to Identify an Optimised Follow-Up Pathway: 10-Year Institutional Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer surveillance programmes ensure early identification of recurrence which maximises overall survival. Programmes include annual clinical examination and radiological assessment. There remains debate around the value of annual clinical exam in diagnosing recurrent disease/second primaries. The aim was to assess diagnostic modalities for recurrent breast cancer with a focus on evaluating the role of annual clinical examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database from a symptomatic breast cancer service between 2010-2020 was reviewed. Patients with biopsy-proven recurrence/second breast primary were included. The primary outcome was the diagnostic modality by which recurrences/secondary breast cancers were observed. Diagnostic modalities included (i) self-detection by the patient, (ii) clinical examination by a breast surgeon or (iii) radiological assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients were identified and, following application of exclusion criteria, a total of 140 patients were included. A total of 65/140 (46%) patients were diagnosed clinically, either by self-detection or clinical examination, while 75/140 (54%) were diagnosed radiologically. A total of 59/65 (91%) of patients clinically diagnosed with recurrence presented to the breast clinic after self-detection of an abnormality. Four (6%) patients had cognitive impairment and recurrence was diagnosed by a carer. Two (3%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence by a breast surgeon at clinical examination. The median time to recurrence in all patients was 48 months (range 2-263 months).

CONCLUSION

Clinical examination provides little value in diagnosing recurrence (< 5%) and surveillance programmes may benefit from reduced focus on such a modality. Regular radiological assessment and ensuring patients have urgent/easy access to a breast clinic if they develop new symptoms/signs should be the focus of surveillance programmes.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT).

METHODS

In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables.

RESULTS

A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider.

CONCLUSION

Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') role in result notification for newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF), given that expanded NBS has increased the number of positive screening test results, drawing attention to the role of PCPs in supporting families.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews.

SETTING

Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care providers (FPs, pediatricians, and midwives) who received a positive CF NBS result for an infant in their practice in the 6 months before the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether the PCP notified the family of the initial positive CF screening result.

RESULTS

Data from 321 PCP surveys (response rate of 51%) are reported, including 208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, and 45 midwives. Interviews were completed with 34 PCPs. Most (65%) surveyed PCPs reported notifying the infant's family of the initial positive screening result; 81% agreed that they have an important role to play in NBS; and 88% said it was important for PCPs, rather than the NBS centre, to notify families of initial positive results. With support and information from NBS centres, 68% would be extremely or very confident in doing so; this dropped to 54% when reflecting on their recent reporting experience. More than half (58%) of all PCPs said written point-of-care information from the NBS centre was the most helpful format. Adjusted for relevant factors, written educational information was associated with a lower rate of notifying families than written plus verbal information (risk ratio of 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). In the interviews, PCPs emphasized the challenge of balancing required content knowledge with the desire for the news to come from a familiar provider.

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs notify families of NBS results and value this role. These data are relevant as NBS programs and other genomic services expand and consider ways of keeping PCPs confident and actively involved.

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') preferred roles and confidence in caring for infants receiving a positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) result, as well as management of CF family planning issues, given that expanded NBS has resulted in an increase in positive results.

DESIGN

Mailed questionnaire.

SETTING

Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

Ontario FPs, pediatricians, and midwives identified by Newborn Screening Ontario as having had an infant with a positive CF NBS result in their practice in the previous 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary care providers' preferred roles in providing well-baby care for infants with positive CF screening results.

RESULTS

Overall, 321 of 628 (51%) completed surveys (208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, 45 midwives). For well-baby care for infants confirmed to have CF, 77% of PCPs indicated they would not provide total care (ie, 68% would share care with other specialists and 9% would refer to specialists completely); for infants with an inconclusive CF diagnosis, 50% of PCPs would provide total care, 45% would provide shared care, and 5% would refer to a specialist; for CF carriers, 89% of PCPs would provide total care, 9% would provide shared care, and 2% would refer. Half (54%) of PCPs were extremely or very confident in providing reassurance about CF carriers' health. Only 25% knew how to order parents' CF carrier testing; 67% knew how to refer for prenatal diagnosis. Confidence in reassuring parents about the health of CF carrier children was associated with providing total well-baby care for CF carriers (risk ratio of 1.50; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.97) and infants with an inconclusive diagnosis (risk ratio of 3.30; 95% CI 1.34 to 8.16).

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs indicated willingness to treat infants with a range of CF NBS results in some capacity. It is concerning that some indicated CF carriers should have specialist involvement and only half were extremely or very confident about reassuring families about carrier status. This raises issues about possible medicalization of those with carrier status, prompting the need for PCP education about genetic disorders and the meaning of genetic test results.

Is sterile exposure in perianal procedures necessary? A single-institution experience and results from a national survey

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most common postoperative complications. To minimize the risk of SSI, there is a strict asepsis policy in the operating theatre. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk and cost-saving benefit of performing perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting.

METHODS

All patients who had perianal surgery at our institution between January 2014 and December 2017 in a sterile (S) or non-sterile (NS) setting for an infectious or non-infectious cause were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day SSI rate. The secondary outcome was the reintervention rate. A questionnaire was sent to surgeons in the Netherlands to assess current policy with regard to asepsis in perianal procedures. Finally, a cost analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 376 patients were included. The rate of SSI in infectious procedures was 13% (S) versus 14% (NS, p = 0.853) and 5.1% (S) versus 0.9% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.071). Reintervention rates in infectious procedures were 3.4% (S) versus 8.6% (NS, p = 0.187) and 1.3% (S) versus 0.0% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.227). The questionnaire revealed that most surgeons perform perianal surgery in a sterile setting although they did not consider this useful. The potential national cost-saving benefit of a non-sterile setting is €124.61 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that it is safe to perform perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting with regard to the SSI and reintervention rate. Adjustment of the current practice will contribute to a reduction in healthcare expenses.

