Primary care for survivors of colorectal cancer

The burden of colorectal cancer survivors in the Netherlands: costs, utilities, and associated patient characteristics

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess the societal burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivorship 2–10 years post-diagnosis in terms of (1) societal costs, and (2) quality of life/utilities, and to analyze associated patient characteristics.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional, bottom-up prevalence-based burden of disease study, conducted from a societal perspective in the Netherlands. In total, 155 CRC survivors were included. Utilities were measured by the EQ-5D-5L, using the Dutch tariffs. A cost questionnaire was developed to obtain cost information. Subgroup analyses were performed, based on patient characteristics and sensitivity analyses.

Results

Of all CRC survivors, 81(54%) reported no problems for mobility, 133(88%) for self-care, 98(65%) for daily activities, 59(39%) for pain/discomfort, and 112(74%) for anxiety/depression on the EQ-5D-5L. The average EQ-5D-5L utility score was 0.82 (SD = 0.2) on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). Significant differences in utility score were found for gender, tumor stage, number of comorbidities, and lifestyle score. The average societal costs per CRC survivor per 6 months were estimated at €971 (min = €0, max = €32,425). Significant differences in costs were found for the number of comorbidities.

Conclusions

This study shows a considerable burden of CRC survivors 2–10 years after diagnosis, in comparison with survivors sooner after diagnosis and with healthy individuals in the Netherlands.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Long-term care of CRC survivors should focus on improving the societal burden by identifying modifiable factors, as summarized in the WCRF/AICR lifestyle score, including body composition, physical activity, and diet.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.