Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer

Importance

Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability.

Objective

To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023.

Exposure

CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category.

Results

There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

A scoping review of the evidence on survivorship care plans among minority, rural, and low-income populations

PURPOSE

Despite recent advances in cancer control and the number of cancer survivors increasing substantially over the past years, some cancer survivors continue to experience disparities due to barriers to recommended survivorship care. The use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) may be a way to help care for these individuals and their respective issues after they complete their primary treatment. The purpose of this scoping review is to understand the evidence on SCPs among minority, rural, and low-income populations: groups that experience disproportionately poorer cancer health outcomes.

METHODS

Computer-based searches were conducted in four academic databases. We included peer-reviewed studies published in the English language and conducted in the USA. We systematically extracted information from each paper meeting our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our search identified 45 articles. The 4 major themes identified were (1) disparities in the receipt of SCPs where populations experience unmet needs; (2) benefits of SCPs, including improved care coordination and self-management of cancer; (3) needs and preferences for survivorship care; and (4) barriers and facilitators to using SCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential benefits, underserved cancer survivors experience disparities in the receipt of SCPs and continue to have unmet needs in their survivorship care. Survivorship care may benefit from a risk-stratified approach where SCPs are prioritized to survivors belonging to high-risk groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

SCPs are a tool to deliver quality care for cancer survivors. While evidence is mixed on SCPs' benefits among the general population, SCPs show promise for underserved populations when it comes to proximal outcomes that contribute to disparities.

Predictors and impact of survivorship care plans and survivorship care visits

PURPOSE

We performed this study to characterize the population at the Lifespan Cancer Institute (LCI) who received a survivorship care plan (SCP) with or without a survivorship care visit (SCV) to determine both the impact on specialty referrals and the demographic and clinical predictors of SCPs and SCVs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed EMR records on 1960 patients at LCI between 2014 and 2017 for SCPs and SCVs and extracted demographics, distress thermometer (DT) scores collected at the time of initial presentation, and subsequent referrals. We evaluated the bivariate associations of SCP and SCV with continuous and categorical factors and assessed the adjusted effect of these factors on receipt of SCP and SCV independently. All analyses were performed in R v4.0.2.

RESULTS

SCPs were completed in 740 (37.8%) patients, and of those, 65.9% had a SCV. The mean age was 63.9, 67% were female, and 51.2% were married or partnered. Patients treated for breast, lung, and prostate cancers most received an SCP. Compared to SCP alone, the SCV was associated with more specialty referrals. Those who were younger and had breast cancer were more likely to receive a SCP, and those who were younger and female and had breast cancer were more likely to receive a SCV.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender, age, and type of cancer are significant predictors of receipt of SCP and SCV. Patients who received either SCP, SCV, or both were more likely to receive specialty referrals than those who received neither.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Identifying predictive factors of SCP and SCV can help facilitate earlier receipt of specialty services and specialty referrals as needed.

Developing national cancer survivorship standards to inform quality of care in the United States using a consensus approach

PURPOSE

To develop United States (US) standards for survivorship care that informs (1) essential health system policy and process components and (2) evaluation of the quality of survivorship care.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs led a review to identify indicators of quality cancer survivorship care in the domains of health system policy, process, and evaluation/assessment. A series of three virtual consensus meetings with survivorship care and research experts and advocates was conducted to rate the importance of the indicators and refine the top indicators. The final set of standards was developed, including ten indicators in each domain.

RESULTS

Prioritized items were survivor-focused, including processes to both assess and manage physical, psychological, and social issues, and evaluation of patient outcomes and experiences. Specific indicators focused on developing a business model for sustaining survivorship care and collecting relevant business metrics (e.g., healthcare utilization, downstream revenue) to show value of survivorship care to health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The National Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care can be used by health systems to guide development of new survivorship care programs or services or to assess alignment and enhance services in existing survivorship programs. Given the variety of settings providing care to survivors, it is necessary for health systems to adapt these standards based on factors including age-specific needs, cancer types, treatments received, and health system resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

With over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States, many of whom experience varied symptoms and unmet needs, it is essential for health systems to have a comprehensive strategy to provide ongoing care. The US National Standards for Survivorship Care should serve as a blueprint for what survivors and their families can anticipate after a cancer diagnosis to address their needs.