Barriers to implementation of stratified care in primary biliary cholangitis: a scoping exercise

Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) can be stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups based on their response to treatment. Newly published guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology suggest low-risk patients can be managed substantially in primary care. This represents a shift from existing practice and makes assumptions about service capacity and the willingness of both patients and health care practitioners (HCPs) to make this change. The aim of this paper is to identify possible barriers to the implementation of these new care pathways through review of the PBC-specific literature and by identifying the experiences of patients and HCPs managing a different condition with comparable patients and disease characteristics. Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were undertaken. Within the existing PBC literature there is little data surrounding stakeholder perspectives on place of care. Review of the breast cancer literature highlights a number of barriers to change including primary care practitioner knowledge and work load, communication between healthcare settings, and the significance of the established doctor-patient relationship. Further research is needed to establish the extent to which these barriers may surface when changing PBC care pathways, and the actions required to overcome them.

Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

INTRODUCTION

Current follow-up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow-up to explore the potential for personalised care.

METHODS

Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow-up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were included in the full-text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: "surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence-risk reduction by anti-hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer." There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti-hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow-up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.

CONCLUSION

Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow-up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow-up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

Factors associated with professional healthcare advice seeking in women at risk for developing breast cancer-related lymphedema

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 6-20% of breast cancer patients undergoing lymph node surgery will develop lymphedema. At-risk individuals are encouraged to seek professional healthcare advice if symptoms arise. This study aimed to identify cognitive and affective factors associated with professional healthcare advice (PHCA) seeking behavior in women with heightened lymphedema risk.

METHODS

Women with increased lymphedema risk (N=462) completed an online survey measuring cognitive and affective responses to lymphedema risk, including the Illness Perception Questionnaire (Revised), and adherence to seeking PHCA.

RESULTS

Overall, 62% of women reported seeking professional healthcare advice if symptoms arose. Logistic regression analysis indicated that adherence to seeking PHCA if lymphedema symptoms arise was associated with greater illness coherence, belief in the efficacy of seeking PHCA, and lymphedema risk-related emotional distress.

CONCLUSION

Women were more likely to seek PHCA if symptoms arose if they held a coherent understanding of lymphedema and believed in the usefulness of seeking PHCA. For these women, psychological distress associated with lymphedema risk was associated with enhanced adherence to seeking PHCA.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health professionals should target lymphedema education to ensure at-risk women have a coherent understanding of lymphedema and that they believe in the effectiveness of seeking PHCA to help manage lymphedema symptoms.

The primary care provider (PCP)-cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis

Although they are critical to models of coordinated care, the relationship and communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists throughout the cancer continuum are poorly understood. By using predefined search terms, the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature in 3 databases to examine the relationship and communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. Among 301 articles identified, 35 met all inclusion criteria and were reviewed in-depth. Findings from qualitative, quantitative, and disaggregated mixed-methods studies were integrated using meta-synthesis. Six themes were identified and incorporated into a preliminary conceptual model of the PCP-cancer specialist relationship: 1) poor and delayed communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, 2) cancer specialists' endorsement of a specialist-based model of care, 3) PCPs' belief that they play an important role in the cancer continuum, 4) PCPs' willingness to participate in the cancer continuum, 5) cancer specialists' and PCPs' uncertainty regarding the PCP's oncology knowledge/experience, and 6) discrepancies between PCPs and cancer specialists regarding roles. These data indicate a pervasive need for improved communication, delineation, and coordination of responsibilities between PCPs and cancer specialists. Future interventions aimed at these deficiencies may improve patient and physician satisfaction and cancer care coordination. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:156-169. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use of a novel statistical technique to examine the delivery of breast cancer follow-up care by different types of oncology providers

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Frequent follow-up is recommended for the more than 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the USA. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer treatment, follow-up may be provided by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and primary care providers. This creates the potential for significant redundancy as well as gaps in care. The objective was to examine patterns of breast cancer follow-up provided by different types of oncologists and develop a statistical means of quantifying visit distribution over time.

METHODS

We identified stage I-III breast cancer patients who underwent breast conservation from 2000 to 2006 (n = 12 139) within the SEER-Medicare linked database. Provider type was defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and AMA Masterfile. The coefficient of variation (CV) for time between oncologist follow-up visits was calculated. Ordinal logistic regression assessed factors associated with CV.

RESULTS

Substantial variation in CV was observed. Sixty-seven per cent of patients with low CV (high visit regularity) received follow-up from a single oncologist type, versus 8% with high CV (low visit regularity). The number of oncologist types participating in follow-up had the greatest association with high CV (odds ratio 7.4 [6.7-8.3] and 15.4 [13.6-17.6] for two and three oncologist types).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel means of quantifying follow-up visit regularity, we determined that breast cancer patients with dispersed follow-up with more than one oncologist have more disordered care. The CV could be used in electronic medical records to identify cancer survivors with more disordered.

Caring for cancer survivors: perspectives of oncologists, general practitioners and patients in Italy

AIM

The present survey investigates the views of medical oncologists, general practitioners (GPs) and patients about the various surveillance strategies.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted in Italy on a population of 329 medical oncologists, 380 GPs and 350 patients.

