Primary healthcare use during follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Cancer survivors' experiences of a physical activity program in primary care: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to gain insight into the experiences of, and reasons for, cancer survivors participating in a primary care PA program.

METHODS

We interviewed 17 patients from 11 Dutch GP practices. Patients were selected by purposive sampling based on their general practice, gender, educational level, motivation for PA, and change in PA. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and pseudonymized for inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three domains were identified with five themes: institutional domain: GP practice; program-specific domain: content sessions and PA, and activity tracker and goal setting; individual domain: experienced benefits, and personalized care needs. Participants valued the PA program because it was offered close to home, without additional costs, and by a trusted practice nurse familiar with the patients' medical background. Activity tracker use and goal setting motivated many participants but also led to demotivation and feelings of failure in others. Reported benefits included behavior change and favorable health outcomes. Many patients expressed the need to personalize psychological support and the program's timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to a PA program in a primary care setting is valued for its accessibility and experienced health benefits, but also seems to meet an unmet need for support in picking up life during cancer recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Primary care is important for continued care of cancer survivors. An accessible PA program in this setting may fulfil a need for not only lifestyle support but also continuing life after cancer treatment.

Educational differences in healthcare use among survivors after breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer - a SEQUEL cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many cancer survivors experience late effects after cancer. Comorbidity, health literacy, late effects, and help-seeking behavior may affect healthcare use and may differ among socioeconomic groups. We examined healthcare use among cancer survivors, compared with cancer-free individuals, and investigated educational differences in healthcare use among cancer survivors.

METHODS

A Danish cohort of 127,472 breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer survivors from the national cancer databases, and 637,258 age- and sex-matched cancer-free individuals was established. Date of entry was 12 months after diagnosis/index date (for cancer-free individuals). Follow-up ended at death, emigration, new primary cancer, December 31st, 2018, or up to 10 years. Information about education and healthcare use, defined as the number of consultations with general practitioner (GP), private practicing specialists (PPS), hospital, and acute healthcare contacts 1-9 years after diagnosis/index date, was extracted from national registers. We used Poisson regression models to compare healthcare use between cancer survivors and cancer-free individuals, and to investigate the association between education and healthcare use among cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Cancer survivors had more GP, hospital, and acute healthcare contacts than cancer-free individuals, while the use of PPS were alike. One-to-four-year survivors with short compared to long education had more GP consultations (breast, rate ratios (RR) = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.25-1.30; prostate, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.10-1.18; lung, RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.13-1.23; and colon cancer, RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.13-1.22) and acute contacts (breast, RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.26-1.45; prostate, RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.15-1.38; lung, RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.16-1.33; and colon cancer, RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.14-1.60), even after adjusting for comorbidity. One-to-four-year survivors with short compared to long education had less consultations with PPS, while no association was observed for hospital contacts.

CONCLUSION

Cancer survivors used more healthcare than cancer-free individuals. Cancer survivors with short education had more GP and acute healthcare contacts than survivors with long education. To optimize healthcare use after cancer, we need to better understand survivors' healthcare-seeking behaviors and their specific needs, especially among survivors with short education.

Fear of cancer recurrence at 2.5 years after a cancer diagnosis: a cross-sectional study in Denmark

PURPOSE

The aim was to investigate the characteristics of cancer survivors with high levels of fear of cancer recurrence, and how such fear is associated with their needs for care.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was based on survey data from Danish cancer survivors at 2.5 years after a cancer diagnosis. These data were linked to nationwide register data. We used the 7-item Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCR7) to measure fear of cancer recurrence, focussing on emotional, cognitive and behavioural reactions to such fear. The FCR7 score was dichotomised at the 75th percentile. A logistic regression model was used to analyse the associations between a high level of fear of cancer recurrence and (1) characteristics of patient and primary cancer and (2) cancer survivors' statements concerning follow-up for cancer.

RESULTS

We included 1538 cancer survivors in the study. The median FCR7 score was 18 (interquartile interval: 13-21), and 366 (23.8%) respondents had an FCR7 score of > 21, defined as a high level of fear. In the adjusted analyses, a high level of fear was associated with female sex, younger age, comorbidity, advanced tumour stage and negative statements concerning follow-up, including feeling less safe in the follow-up programme. Fear was not related to the professional background of care providers involved in cancer follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Fear of cancer recurrence was associated with female sex, younger age, comorbidity, advanced tumour stage and discontent with cancer follow-up.

Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs

Background

Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).

Aim

To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.

Design and setting

A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.

Method

Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.

Results

Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients’ homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.

Conclusion

Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.