Cancer survivor late-effects, chronic health problems after cancer treatment: what's the evidence from population and registry data and where are the gaps?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Improvements in cancer treatment have led to more people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis but survivors may have increased health problems as they age. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate population data exploring incidence of late effects for cancer survivors.

RECENT FINDINGS

18 studies were identified between 2013 and 2023 that explored the impact on survivors' physical and emotional health. Patients who had been treated at least 2 years previously for cancer had significant cardiovascular risk factors compared with age-matched controls. Women with breast cancer were more likely to have cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, arrythmias and congestive heart failure. This was associated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab as part of systemic anti-cancer therapy. Survivors of colorectal cancer were three times more likely to have acute kidney injury than age-matched controls. Stress and mood disorders were higher in survivors of testicular cancer and prostate cancer.

SUMMARY

Population studies are important to identify the 'real world' consequences of cancer and its treatment beyond clinical trials. Knowledge is critical for managing an ageing cancer population. Data to personalise cancer survivorship care, not only helps determine potential health risks, but can improve secondary prevention, emotional health, recovery, and long-term outcomes.

Online description of services provided in adult survivorship programs across U.S. accredited cancer centers

PURPOSE

The American College of Surgeons Standard 4.8 requires an institution to implement a survivorship program to become a Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited cancer center. The online information offered by these cancer centers can help educate patients and their caregivers about available services. We assessed the content of survivorship program websites of CoC-accredited cancer centers in the United States.

METHODS

Of the 1245 CoC-accredited centers for adults, we sampled 325 institutions (26%) based proportionately on the 2019 new cancer cases by state. Website pages of the institutions' survivorship programs were assessed for information and services offered using the COC Standard 4.8. We included programs for adult survivors of adult- and childhood-onset cancers.

RESULTS

54.5% of the cancer centers did not have a survivorship program website. Of the 189 included programs, most were aimed at adult survivors in general, rather than those with specific cancer types. On average, five essential CoC-recommended services were described, most commonly nutrition, care plans, and psychology services. The least mentioned services were genetic counseling, fertility, and smoking cessation. Most programs described services offered to patients who had completed treatment, while 7.4% of described services for those with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

More than half of CoC-accredited programs did have information about cancer survivorship programs on their websites and when included, had variable and limited description of services.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our study provides an overview of online cancer survivorship services and offers a methodology that may be used by cancer centers to review, expand, and improve the information described on their websites.

Availability of cancer survivorship support services across the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network

BACKGROUND

National cancer organizations recommend provision of nutrition, physical activity, and mental health supportive services to cancer survivors. However, the availability of these services across diverse community oncology settings remains unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) is a national network of community oncology practices engaged in cancer research. The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment (5UG1CA189824) assessed individual practices' establishment of survivorship clinics and nutrition, physical activity, and mental health services, resources, and/or referrals. Descriptive statistics summarized and logistic regression quantified the association between services, practice, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 46 NCORP community sites, 45 (98%) responded to the survey, representing 259 adult practice groups. A total of 41% had a survivorship clinic; 96% offered mental health, 94% nutrition, and 53% physical activity services, resources, and/or referrals. All 3 services were offered in various formats (eg, in-house, referrals, education) by 51% and in-house only by 25% of practices. Practices with advanced practice providers were more likely to have a survivorship clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 9.76). Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.66) and more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.04) were more likely to have all 3 services in any format. Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.50 to 7.77) and a survivorship clinic (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.57 to 5.14) were more likely to have all 3 services in-house.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger oncology practices and those caring for more survivors on Medicare provided more supportive services, resources, and/or referrals. Smaller practices and those without survivorship clinics may need strategies to address potential gaps in supportive services.

Barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyle and perspectives towards the development of weight loss programmes. Focus groups with post-treatment breast cancer survivors in Greece

The present study aimed to identify the factors that prohibit or enable breast cancer survivors from adopting a healthy lifestyle, as well as to record patients' suggestions towards developing a weight-loss lifestyle intervention. Twenty-three breast cancer survivors participated in four online, semi-structured focus groups in Greece. All discussions were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were 50⋅5 ± 7⋅4 years old with a current mean BMI of 29⋅1 ± 3⋅4 kg/m2. Four main themes emerged from thematic analysis: (1) dietary and lifestyle practices, (2) the effects of cancer on body weight, (3) the impact of cancer on psychology, and (4) the effect of the environment on body weight. Lack of information from healthcare professionals and lack of time were the main barriers to body weight management, whereas the main facilitators were support from their social environment, along with a comfortable physical environment, and the facility of technology. Participants suggested that an effective weight-loss lifestyle intervention should include psychological and social support, guidance and education, collaboration, flexible recommendations, personalised goals, and a follow-up plan. The needs of breast cancer survivors need to be considered when designing weight-loss lifestyle interventions. A personalised approach may prove more effective in promoting a healthy lifestyle and improving patients' care.

Survivorship Navigation for Young Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Young women treated for breast cancer experience unique concerns in follow-up. We developed a program to direct young breast cancer survivors to a dedicated survivorship visit and evaluated their experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Early-stage breast cancer patients diagnosed under age 45 within 1 year of completing breast surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy were systematically referred for a survivorship visit. Patients completed a one-time, post-visit survey about their experience.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine out of 89 (78%) eligible patients attended a survivorship visit, and 40 of those 69 (58%) completed the post-visit survey. Most respondents learned about the survivorship clinic after completing treatment (30/40; 75%) and reported the survivorship visit occurred at an appropriate time in their follow-up care (26/40; 65%). Of the 34 respondents who reported receiving a treatment summary and survivorship care plan, 30 indicated it would be helpful when visiting their primary care provider (88.2%). Participants reported gaining valuable knowledge about cancer treatment (28/38; 73.7%), side effects (32/39; 82.1%), and cancer surveillance (30/40; 75%), and discussed emotional health (32/40; 80%), exercise (38/40; 95%), and ongoing cancer surveillance (32/37; 86.5%). Several reported intentions to make changes to their follow-up oncology care (8/20; 40%), exercise routines (16/30; 53.3%), and emotional health care (15/22; 68.2%).

DISCUSSION

Survivorship visit navigation is feasible for young breast cancer patients. These visits can influence knowledge gained and intended future health plans and behaviors. Systematic approaches to survivorship care may improve the physical and mental health of cancer survivors. Future health care delivery research focused on survivorship is warranted.

Bridging the gap: Palliative care integration into survivorship care

As the number of cancer survivors grows, there is an increasing need for comprehensive care to address the unique physical, psychological, and social needs of this population. Palliative care (PC) integration within survivorship care offers a promising model of care, however, there is no comprehensive review of literature to guide clinical practice. This manuscript presents a scoping review of the research literature on models of care that integrate PC with survivorship care, as well as a detailed description of an exemplar clinical model. We identified 20 articles that described various models of survivorship care with integrated PC, highlighting the diversity of approaches and the multidisciplinary nature of interventions. Few studies reported outcomes but those that did demonstrated improvements in pain, self-efficacy, depression, function, and documentation of advance care planning. The evidence base remains limited, indicating the need for further research in this area with a focus on exploring outcomes using prospective experimental designs. Future clinical practice and research should explore sustainable payment models and the implementation of integrated survivorship care in value-based payment systems.

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.