RESULTS

Most of GPs (n = 291; 76%) claim that follow-up should be provided by the collaboration between GPs and medical oncologists. Most medical oncologists report to have a poor relationship with GPs (n = 151; 46%) or no relationships at all (n = 14; 4%). Most patients believe there is no real collaboration between medical oncologists and GPs (n = 138; 54%).

CONCLUSION

GPs, medical oncologists and patients share the idea that the collaboration between oncologists and GPs for surveillance of cancer survivors is poor and should be improved.

Follow-up Reality for Breast Cancer Patients - Standardised Survey of Patients and Physicians and Analysis of Treatment Data

Introduction: Currently, about 360 000 breast cancer patients who could, after completion of their primary therapy, take advantage of follow-up options are living in Germany. Up to now very little is known about the extent to which the available options are used and as to how the follow-up reality is experienced and evaluated. Thus, an explorative examination among the patients and their physicians was undertaken. Patients and Methods: All patients who underwent surgery in a certified breast centre between 2007 and 2013 received a standardised questionnaire; at the same time the physicians responsible for the follow-up were invited to answer a standardised questionnaire. Results: 920 patients (response rate: 61 %) with a median age of 65 years (32-95) could be analysed. 99 % of the participants stated that they regularly attended follow-ups. The personal contact with the physician (mean value: 4.4) and the reassurance that the cancer disease had not recurred (mean value: 4.5) were described on a scale of 0 to 5 to be two of the most important factors of the follow-up. Deficits were expressed with regard to psychosocial care (70 %) and the perception and treatment of physical complaints (55 %). In addition, 105 physicians returned completed questionnaires (response rate: 12 %). For asymptomatic patients the physicians performed the following examinations most frequently: anamnesis (92 %), physical examination (87 %) as well as laboratory tests (63 %) and tumour marker determinations (40 %). Conclusion: On the whole it became clear that the vast majority of the patients took advantage of the follow-up options. From the patient's perspective the importance of the follow-up lies in contact to the physician and the comforting assurance that the breast cancer has not relapsed. Deficits are seen in the psychosocial care and the perception and treatment of physical impairments. Not recommended examinations were employed by a significant proportion of the surveyed physicians.

Ambulatory Medical Assistance--After Cancer (AMA-AC): A model for an early trajectory survivorship survey of lymphoma patients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy

Background

Cancer survivorship has emerged as an important aspect of oncology due to the possibility of physical and psychosocial complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of the Ambulatory Medical Assistance for After Cancer (AMA-AC) procedure for monitoring lymphoma survivorship during the first year after chemotherapy.

Methods

AMA-AC is based on systematic general practitioner (GP) consultations and telephone interventions conducted by a nurse coordinator (NC) affiliated to the oncology unit, while an oncologist acts only on demand. Patients are regularly monitored for physical, psychological and social events, as well as their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Inclusion criteria were patients newly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin lymphomas, who had been treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy and were in complete remission after treatment.

Results

All 115 patients and 113 collaborating GPs agreed to participate in the study. For patients who achieved one year of disease-free survival (n = 104) their assessments (438 in total) were fully completed. Eleven were excluded from analysis (9 relapses and 2 deaths). The most frequent complications when taking into account all grades were arthralgia (64.3 %) and infections (41.7 %). About one third of patients developed new diseases with cardiovascular complications as the most common. Psychological disorders such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were diagnosed in 42.6 % of patients. The data collected showed that Hodgkin lymphoma patients, females, and patients with lower HRQoL (mental component) at study entry were at greater risk for developing at least one psychological disorder.

Conclusion

This study showed that AMA-AC is a feasible and efficient procedure for monitoring lymphoma survivorship in terms of GP and patient participation rates and adherence, and provides a high quality of operable data. Hence, the AMA-AC procedure may be transferable into clinical daily practice as an alternative to standard oncologist-based follow-up.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1815-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oncologists' Perspectives of Their Roles and Responsibilities During Multi-disciplinary Breast Cancer Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of follow-up provided to the 3 million U.S. breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Current guidelines do not provide guidance regarding who should participate in follow-up or what providers' specific responsibilities should be. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer care, this results in significant variation and creates the potential for redundancy and/or gaps. Our objective was to provide insight into why different types of oncologists believe their participation in follow-up is necessary.

METHODS

A purposeful sample of breast medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists was identified (n = 35) and in-depth one-on-one interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Medical oncologists were driven by a sense of Responsibility for Ongoing Therapy, perceived Strong Patient Relationship, and belief that their systemic approach to follow-up represented a Specific Skillset beneficial to patients. In contrast, surgical and radiation oncologists were selective about which patients they followed, participating when they perceived their Specific Skillset of enhanced local-regional assessments would be valuable. Additionally, they endorsed participating to Ensure Follow-up is Received or not participating to Minimize Redundancy. These individual decisions led to either a Complementary Oncologist Team or Primary Oncologist follow-up approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists' feel responsible for the cancer-related components of follow-up. Differences amongst oncology specialists' perceived responsibilities influenced decisions to provide ongoing follow-up. Based on these individual decisions, a Complementary Oncologist Team or Primary Oncologist model of care evolves organically. Guidelines that explicitly direct patients into a care model have the potential to significantly improve care quality and efficiency.

Large variation in the use of defunctioning stomas after rectal cancer surgery. A lack of consensus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

When deciding about the use of a defunctioning stoma in rectal cancer surgery, benefits and risks need to be weighed. This study investigated: (1a) factors associated with the use of defunctioning stomas; (1b) hospital variation; and (2) surgeons' perceptions regarding factors that determine this decision.