Improved models of care for cancer survivors

The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.

Healthcare use, sickness absence, and disability pension among colorectal cancer survivors and population references in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has negative long-term impacts on survivors' health and work capacity. We aimed to investigate specialized healthcare use and sickness absence and disability pension among CRC survivors and matched references.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this longitudinal register-based cohort study, 6679 patients with a first primary CRC in 2008-2011 (when aged 18-62) and 26,716 CRC-free matched references were followed from 2 years before up to 5 years after diagnosis date. Mean numbers of hospital days and outpatient visits were illustrated for survivors and references for the 7-year period. Crude and adjusted mean numbers of sickness absence/disability pension net days were calculated for post-diagnosis Years 3 and 5.

RESULTS

Survivors' healthcare use was higher compared to their references throughout the 7 years around CRC diagnosis and was mostly due to CRC, secondary neoplasms, and digestive disorders. In Year 5, survivors had 1.94 mean outpatient visits and 2.13 mean inpatient days (compared to 1.00 and 0.82 for references, respectively). Survivors' adjusted mean sickness absence/disability pension days amounted to 85 d in Year 3 and 77 in Year 5 (compared to 57 and 54 d in the references). Higher mean number of future days was found among women, lower-educated, foreign-born, with previous comorbidities or previous mental disorders. Those with many sickness absence days in 2 years pre-diagnosis had the highest number of future sickness absence/disability pension days.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-diagnostic healthcare use remained high among CRC survivors, mostly due to cancer (CRC and other neoplasms) and digestive diagnoses. Their sickness absence and disability pension decreased gradually over the period but remained higher than among references. Pre-morbid characteristics may be used in early work-related clinical planning for the survivors.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SETTING

Patients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4860.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Traditionally, follow‐up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow‐up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS‐2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta‐analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.

Results

We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 μg/l) of 59% [47%–70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%–95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36–70% and 97–100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively).

Conclusion

In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA‐values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review

Background

Cancer survivorship care is traditionally performed in secondary care. Primary care is often involved in cancer management and could therefore play a more prominent role.

Purpose

To assess outcomes of cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies on cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care were included. A narrative synthesis was used for three distinctive outcomes: (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) costs.

Results

Sixteen studies were included: 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to heterogeneity. Most studies reported on solid tumors, like breast (N = 7) and colorectal cancers (N = 3). Clinical outcomes were reported by 10 studies, patient-reported by 11, and costs by 4. No important differences were found on clinical and patient-reported outcomes when comparing primary- with secondary-based care. Some differences were seen relating to the content and quality of survivorship care, such as guideline adherence and follow-up tests, but there was no favorite strategy. Survivorship care in primary care was associated with lower societal costs.

Conclusions

Overall, cancer survivorship care in primary care had similar effects on clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with secondary care, while resulting in lower costs.

Implications for cancer survivors

Survivorship care in primary care seems feasible. However, since the design and outcomes of studies differed, conclusive evidence for the equivalence of survivorship care in primary care is still lacking. Ongoing studies will help provide better insights.

General practitioners' involvement during survivorship care of colon cancer in the Netherlands: primary health care utilization during survivorship care of colon cancer, a prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Primary health care use increases when cancer is diagnosed. This increase continues after cancer treatment. More generalist care is suggested to improve survivorship care. It is unknown to what extent cancer-related symptoms are currently presented in primary care in this survivorship phase.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse primary health care utilization of colon cancer patients during and after treatment with curative intent.

METHODS

In a prospective multicentre cohort study among patients with curatively treated colon cancer, we describe the primary health care utilization during the first 5 years of follow-up. Data were collected at general practitioner (GP) practices during 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 183 included participants, 153 (84%) consulted their GP resulting in 606 contacts (mean 3.3, standard deviation 3.01) with on average 0.9 contact for colon-cancer-related (CCR) problems in the 6-month study period. Median time after surgery at inclusion was 7.6 months (range 0-58). Abdominal pain and chemotherapy-related problems were the most frequently reported CCR reasons. Of the CCR contacts, 83% was managed in primary care. As time after surgery passed, the number of CCR contacts declined in patients without chemotherapy and remained constant in patients who received chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Colon cancer survivors contact their GP frequently also for reasons related to cancer. Currently, a formal role for GPs in survivorship care is lacking, but nevertheless GPs provide a substantial amount of care. Working agreements between primary and secondary care are necessary to formalize the GP's role in order to improve the quality of survivorship care.