Cancer survivorship experiences in Utah: an evaluation assessing indicators of survivors' quality of life, health behaviors, and access to health services

PURPOSE

The 2016-2020 Utah Comprehensive Cancer Prevention and Control Plan prioritized strategies to address cancer survivorship experiences. In this paper we present estimates for nine indicators evaluating these priorities, trends over time, and assess disparities in survivorship experiences across demographic subgroups.

METHODS

We surveyed a representative sample of Utah cancer survivors diagnosed between 2012 and 2019 with any reportable cancer diagnosis. We calculated weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each indicator. We assessed change over time using a test for trend across survey years in a logistic regression model and used Rao-Scott F-adjusted chi-square tests to test the association between demographic characteristics and each survivorship indicator.

RESULTS

Most of the 1,793 respondents (93.5%) reported their pain was under control, 85.7% rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent, but 46.5% experienced physical, mental, or emotional limitations. Only 1.7% of survivors aged 75 or older were current smokers, compared to 5.8% of 65-74-year-olds and 7.9% of survivors aged 55-74 (p < 0.006). No regular physical activity was reported by 20.6% and varied by survivor age and education level. The proportion who received a survivorship care plan increased from 34.6% in 2018 to 43.0% in 2021 (p = 0.025). However, survivors under age 55 were significantly less likely to receive a care plan than older survivors.

CONCLUSION

This representative survey of cancer survivors fills a gap in understanding of the cancer survivorship experience in Utah. Results can be used to evaluate and plan additional interventions to improve survivorship quality of life.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

The current status of survivorship care provision at the state level: a Wisconsin-based assessment

PURPOSE

As the number of cancer survivors grows, the responsibility for addressing their unique physical and emotional needs also increases. Survivorship care services vary by geography, health system, and insurance coverage. We aimed to understand the state of survivorship care services in Wisconsin's cancer facilities.

METHODS

The selection of cancer treatment facilities sought to provide a geographically representative sample. An adapted Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index was comprised of questions regarding different aspects of survivorship practices. Areas of interest included disciplines incorporated, services provided, standards of care, and discussion of late-term effects, among others.

RESULTS

Out of 90 sites invited, 40 responded (44.4%). Oncologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners were the most common follow-up care disciplines. Risk reduction services, dietary services, access to physical activity, and behavioral health specialist referral were described as standards of care in less than half of sites. All sites reported working with community partners, 92.5% of which worked with YMCA-related programs. Discussion of long-term effects was a standard of care for all sites. Effects such as emotional distress and health practice changes were frequently discussed with almost all patients, while sexual functioning and fertility were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Services and specialties related to behavioral health, fertility/sexual health, and rehabilitation and physical activity varied between sites. Such services may be offered less often due to variable insurance coverage.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Policy solutions should be explored to increase insurance coverage and provision rates of necessary survivorship services to keep up with the projected increase in demand. Given imperfect and evolving measurement tools to assess needs for cancer survivorship care services, cancer survivors should feel empowered to voice when they have unmet needs and request referrals.

Social networks of oncology clinicians as a means for increasing survivorship clinic referral

Background

Specialized cancer survivorship clinics are recommended for addressing treatment-related health concerns of long-term survivors, but their relative newness in medical oncology necessitates strategies to expand services and clinic referrals. This study used social network analysis to identify personal and/or network factors associated with referral of patients to a survivorship clinic.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional social network survey of clinical personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Participants identified colleagues with whom they consult for advice (advice network) and/or discuss patient care (discussion network). Exponential random graph models and logistic regression were used to identify key opinion leaders in the network and factors associated with referral of patients to the center’s survivorship clinic.

Results

Here we show that of the respondents (n = 69), 78.0% report being aware of the survivorship clinic, yet only 30.4% had ever referred patients to it. Individuals tend to associate with others in the same occupational role (homophily). In the discussion network, holding an influential network position (betweenness centrality) is associated with patient referral to the survivorship clinic. In the advice network, several social workers are identified as opinion leaders.