METHODS

Population-based data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were used. Factors for receiving a defunctioning stoma were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression analysis. Hospital variation was assessed before and after case-mix adjustment. A survey was performed among gastroenterological surgeons on the importance of factors for the decision to construct a defunctioning stoma.

RESULTS

In total 4368 patients were analyzed and 103 (34%) surgeons participated. Male gender, higher body mass index, lower tumors, preoperative radiotherapy, and treatment in a teaching/university hospital increased the odds for a defunctioning stoma. Unadjusted hospital variation ranged from 0% to 98%. Variation remained after case-mix adjustment (0-100%). There was large variation in factors considered important for the decision; almost all factors were ranked as 'most important' at least once.

CONCLUSIONS

There is large variation in the use of defunctioning stomas for patients with rectal cancer, and a lack in uniformity of the selection criteria. These results underline the need to improve current decision making and identification of high-risk patients.

Optimizing cancer care through mobile health

The survival rates for patients living with cancer are increasing, due to recent advances in detection, prevention and treatment. It has been estimated that there were 28 million cancer survivors around the world in 2012. In the UK, for patients diagnosed in 2007, it is predicted that more than half of them will survive their cancer for 5 years or more. A large majority of cancer survivors report unmet supportive care needs and distressing symptoms and adverse long-term consequences related to their cancer. Cancer management could be optimized to better meet patients demand through technology, including mobile health (m-Health). m-Health is defined as the use of mobile communications and network technologies for health care. m-Health can help both patients and health-care professionals and play an important part in managing and delivering cancer care including managing side effects, supporting drug adherence, providing cancer information, planning and follow up and detecting and diagnosing cancer. Health authorities have already published guidelines regulating m-Health to insure patient safety and improve the accountability of its applications.

How do I follow patients with early breast cancer after completing adjuvant therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

With improvements in the detection and treatment of breast cancer, more women are surviving after diagnosis. Patients who complete adjuvant therapy require ongoing follow-up to manage toxicities, to detect recurrences early, and to provide ongoing physical and psychosocial support. Routine surveillance should be implemented, with attention to educating patients about symptoms of recurrence, such as weight loss, cough, and bone pain. An intensive surveillance strategy with the routine use of laboratory and radiographic studies does not improve outcomes and raises the cost of follow-up. Patients should have annual mammograms in conjunction with physical exam and history at appropriate intervals that increase the farther out patients are from treatment. Attention also should be focused on other routine health maintenance and cancer screening, such as colonoscopy, gynecologic examinations, and bone health/DEXA scans. In the early posttreatment period, medical oncologists are best equipped to follow these patients. However, as women live longer after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, transitioning care to a primary care physician or nurse practitioner is appropriate, provided these practitioners are educated about late treatment effects and managing side effects of treatment, which may continue as long as a decade. A multidisciplinary follow-up strategy with excellent communication between providers can ensure safe, convenient, and quality care to the growing population of breast cancer survivors. As the treatment of breast cancer evolves into personalized strategies based on the biologic characteristics of individual tumors, future studies will be needed to determine if a single surveillance strategy is sufficient or if individualized surveillance based on risk can improve outcomes and costs of long-term follow-up care.

Long-term follow-up of women with breast cancer: rationale for policy change

BACKGROUND

The number of breast cancer survivors in our ageing population continues to rise. Policy makers internationally are seeking to identify alternatives to follow-up care in an acute setting.

AIMS

The National Cancer Control Programme set out to develop a new policy for long-term follow-up of breast cancer survivors in Ireland.

METHODS

Policy development was informed by analysis of current attendances at breast surgical clinics for routine follow-up, extraction of the necessary components of follow-up from international guidelines and focus group research with Irish patients.

RESULTS

Intensive follow-up investigations, other than mammography, do not confer additional survival benefit or improved quality of life. Provision of routine follow-up care of breast cancer survivors by GPs has been shown to be equivalent to follow-up by specialist clinics, in terms of clinical outcomes, patient quality of life and patient satisfaction. In Ireland, routine follow-up accounted for 15.4% (95% CI: 13.8-17.0%) of clinic appointments. A third were at least 5 years post-operative. Women highlighted issues such as attachment to specialist services, importance of communication and need for clarity as to where responsibility of care lies. Reassurance, confidence in the primary care practitioner, and coordination of multiple appointments were also identified as important issues.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of breast cancer survivors attending hospital surgical clinics for long-term follow-up could be safely discharged at 5 years, with the hospital maintaining responsibility for annual mammography. Successful implementation will depend on informed patients, clinicians' acceptance and communication between primary and secondary care.

Breast cancer "tailored follow-up" in Italian oncology units: a web-based survey

Purpose

Breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment are still a controversial issue. Aim of this study was to investigate, through a web-based survey, surveillance methodologies selected by Italian oncologists in everyday clinical practice.

Methods

Referents of Italian medical oncology units were invited to participate to the study via e-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. Participants were asked how, in their institution, exams of disease staging and follow-up are planned in asymptomatic women and if surveillance continues beyond the 5^th year.

Results

Between February and May 2013, 125 out of 233 (53.6%) invited referents of Italian medical oncology units agreed to participate in the survey. Ninety-seven (77.6%) referents state that modalities of breast cancer follow-up are planned according to the risk of disease progression at diagnosis and only 12 (9.6%) oncology units apply the minimal follow-up procedures according to international guidelines. Minimal follow-up is never applied in high risk asymptomatic women. Ninety-eight (78.4%) oncology units continue follow-up in all patients beyond 5 years.

