OUP accepted manuscript

The integration of primary care and childhood cancer survivorship care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping review describes existing care models that integrate primary care and childhood cancer survivorship care, examines the effectiveness of these models, and characterizes barriers and facilitators to their integration.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed®, CINAHL®, Embase®) was conducted to identify citations which were evaluated against inclusion criteria using the PICOTTS framework. The PRISMA-ScR extension for scoping reviews was used to report review findings (protocol https://osf.io/92xbg ).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included. Three care models integrating primary care and childhood cancer survivorship care were identified: consultative shared care in a primary care setting (N = 3); longitudinal shared care (N = 2); and PCP-led care employing a survivorship care plan (N = 5). While many described risk-adapted care, few used risk stratification approaches to inform care. Measures of model effectiveness varied, with discrepant findings regarding late effects detection in PCP-led approaches. The most frequently cited barriers and facilitators reflected provider- and system-level factors (PCP knowledge/experience identified as greatest barrier (N = 11); clinical information from oncologist identified as greatest facilitator (N = 9)).

CONCLUSIONS

Identified models depended on PCP knowledge and healthcare system coordination, and studies suggested the need for strong oncologic involvement in follow-up care. Improved training for PCPs and the coordinated transfer of clinical information could facilitate their involvement in such care. Overall, standardized measures of effectiveness are needed to deliver optimal childhood cancer survivorship care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The literature revealed three care models defined by SCP use, provider involvement, and continuity of care, with several studies recommending oncologic involvement in follow-up care for high-risk survivors.

Primary Care Utilization and Cardiovascular Screening in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer

Importance

Cardiovascular disease is the leading noncancer cause of premature death among survivors of childhood cancer. Adult survivors of childhood cancer are largely managed by primary care practitioners (PCPs), and health care utilization patterns related to cardiovascular screening are not well described.

Objective

To examine screening and health care utilization among survivors of childhood cancer at high risk for cardiovascular complications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cross-sectional study included participants enrolled in a randomized clinical trial from 2017 to 2021. Abstracted documentation of participants' cancer history, cardiotoxic treatment exposures, and survivorship care plans were obtained from participants' PCPs spanning 2 years preceding trial enrollment. Participants were members of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort at elevated risk for ischemic heart disease or heart failure, enrolled in a randomized trial focused on improving cardiovascular risk factor control. Data were analyzed from November 2022 to July 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were numbers of PCP and specialist visits, cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes), risk factor screening, and cardiac testing. Multivariable logistic regression assessed characteristics associated with up-to-date cardiac testing at enrollment.

Results

Of 347 enrolled participants, 293 (84.4%) had evaluable medical records (median [range] age, 39.9 [21.5-65.0] years; 149 [50.9%] male) and were included in analyses. At baseline, 238 participants (81.2%) had a documented PCP encounter; 241 participants (82.3%) had undergone blood pressure screening, 179 participants (61.1%) had undergone lipid testing, and 193 participants (65.9%) had undergone diabetes screening. A total of 63 participants (21.5%) had echocardiography completed or planned. Only 198 participants (67.6%) had records referencing a cancer history. PCP documentation of prior cardiotoxic exposures was low compared with known exposures, including radiation therapy (103 participants [35.2%] vs 203 participants [69.3%]; P < .001) and anthracycline chemotherapy (27 participants [9.2%] vs 222 participants [75.8%]; P = .008). Few records referenced a need for cancer-related late effects surveillance (95 records [32.4%]). Independent factors associated with cardiac screening included documentation of increased cardiovascular disease risk (odds ratio [OR], 11.94; 95% CI, 3.37-42.31), a late-effects surveillance plan (OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.69-9.11), and existing cardiovascular risk factors (OR per each additional factor, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.32-3.31).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of adult survivors of childhood cancer at increased risk of cardiovascular disease found low adherence to recommended cardiac testing and documentation of risk for these individuals. Improving accuracy of reporting of survivors' exposures and risks within the medical record may improve screening.