Conclusions

This study shows that there is strong homophily in both networks, potentially inhibiting information sharing between groups. In designing an inclusive network intervention, persons occupying influential network positions and opinion leaders (e.g., social workers in this case) are well-positioned to promote survivorship clinic referrals.

Specialized cancer survivorship clinics are an attractive but under-utilized option for monitoring long-term survivors at risk for developing serious health problems after treatment. The purpose of this survey-based social network analysis was to describe clinician interactions within a cancer center and explore opportunities for developing interventions to increase survivorship clinic referrals. We asked cancer clinicians to identify which colleagues they consult for advice about patient care and whether they were already referring survivors to the clinic. We found that clinicians in central ‘gatekeeper’ positions were more likely to refer survivors and facilitate information sharing among clinician groups. Social workers were sought most often for advice about patient care, suggesting an intervention utilizing these professionals could potentially raise awareness about survivorship clinic among colleagues and result in increased referrals.

Piombo et al. analyse social networks of cancer clinicians to study referral practices to a cancer survivorship clinic at a comprehensive cancer centre. The authors identify key opinion leaders within the networks and suggest interventions to improve referrals to survivorship services.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe

BACKGROUND

The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research.

RESULTS

We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Black boxes and information pathways: An actor-network theory approach to breast cancer survivorship care

Many women diagnosed with breast cancer today can expect to live long after completing their treatment. This growing population of survivors encounters distinct post-treatment health and information needs. Existing survivorship care models take information as a given, black boxing it. I use Actor-Network Theory to examine how information actually works for women after they complete breast cancer treatment, and how it shapes their understanding of survivorship. I draw on in-depth interviews with breast cancer survivors (n = 82) and a wide range of providers (n = 84) in a medically underserved region of Southern California. Black boxes and information pathways convey experiential dimensions of cancer care; they are also metaphoric constructs. The black box metaphor refers to the cancer experience as a container; the pathways metaphor refers to a journey. Each of these metaphors expresses salient dimensions of the cancer experience and has implications for post-treatment survivorship. When healthcare information flows smoothly and invisibly, its pathways become black boxed. Black boxes can be helpful when they function effectively. But since black boxes conceal their inner workings, it is challenging to intervene when difficulties arise. I provide three examples of difficulties that complicate women's transition to post-treatment survivorship: (1) when survivors fail to recognize treatment-related late effects, (2) do not understand they have a terminal diagnosis, or (3) worry that their treatment accomplished nothing. Contextualized within survivorship scholarship, this study recommends opening black boxes to examine how information pathways could connect women differently to improve survivorship 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.

Identifying Strategies for Robust Survivorship Program Implementation: A Qualitative Analysis of Cancer Programs

PURPOSE

The Commission on Cancer seeks to promote robust survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs' survivorship programs range from cursory (eg, developing care plans without robust services) to robust (eg, facilitating follow-up care). To inform cancer programs' future efforts, in this study, we identified the implementation strategies that cancer programs used to achieve robust survivorship programs, distinguishing them from cursory programs.

METHODS

We sampled 39 cancer programs across the United States with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to robust on the basis of LIVESTRONG survivorship care consensus elements. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with a total of 42 health care professionals. We used template analysis to distinguish implementation strategies used in cancer programs with robust survivorship programs from strategies that yielded cursory survivorship programs.

RESULTS

Cancer programs with robust survivorship programs established clear systems survivorship care and formal committees to improve the survivorship care processes. They sought buy-in from multiple stakeholders to leverage cancer program resources and defined clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. By contrast, cancer programs with cursory survivorship programs reported less consistency in survivorship care processes and lacked buy-in from key stakeholders. They had limited resources, faced persistent structural concerns, and had insufficient clarity in roles among team members.

CONCLUSION

Accrediting bodies may consider incorporating the implementation strategies that robust survivorship programs have used as guidance for supporting cancer programs in operationalizing survivorship care and evaluating the use of these strategies during the accreditation and review process.