Conclusions

Our survey shows that 90.4% of participating Italian oncology units declare they do not apply the minimal breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment in asymptomatic women, as suggested by national and international guidelines. Interestingly, about 80.0% of interviewed referents performs the so called “tailored follow-up”, high intensity for high risk, low intensity for low risk patients. There is an urgent need of randomized clinical trials able to determine the effectiveness of risk-based follow-up modalities, their ideal frequency and persistence in time.

Breast cancer follow-up strategies in randomized phase III adjuvant clinical trials: a systematic review

The effectiveness of different breast cancer follow-up procedures to decrease breast cancer mortality are still an object of debate, even if intensive follow-up by imaging modalities is not recommended by international guidelines since 1997. We conducted a systematic review of surveillance procedures utilized, in the last ten years, in phase III randomized trials (RCTs) of adjuvant treatments in early stage breast cancer with disease free survival as primary endpoint of the study, in order to verify if a similar variance exists in the scientific world. Follow-up modalities were reported in 66 RCTs, and among them, minimal and intensive approaches were equally represented, each being followed by 33 (50%) trials. The minimal surveillance regimen is preferred by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.001) and by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.004), with no relationship with the number of participating centers (P = 0.173), with pharmaceutical industry sponsorship (P = 0.80) and with trials enrolling > 1000 patients (P = 0.14). At multivariate regression analysis, only geographic location of the trial was predictive for a distinct follow-up methodology (P = 0.008): Western European (P = 0.004) and East Asian studies (P = 0.010) use intensive follow-up procedures with a significantly higher frequency than international RCTs, while no differences have been detected between North American and international RCTs. Stratifying the studies according to the date of beginning of patients enrollment, before or after 1998, in more recent RCTs the minimal approach is more frequently followed by international and North American RCTs (P = 0.01), by trials involving more than one country (P = 0.01) and with more than 50 participating centers (P = 0.02). It would be highly desirable that in the near future breast cancer follow-up procedures will be homogeneous in RCTs and everyday clinical settings.

Patient demographic and tumor characteristics influencing oncologist follow-up frequency in older breast cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Although recommendations for breast cancer follow-up frequency exist, current follow-up guidelines are standardized, without consideration of individual patient characteristics. Some studies suggest oncologists are using these characteristics to tailor follow-up recommendations, but it is unclear how this is translating into practice. The objective of this study was to examine current patterns of oncologist breast cancer follow-up and determine the association between patient and tumor characteristics and follow-up frequency.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify stage I-III breast cancer patients diagnosed 2000-2007 (n = 39,241). Oncologist follow-up visits were defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and the linked AMA Masterfile. Multinomial logistic regression determined the association between patient and tumor characteristics and oncologist follow-up visit frequency.

RESULTS

Younger age (p < 0.001), positive nodes (p < 0.001), estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positivity (p < 0.001), and increasing treatment intensity (p < 0.001) were most strongly associated with more frequent follow-up. However, after accounting for these characteristics, significant variation in follow-up frequency was observed. In addition to patient factors, the number and types of oncologists involved in follow-up were associated with follow-up frequency (p < 0.001). Types of oncologists providing follow-up varied, with medical oncologists the sole providers of follow-up for 19-51 % of breast cancer survivors. Overall, 58 % of patients received surgical oncology, and 51 % undergoing radiation received radiation oncology follow-up, usually in combination with medical oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in breast cancer follow-up frequency exists. Developing follow-up guidelines tailored for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics while also providing guidance on who should provide follow-up has the potential to increase clinical efficiency.

Discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care at the end of hospital follow-up: a cross-sectional survey

AIM

The present study explored (a) the discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care by specialists, at the end of hospital follow-up and (b) the experiences and views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding transfer of follow-up to the primary care setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed by sending a self-administered questionnaire to 960 GPs working in the three northern provinces of the Netherlands. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 949 eligible questionnaires, 502 were returned, providing an adjusted response rate of 53%. In the year before the survey took place, one or more patients aged >60 years, and 5 years after breast-conserving therapy, were discharged to 22% of GPs (n=112) for follow-up. According to 56% of these GPs, transfer of follow-up was communicated by the hospital. The initiative to arrange follow-up visits and mammography appointments was mainly taken by patients. In this survey, 40% of GPs (n=200) were willing to accept exclusive responsibility for follow-up earlier than 5 years after completion of active treatment. Perceived barriers in current and future primary care-based follow-up included: communication with breast cancer specialists, patients' preference for specialist follow-up, GPs' oncology knowledge and skills and the organisation of follow-up in general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care-based follow-up might be improved if breast cancer specialists discharge patients more actively to their GPs. Survivorship care plans are needed to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training of GPs and developing administrative tools may be helpful in arranging follow-up care and using guidelines in general practice.

Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer

PURPOSE

Little is known about the current role of the general practitioner (GP) in breast cancer follow-up care. This study explores primary healthcare use in the period after completion of primary breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

A total of 336 women with a history of early-stage breast cancer treated with curative intent were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen (RNG) (1998-2007) and matched with a reference population of 983 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP.

RESULTS

Over the entire follow-up period (starting 1 year post-diagnosis), the median numbers of face-to-face contacts, drug prescriptions, and referrals in the patient group were significantly higher than those in the reference group: 4.0 vs. 3.2/year, 12.3 vs. 8.4/year, and 0.4 vs. 0.3/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001 for all differences. At least one annual face-to-face contact was observed for 96.7 % of patients and 92.9 % of women from the reference population (Chi-square test p = 0.011). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts for reasons related to breast cancer or were prescribed hormone antagonists and aromatase inhibitors to treat breast cancer. The main predictor of higher rates of face-to-face contacts and drug prescriptions was a higher age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer, especially among the elderly. When follow-up is transferred to the primary care setting, new responsibilities of GPs might be incorporated into existing primary healthcare delivery.

Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Both incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer.

METHOD

A systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1-4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions.

RESULTS

Women who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed.

Breast cancer survivors' perceptions of survivorship care options

PURPOSE

As the number of breast cancer survivors increases, a durable model of comprehensive survivor care is needed, incorporating providers and/or visit types both within and outside of oncology. The objective of this study was to explore survivors' comfort with different clinician types or with a telephone/Internet-based virtual visit as components of survivorship care.

METHODS

Breast cancer survivors participating in a general survivorship survey completed an additional breast cancer-specific questionnaire evaluating the self-perceived impact of follow-up visits to various clinician types, or follow-up by a virtual visit, on survival, worrying, and stress related to cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 218 breast cancer survivors completed the questionnaire. Most favored medical oncologist follow-up visits over those with primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs) in terms of reduced worrying about cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; P < .001), reduced stress around the visit (OR, 1.40; P = .002), and improved effect on cancer survival (OR, 2.38; P < .001). However, the majority also displayed substantial comfort with both PCPs and NPs in the same domains. Patients rated a virtual visit as having a less favorable impact on cancer survival and cancer-related worrying compared with in-person visits with clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer survivors are comfortable with both PCPs and NPs providing follow-up care, although they indicate a preference for medical oncologists. Given patients' negative impressions of a virtual visit, increased familiarity with and research investigating this emerging concept are needed. The NP-led survivorship clinic model, with increased guidance for PCPs, offers a promising route for improving quality of and satisfaction with survivor care.

Models of care for early-stage breast cancer in Canada

There is growing evidence that follow-up for patients with early breast cancer (ebc) can be effectively carried out by the primary health care provider if a plan is in place. Here, we present data from a recent survey conducted in Ontario indicating that a shared-care model could work if communication between all health professionals involved in the care of ebc patients were to be improved. Patients and primary care providers benefit when the specialist provides written information about what their roles are and what to expect. Primary care providers need to have easy access to the specialist to discuss areas of concern. Patients also need to share responsibility for their care, ensuring that they attend follow-up visits on a regular basis and that they discuss areas of concern with their primary health care provider. A shared-care model has the potential to provide the best care for the least cost to the health system.

Professionals' opinion on follow-up in breast cancer patients; perceived purpose and influence of patients' risk factors

AIM

To provide insight into professionals' opinions on breast cancer follow-up to facilitate implementation of new follow-up strategies. The study focuses on current practice, purpose and perceived effects, and preferred frequency and duration of follow-up.

DESIGN

A 29-item questionnaire on professionals' demographics, current practice, opinion on the current guideline, preferences in frequency and duration of tailored follow-up, and the purpose and perceived effects of follow-up was sent to 633 Dutch professionals.

RESULTS

The current national guideline is followed by 81% of respondents. All different specialists are involved in follow-up. Sixty-nine percent of respondents' report nurse practitioners to be involved in follow-up. When asked for tailored follow-up, professionals indicate more factors for increased follow-up (age<40 years, pT3-4 tumour, pN2-3, treatment related morbidity, and psychosocial support), than for reduced schedules (age >70 years and DCIS histology). Alternative forms of follow-up are not endorsed by >90% of respondents. Detection of a new primary tumour of the breast is considered the most important purpose of follow-up (98%), 57% still indicates detecting metastases as a goal.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals tend towards longer and more intensive follow-up than the current guideline for a large group of patients. Limitations and developments in follow-up need to be considered to facilitate alternative follow-up strategies.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience

BACKGROUND

Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received.

METHODS

Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected.

RESULTS

Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

Rural primary care providers' perceptions of their role in the breast cancer care continuum

CONTEXT

Rural women in the United States experience disparity in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment when compared to their urban counterparts. Given the 11% chance of lifetime occurrence of breast cancer for women overall, the continuum of breast cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and recovery are of legitimate concern to rural women and their primary care providers.

PURPOSE

This analysis describes rural primary care providers' perceptions of the full spectrum of breast cancer screening, treatment, and follow-up care for women patients, and it describes the providers' desired role in the cancer care continuum.

METHOD

Focus group interviews were conducted with primary care providers in 3 federally qualified community health centers serving a lower income, rural population. Focus group participants (N = 26) consisted of 11 physicians, 14 nurse practitioners, and 1 licensed clinical psychologist. Data were generated from audiotaped interviews transcribed verbatim and investigator field notes. Data were analyzed using constant comparison and findings were reviewed with a group of rural health professionals to judge the fit of findings with the emerging coding scheme.

FINDINGS

Provider relationships were characterized as being with women with cancer and comprised an active behind-the-scenes role in supporting their patients through treatment decisions and processes. Three themes emerged from the interview data: Knowing the Patient; Walking Through Treatment With the Patient; and Sending Them Off or Losing the Patient to the System.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings should be a part of professional education for rural practitioners, and mechanisms to support this role should be implemented in practice settings.

American Society of Clinical Oncology-recommended surveillance and physician specialty among long-term breast cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether it is appropriate to transfer the follow-up care of breast cancer (BrCa) survivors from cancer specialists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This contemporary study compared physician specialty and documented the long-term surveillance of survivors who underwent surgery at an American academic center.