Exploring why patients with cancer consult GPs: a 1-year data extraction

BACKGROUND

Survival rates of patients with cancer are increasing owing to improvements in diagnostics and therapies. The traditional hospital-based follow-up model faces challenges because of the consequent increasing workload, and it has been suggested that selected patients with cancer could be followed up by GPs.The hypothesis of the study was that, regardless of the hospital-based follow-up care, GPs see their patients with cancer both for cancer-related problems as well as for other reasons. Thus, a formalised follow-up by GPs would not mean too large a change in GPs' workloads.

AIM

To explore to what extent patients with cancer consult their GPs, and for what reasons.

DESIGN & SETTING

A 1-year explorative study was undertaken, based on data from 91 Norwegian GPs from 2016-2017.

METHOD

The data were electronically extracted from GPs' electronic medical records (EMR).

RESULTS

Data were collected from 91 GPs. There were 11 074 consultations in total, generated by 1932 patients with cancer. The mean consultation rate was higher among the patients with cancer compared with Norwegian patients in general. In one-third of the consultations, cancer was the main diagnosis. Apart from cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diagnoses were common. Patients with cancer who had multiple diagnoses or psychological diagnoses did not consult their GP significantly more often than patients with cancer without such comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that patients with cancer consult their GP more often than other patients, both for cancer-related reasons and for various comorbidities. A formalised follow-up by GPs would probably be feasible, and GPs should prepare for this responsibility.

Time from incident primary cancer until recurrence or second primary cancer: Risk factors and impact in general practice

OBJECTIVE

Specialised follow-up care after cancer treatment is changing towards increased involvement of general practice. To ensure timely detection of new cancer events, knowledge is warranted on the timing of cancer recurrence (CR) and second primary cancer (SPC), including risk factors for CR.

METHODS

This population-based register study included 67,092 patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma, bladder, lung, ovarian, endometrial, colorectal and breast cancer in Denmark in 2008-2016. The time from primary cancer to CR or SPC and risk factors for prolonged time to CR were analysed and stratified on sex and primary cancer type.

RESULTS

Cancer recurrence proportions ranged from 6% to 35%. The risk of CR increased profoundly within the first 3 years and then levelled off, except for breast cancer. A total of 3%-6% of patients had SPC, with monotonously increasing cumulative incidence proportions. Besides primary tumour characteristics, lower educational level, living alone and comorbidity were associated with earlier CR. For example, in female malignant melanoma, HRs and 95% confidence intervals were 0.47 (0.37-0.61) for high educational level, 1.40 (1.16-1.68) for living alone and 2.38 (1.53-3.70) for high comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

The results may inform stratified risk assessment in decision of frequency, location and duration of post-cancer follow-up care.

The role of primary care in supporting patients living with and beyond cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The prevalence of cancer survivors is increasing. Those living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis have a range of physical, psychosocial and practical needs. This review aims to discuss the role of primary care in meeting these needs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients have increased contact with primary care after a cancer diagnosis but the role of the primary care team in the formal delivery of cancer aftercare is not clearly defined and varies depending on setting and context. Research suggests that both patients and health professionals are receptive to greater involvement of primary care, with informational and personal continuity of care, and good co-ordination of care being particularly valued by patients. Recent evidence indicates that shared care between oncologists and primary care physicians can be as effective as and more cost effective than secondary care-led follow-up, and that primary-care nurses could play a role in optimizing survivorship care.

SUMMARY

The four pillars of primary care - contact, comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination - are recurring themes in the cancer survivorship literature and emphasize that the traditional core values of general practice lend themselves to innovative interventions to improve the efficiency and efficacy of survivorship care.

A systematic review on the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress in long-term cancer survivors: Implications for primary care

Introduction

Symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress are common in the first years after a cancer diagnosis, but little is known about the prevalence of these symptoms at the long term. The aim of this review was to describe the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress in long‐term cancer survivors, five or more years after diagnosis, and to provide implications for primary care.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. Studies were eligible when reporting on the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety and/or distress in long‐term cancer survivors (≥5 years after diagnosis), treated with curative intent.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included. The reported prevalence of depressive symptoms (N = 18) varied from 5.4% to 49.0% (pooled prevalence: 21.0%). For anxiety (N = 7), the prevalence ranged from 3.4% to 43.0% (pooled prevalence: 21.0%). For distress (N = 4), the prevalence ranged from 4.3% to 11.6% (pooled prevalence: 7.0%).

Conclusion

Prevalences of symptoms of depression, anxiety and distress among long‐term survivors of cancer do not fundamentally differ from the general population. This is reassuring for primary care physicians, as they frequently act as the primary physician for long‐term survivors whose follow‐up schedules in the hospital have been completed.