SCORE: Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.

METHODS

The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.

FINDINGS

150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.

INTERPRETATION

SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort.

METHODS

We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

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.

Patient-led follow-up reduces outpatient doctor visits and improves patient satisfaction. One-year analysis of secondary outcomes in the randomised trial Follow-Up after Rectal CAncer (FURCA)

BACKGROUND

FURCA (Follow-Up after Rectal Cancer) is a multi-centre randomised trial comparing patient-led follow-up with standard outpatient follow-up. This paper reports one-year follow-up data from the FURCA trial on selected secondary outcomes including type and number of contacts, patient-reported involvement and satisfaction with health care services during follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer (stage < IV) from four Danish surgical centres were randomised (1:1) into intervention (education and self-referral to project nurse) or standard follow-up (routine clinical doctor visits). The present analysis involved data on hospital contacts during the first year after surgery, patient involvement and satisfaction measured at one year, and baseline patient-reported and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Of 512 eligible patients, 168 were allocated to patient-led follow-up (intervention) and 168 to standard follow-up (control). The total number of hospital contacts in the intervention arm did not differ significantly from the number of contacts in the control arm (p = 0.44). More patients had ≥15 contacts in the intervention arm than in the control arm (p = 0.004). The total number of outpatient doctor visits was significantly lower in the intervention arm (p < 0.001). Patients in both arms rated involvement and satisfaction high; yet patients in the intervention arm scored significantly higher on two of six items regarding involvement and all five items regarding satisfaction. Of the 168 patients in the intervention arm, 43% made direct contact (self-referral) to the project nurse, and 14 of these patients (8%) had ≥4 contacts. The primary reason for self-referral was bowel dysfunction.

DISCUSSION

The findings indicate the value of a patient-led follow-up program in terms of direct access and more individually tailored intervention based on patients' needs, with most tasks being managed by nurses. Patient-led follow-up came with improved patient-perceived involvement and satisfaction; thus, it was both acceptable and favourable for the patients.

A literature review of post-treatment survivorship interventions for colorectal cancer survivors and/or their caregivers

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors have reported a number of concerns and unmet needs after treatment completion. This paper aims to explore existing survivorship interventions after CRC treatment according to the American Cancer Society CRC Survivorship Care Guidelines, to identify study gaps, and provide valuable evidence directing future research.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, including CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from 2005 to October 2020, were systematically searched to identify English or Chinese literature on CRC post-treatment survivorship interventions. Manual searching through the articles' references lists was also conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty studies met the criteria, and focused on addressing issues in four CRC Survivorship Care Guidelines domains. Several issues for CRC surveillance programmes remain to be explored. Regarding the long-term physical and psychosocial effects of CRC treatment, we found mounting evidence for various interventions to solve ostomy issues and improve distress/depression/anxiety, strong evidence for exercise to improve fatigue, and limited evidence in addressing CRC patient sexual concerns. For health promotion, high-quality evidence was found for exercises to improve cardiopulmonary fitness, metabolism, tumour-related biomarkers, and short-term improvement in physical fitness and QOL. Emerging evidence was found for a survivorship care plan to improve patient perceptions of care coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Further refinements based on the existing evidence, and the development of comprehensive CRC survivorship care comprising multiple essential survivorship components, are required. Furthermore, considering both survivor and caregiver cancer survivorship needs, future research may optimise the care delivered, and help survivors and their families live better with cancer.

Sharing Cancer Survivorship Care between Oncology and Primary Care Providers: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences

Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients’ relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.

Survivorship in Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study of the Patterns and Documented Content of Follow-Up Visits

Survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) may experience a range of physical, psychosocial, and practical challenges as a consequence of their diagnosis. We assessed the patterns and documented content of follow-up visits within the first three years following treatment, in comparison to survivorship care guidelines. Survivors with stage I-III CRC who underwent curative resection at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre from July 2015 to January 2018 were followed for up to 1080 days. Patterns of follow-up were calculated by recording the date and specialty of each visit; documented content was assessed using a study-specific audit tool for the first year (360 days) of follow-up. Forty-eight survivors comprised the study population, 34 of whom (71%) attended the recommended two to four follow-up visits in their first year. Visit notes documented new symptoms (96%), physical changes (85%), physical examination (63%), and investigations (56%–90%); none had documented discussions of screening for other primary cancers, or regular health checks and/or screening. Each survivor had at least one outpatient letter that was sent to their primary care physician, but responsibilities were not adequately defined (31%). Although survivors had regular follow-up in their first year, documentation did not consistently address aspects of wider survivorship care.

Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

Shared Care During Breast and Colorectal Cancer Treatment: Is It Associated With Patient-Reported Care Quality?

There is growing evidence that shared care, where the oncologist, primary care physician, and/or other specialty physicians jointly participate in care, can improve the quality of patients' cancer care. This cross-sectional study of breast and colorectal cancer patients (N = 534) recruited from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry examined patient and health system factors associated with receipt of shared care during cancer treatment into the early survivorship phase. We also assessed whether shared care was associated with quality indicators of cancer care: receipt of comprehensive care, follow-up care instructions, and written treatment summaries. Less than two-thirds of participants reported shared care during their cancer treatment. The odds of reporting shared care were 2.5 (95% CI: 1.46-4.17) times higher for colorectal than breast cancer patients and 52% (95% CI: 0.24-0.95) lower for uninsured compared with privately insured, after adjusting for other sociodemographic, clinical/tumor, and health system factors. No significant relationships were observed between shared care and quality indicators of cancer care. Given a substantial proportion of patients did not receive shared care, there may be missed opportunities for integrating primary care and nononcology specialists in cancer care, who can play critical roles in care coordination and managing comorbidities during cancer treatment.

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.

Understanding Aboriginal Peoples' Cultural and Family Connections Can Help Inform the Development of Culturally Appropriate Cancer Survivorship Models of Care

PURPOSE

To explore the cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship experiences of Aboriginal people in the Gippsland region, Victoria, Australia, and identify factors critical to the development of a culturally appropriate cancer survivorship model of care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Yarning circles were used to capture the stories of 15 people diagnosed with cancer and/or those of family members. Yarning circles were conducted in two locations in the Gippsland region. Sessions were facilitated by an Aboriginal Elder, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of the data were triangulated among three researchers and incorporated researcher reflexivity.

RESULTS

Cultural connections and family were critical supports on the cancer journey. Putting the needs of the family first and caring for sick family members were more important than an individual's own health. There was "no time to grieve" for one's own cancer diagnosis and look after oneself. Cancer was a private experience; however, the constancy of deaths highlighted the importance of raising family awareness. Health professionals did not always understand the importance of people's cultural and family supports in their treatment and recovery. There were negatives attitudes in hospitals when family come to visit, seeing family as too large and overstaying visiting times. Health professionals did not seek family assistance with communication of information to family members whose literacy level was low, nor did they include family in treatment decision-making. Access to services depended on family support with transport, finances, and family responsibilities, often resulting in lapses in treatment and follow-up services.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the importance of Aboriginal peoples' cultural and family connections can help to inform the development of culturally safe cancer survivorship models of care.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

Differences in baseline characteristics and 1-year psychological factors between participants and non-participants in the randomized, controlled trial regarding patient-led follow-up after rectal cancer (FURCA)

Background: The ongoing multi-center randomized FURCA-trial investigates the effect of patient-led follow-up after rectal cancer, aiming at improving management of late effects and survivorship care. The purpose of this present sub-study was to identify potential systematic differences between participants and non-participants in the FURCA-trial, in regard to demographic and clinical factors at baseline, and in quality of life (QoL) and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) after one year. Material and methods: The population comprised patients invited to the FURCA-trial during the first 13 months' recruitment. Clinical and demographic data was obtained at baseline and differences were significance tested. Non-participants were requested to fill in a short survey one year after primary surgery, while participants received the questionnaires as part of more comprehensive one-year follow-up. Results: In the first 13 months of the trial, 113 out of the 262 patients invited, declined to participate. The main reason reported for this was lack of energy surplus. Participants were younger than non-participants (p < .01), and nonparticipation was particularly evident among patients ≥ 80 years. More than half of the invited females declined to participate. Good WHO Performance status was associated with participation (p = .01), yet there were no statistically significant differences in Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of surgery, oncological treatment or UICC stages between participants and non-participants. By one year after surgery, there was no difference in FCR-level (p = .92) and QoL (p = .25) between the non-participants and control group participants. Conclusion: The sub-study found that participants and non-participants differed at baseline in regard to age, gender and performance status, which is supported by results from other studies. No between-group differences were found in psychological factors after one year. These findings are important for the generalisability of the upcoming results from the trial.

Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment - Summary of a 2017 National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.