METHODS

Women in this institutional review board-approved study underwent breast surgery between 1996 and 2006. Data were collected for 270 patients with stage I to III BrCa (mean follow-up, 6 years). Charts were reviewed based on American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for recommended surveillance frequency and care.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (90%; n = 242) were followed by specialists with 10% (n = 28) followed by PCPs. Patients with advanced disease and a greater risk of disease recurrence more often received specialist care. Patients followed by specialists were more often seen at ASCO-recommended intervals (eg, 89% vs 69% of patients followed by a PCP at follow-up Year 6; P < .01); however, many patients were followed inconsistently. Breast disease was often not the focus of PCP visits or mentioned in clinic notes (18% patients). Women seen by specialists were more likely to have documented clinical examinations of the breast (93% vs 44% at Year 6), axilla (94% vs 52%), or annual mammograms (74% vs 48%; P = .001-.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent compliance with surveillance guidelines and chart documentation needs improvement among all providers; however, specialists more consistently met ASCO guidelines. If transfer of care to a PCP occurs, it should be formalized and include follow-up recommendations and defined physician responsibilities. Providers and patients should be educated regarding surveillance care and current guidelines incorporated into standard clinical practice.

Female partners of patients after surgical prostate cancer treatment: interactions with physicians and support needs

Background

Few studies have explored the women's experiences as a result of a partners' diagnosis of prostate cancer. This study begins to explore women's interactions with physicians (primary care and urologist) and the support needs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of their partners' prostate cancer.

Methods

Two focus groups (n = 14) of women whose partners were diagnosed with prostate cancer (diagnoses' 1 - 18 months). A trained facilitator used open-ended questions to explore ideas. The framework approach was used to analyze the transcripts.

Results

Three main themes emerged: 1. More support. Validation and information is needed for women including emotional support and opportunities to share experiences. 2. Role of the physician. The transfer of care once specialized treatment is no longer needed remained poorly defined, which increased confusion and feelings of abandonment related to the role of the primary physician. 3. Partners' relationship changes. Men became more dependent on their partners for support and to act as the primary communicator and caregiver.

Conclusions

Additional research is needed in this field to confirm the importance of training primary care physicians to consider holistic treatment approaches that recognize the partner and family needs as important in the complete physical and emotional healing of their patients.

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care settings.

METHOD

A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals.

CONCLUSION

Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.

Follow-up care for cancer survivors: the views of clinicians

Background:

Evidence for the efficacy of late effects surveillance in adult cancer survivors is lacking and there is little agreement among clinicians on appropriate follow-up care.

Methods:

We report the views of both cancer experts and general practitioners (GPs) on long-term follow-up provision for cancer survivors, focussing on the 18–45 years age group. A total of 421 cancer experts (36% haematologists, 33% oncologists, 18% surgeons, 10% nurses, 2% other) and 54 GPs responded to a structured online survey. Reasons for follow-up care (clinical or supportive); advantages and disadvantages of follow-up in primary care; current practice; and resources required for a quality follow-up service were assessed.

Results:

Clinicians valued clinical reasons for follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001). Learning more about late effects and checking for cancer recurrence were rated as the most important reasons for follow-up by cancer experts and GPs. A total of 85% of cancer specialists hold follow-up consultations alongside patients on active treatment. Cancer experts agreed that primary care follow-up would increase their availability for acute oncological care, but reduce information on late effects. The most important resource to provide a quality follow-up service was specialist nursing support (91%).

Conclusions:

Follow-up guidelines that include late effects surveillance are needed. Where and who should deliver this care requires further debate.

Follow-up care for cancer survivors: views of the younger adult

Background:

Since the launch of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, there has been a surge of interest surrounding the value and organisation of long-term follow-up care after cancer treatment. We report the views of 309 adult cancer survivors (aged 18–45 years) on provision of follow-up and preferences for care.

Methods:

A total of 207 survivors completed questionnaires before and after routine consultant-led follow-up appointments and 102 were recruited by post. Measures of health status (including late effects, perceived vulnerability to late effects and quality of life), reasons for attending follow-up (clinical and supportive), issues to be discussed at follow-up and preferences for different models of care were assessed.

Results:

In all, 59% of the survivors reported experiencing one or more cancer-related health problems. Survivors rated clinical reasons for attending follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001), although nutritional advice and counselling were considered useful (60 and 47%, respectively). Those still receiving scheduled follow-up appointments did not discuss the range of issues intended with ‘late effects’ and ‘fertility’, which were particularly under-discussed. Hospital rather than GP follow-up was more highly rated.

Conclusion:

Survivors value the clinical reassurance currently provided by consultant-led care. However, supportive needs are not systematically addressed. Multi-disciplinary services are recommended to meet supportive needs in addition to clinical care.

Locoregional relapse after breast cancer: most relapses occur late and are not clinically detected

There remains controversy over follow-up after breast cancer. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom recommends 2-3 years of follow-up for the detection of locoregional relapse. Guidelines in North America advocate much longer follow up periods. Clinicians in the UK have been reluctant to implement the NICE guidelines. Previous studies report that the rate of relapse peaks in the first 3-5 years before falling off. In this study, a retrospective analysis of rate of relapse and method of detection in 198 patients treated with conservation surgery between 1995 and 2001 has been undertaken. Median follow-up was 5.9 years. Rate of relapse is essentially constant for 10 years, with most relapses occurring after 3 years. The majority of relapse in this cohort is detected by means other than routine clinical examination, with only 16.66% of relapse detected this way. The guidelines for follow-up in the UK need revision. If follow-up is to be provided, this needs to continue for at least 10 years, if not beyond. This study casts doubt on the value of routine clinical examination.