Rates and predictors of visits to primary care physicians during and after treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Patient re-engagement with primary care physicians (PCPs) after cancer treatment is essential to facilitate survivorship care and to meet non-oncology primary care needs. We identified rates and predictors of PCP visits both during and after treatment among a population-based cohort of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

Children of age less than 18 years at ALL diagnosis in Ontario between 2002 and 2012 were linked to administrative data and matched to controls without cancer. PCPs at diagnosis were identified and PCP visit rates during treatment compared between patients and controls. Post-treatment PCP visit rates were also calculated. Predictors included demographic-, disease-, and PCP-related variables.

RESULTS

A total of 743/793 (94%) patients and 3112/3947 (79%) controls had a PCP at diagnosis. Almost half of patients (361/743, 45%) did not visit their PCP during treatment. Visit rate during treatment was 0.64 per person per year (PPPY) versus 1.4 PPPY among controls (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.47, 95th confidence interval [95CI]: 0.40-0.54; p < .0001). No disease- or PCP-related factors were associated with visit rates. Total 711 patients completed frontline therapy; 287 (40.4%) did not have a PCP visit after treatment. Nonetheless, survivors overall visited PCPs post treatment more often than controls (aRR 1.4, 95CI: 1.2-1.6; p < .0001). Survivors who saw their PCP during treatment had post-treatment visit rates twice that of other survivors (aRR 2.0, 95CI: 1.6-2.5; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a portion of children with ALL see their PCPs during treatment and return to PCP care following treatment completion. Post-treatment engagement with PCPs may be improved by PCP involvement during ALL treatment.

Cancer survivorship at heart: a multidisciplinary cardio-oncology roadmap for healthcare professionals

In cancer, a patient is considered a survivor from the time of initial diagnosis until the end of life. With improvements in early diagnosis and treatment, the number of cancer survivors (CS) has grown considerably and includes: (1) Patients cured and free from cancer who may be at risk of late-onset cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT); (2) Patients with long-term control of not-curable cancers in whom CTR-CVT may need to be addressed. This paper highlights the importance of the cancer care continuum, of a patient-centered approach and of a prevention-oriented policy. The ultimate goal is a personalized care of CS, achievable only through a multidisciplinary-guided survivorship care plan, one that replaces the fragmented management of current healthcare systems. Collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists is the pillar of a framework in which primary care providers and other specialists must be engaged and in which familial, social and environmental factors are also taken into account.

Associations between Health Behaviors, Health Self-Efficacy, and Long-Term Outcomes in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Many survivors of childhood cancer experience multiple long-term chronic health conditions. Health behaviors are important because they contribute to chronic disease yet are highly modifiable. With growing pressure on cancer services, alternative models of care are required to address survivorship care needs. The authors sought to inform the development of a community-based model of cancer survivorship care for young people. This exploratory cross-sectional study aimed to assess the feasibility of study measures and processes, as well as investigate associations between various modifiable health behaviors, health self-efficacy, quality of life, and persistent symptoms.

DATA SOURCES

Participants were recruited from a long-term follow-up clinic for childhood cancer survivors. A self-report survey was completed, and participants received an activity tracker. Bivariate regression analyses were used to explore the relationship between variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The study measures and processes were deemed feasible with >70% of eligible survivors enrolling in the study and completing >70% of study measures. Thirty participants (mean age 22 ± 4.4 years) were enrolled; 83.3% finished treatment ≥5 years previously and 36.7% were overweight or obese. Bivariate regression identified those with higher scores of health self-efficacy were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines, as were those who achieved more sleep and consumed greater servings of vegetables. Meeting the physical activity guidelines, was significantly positively associated with higher quality of life and self-efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Interventions that target health self-efficacy have the potential to improve a range of health behaviors and long-term outcomes for survivors of childhood cancer. Nurses are ideally placed to use this knowledge to support patients with recommendations to optimise their recovery and rehabilitation.