Primary care physicians' views of routine follow-up care of cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors is an important clinical and health service issue. Because of a lack of evidence supporting advantages of long-term follow-up care in oncology clinics, there is increasing interest for the locus of this care to be provided by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, current Canadian PCP views on this issue have been largely unknown.

METHODS

A mail survey of a random sample of PCPs across Canada, stratified by region and proximity to urban centers, was conducted. Views on routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors and modalities to facilitate PCPs in providing this care were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 330 PCPs responded (adjusted response rate, 51.7%). After completion of active treatment, PCPs were willing to assume exclusive responsibility for routine follow-up care after 2.4 +/- 2.3 years had elapsed for prostate cancer, 2.6 +/- 2.6 years for colorectal cancer, 2.8 +/- 2.5 years for breast cancer, and 3.2 +/- 2.7 years for lymphoma. PCPs already providing this care were willing to provide exclusive care sooner. The most useful modalities PCPs felt would assist them in assuming exclusive responsibility for follow-up cancer care were (1) a patient-specific letter from the specialist, (2) printed guidelines, (3) expedited routes of rereferral, and (4) expedited access to investigations for suspected recurrence.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate information and support in place, PCPs reported being willing to assume exclusive responsibility for the follow-up care of adult cancer survivors. Insights gained from this survey may ultimately help guide strategies in providing optimal care to these patients.

Automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer: an acceptability and feasibility pilot study

Traditional clinical follow-up after breast cancer is inefficient at detecting relapse and is poorly suited to detecting and ameliorating psychological problems. There is interest in developing more effective and efficient methods of follow-up. We report a prospective cohort study of the acceptability and feasibility of remote, automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer. Women with a history of breast cancer were approached at their annual follow-up visit. For participants, the follow-up questionnaire was administered on paper at baseline. In place of a clinic visit following year, the women completed the same questionnaire using an automated telephone system. All patients were given mammograms. A semi-structured interview was then conducted to assess the acceptability. The potential impact on clinic usage was assessed. In all, 110 of 121 women (91%) agreed to participate. Seventy-five patients (71%) completed follow-up using the new automated system 1 year later. Seventy-one of the 75 patients found the system easy to use. Forty-nine of the 75 (65.33%) liked the system and were happy to use it as their sole method of follow-up. A further 12% were happy to use it as part of their follow-up. In only 10.66% of participants were concerns raised which led to clinic attendance. Automated questionnaire-based telephone follow-up is acceptable to women and has the potential to reduce attendance at clinic. Further studies to validate this method further are planned.

Does limiting long-term follow-up for breast cancer allow all referrals to be seen in 2 weeks?

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends that breast cancer follow-up should be limited to 2-3 years stating this will 'release resources' making it 'possible for all women with breast symptoms to be seen within 2 weeks'. In 2000, breast cancer follow-up services in North Bristol were redesigned to reflect evidence-based best practice. The aim of this paper is to assess the impact of this policy on numbers of follow-ups, clinic capacity and waiting times.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data regarding the numbers of new and follow-up patients seen in breast clinic between January 2000 and December 2005 were collected from the hospital Patient Administration System. New patients were categorised as either 'routine' or 'urgent' according to '2-week wait' rule guidelines. Median waiting times were calculated for each group and nominal appointment times assigned in an attempt to assess the effect of any changes on clinic capacity.

RESULTS

The number of follow-ups decreased by 33% as a result of the new policy. Numbers of referrals over the same period, however, increased by 14%. Routine referrals declined, but there was a 27% increase in '2-week wait' patients. Waiting times for routine appointments initially decreased in response to reduced follow-up, but then rose as the number of '2-week wait' referrals increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing long-term follow-up is a simple and effective method of increasing clinic capacity but its effects are inadequate and transient in the face of increasing service demand. Additional innovative and creative strategies will be required if all breast patients are to be seen within 2 weeks.

Patients' expectations for follow-up in breast cancer--a preliminary, questionnaire-based study

The current National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommends that only 2-3 years of follow-up after breast cancer be provided. Clinicians are unwilling to implement these guidelines. However, little has been done to establish patients expectations before they embark on their regular follow-up programme. We have sought the opinions of patients in a questionnaire-based prospective cohort study. Expectations for length and frequency of follow-up were established in women prior to attending their first scheduled follow-up review 1 year after treatment. In addition, patients were asked their opinions on what clinics were designed to achieve. An attempt was made to establish whether patients would be happy with less follow-up when informed of the inefficiency of routine clinic visits. Most women expect some follow-up, but expectations for length and frequency vary dramatically. Most believe follow-up is for the detection of relapse, but very few see psychological support or side effect detection as being central to clinicians' aims. One third of women would be happy to not come back to clinic at all when told how infrequently routine clinical examination detects metastatic disease.

[Follow-up of patients treated for localized invasive breast carcinoma]

The follow-up of patients treated for invasive breast carcinoma remains a major challenge because of breast cancer prevalence and the frequent patient's preferences for a regular follow-up. Concerning this last point, there is a lack of studies about the consequences of a systematic follow-up. Few decades ago, regular and systematic follow-up was considered as a dogma. In 1994, it was seriously questioned by two randomised Italian trials: they did not find any benefit in terms of survival and quality of life in patients who had a regular search of asymptomatic metastasis. Follow-up strategy after early breast cancer is still an unexplored field, despite higher performance of investigation tests and development of new treatments strategies that allowed a significant decrease of recurrences and increase of cancer care. Currently, the international guidelines deeply recommend a regular physical examination and mammography. But a systematic search for non-symptomatic metastases is unnecessary. We now need a coordination between practitioners to avoid useless tests, and to respond to patients' will.