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines in patients following curative-intent colorectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that patients who have undergone curative-intent resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo colonoscopy one year following their surgery or at six months post-operatively if a pre-operative colonoscopy was not performed due to an obstructing lesion. We sought to determine adherence to postoperative surveillance colonoscopy guidelines in our National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center and potentially identify factors associated with non-adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent curative-intent CRC resection was performed between 2013 and 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based upon adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines. Demographic, tumor, and postoperative variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of all patients was 62. Fifty-seven percent of patients were male. Thirty-eight patients underwent surveillance colonoscopy in accordance with current guidelines. Sixty-two patients did not undergo surveillance colonoscopy postoperatively or did so outside of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Factors associated with non-adherence to surveillance colonoscopy included presence of comorbidities, albumin less than 3.5, and performance of a pre-operative colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines was low among our patients. Efforts should be directed toward patients at increased risk for non-adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines.

Project Forward: A Population-Based Cohort Among Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancers

Background

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) face increased risk of morbidity and are recommended to receive lifelong cancer-related follow-up care. Identifying factors associated with follow-up care can inform efforts to support the long-term health of CCS.

Methods

Eligible CCS (diagnosed between 1996 and 2010) identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program responded to a self-report survey that assessed demographic, clinical, health-care engagement, and psychosocial risk and protective factors of recent (prior 2 years) cancer-related follow-up care. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify correlates of care. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

The overall response rate was 44.9%, with an analytical sample of n = 1106 (54.2% Hispanic; mean [SD] ages at survey, diagnosis, and years since diagnosis were 26.2 [4.9], 11.6 [5.4], and 14.5 [4.4] years, respectively). Fifty-seven percent reported a recent cancer-related visit, with lower rates reported among older survivors. Having insurance, more late effects, receipt of a written treatment summary, discussing long-term care needs with treating physician, knowledge of the need for long-term care, having a regular source of care, and higher health-care self-efficacy were statistically significantly associated with greater odds of recent follow-up care, whereas older age, Hispanic or Other ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic White), and years since diagnosis were associated with lower odds of recent care (all Ps < .05).

Conclusions

Age and ethnic disparities are observed in receipt of follow-up care among young adult CCS. Potential intervention targets include comprehensive, ongoing patient education; provision of written treatment summaries; and culturally tailored support to ensure equitable access to and the utilization of care.

Implementing survivorship care planning in two contrasting health systems: lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to promote appropriate follow-up care, but implementation has been limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing three SCP delivery models in two health systems. We utilize mixed methods to compare the feasibility and participants' perceived value of the three models.

METHODS

Patients completing treatment for stage I-III breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer from one urban-academic and one rural community cancer center were randomized to (1) mailed SCP, (2) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit, or (3) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit plus 6-month follow-up. Clinics had flexibility in intervention implementation. Quantitative data summarize intervention fidelity and protocol deviations. Qualitative interview data provide patients' perspectives on feasibility and intervention value.

RESULTS

Of 475 eligible participants approached, 378 (79%) were randomized. Of 345 SCPs delivered, 265 (76.8%) were by protocol. Protocol deviations were more common at the urban-academic center. In post-study qualitative interviews, participants recalled little about the SCP document or visit(s). SCPs were valued for information and care coordination, although their static nature was limiting, and sometimes SCP information differed from that provided elsewhere. Visits were opportunities for care and reassurance, but time and distance to the clinic were barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

SCP provision was challenging. Patients were interested in SCP, but not necessarily additional survivorship visits, particularly at the urban-academic hospital.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings suggest that patients value careful consideration of health care needs during the transition out of treatment; SCP documents are one element of this. For many patients, models without additional visits and dynamic SCPs may be preferred.

How Do We Define and Measure Optimal Care for Cancer Survivors? An Online Modified Reactive Delphi Study

This research sought to answer the question 'what quality criteria do survivorship experts consider to be important in achieving optimal cancer survivorship care?'. An online modified reactive Delphi survey consisting of two rounds was completed with experts including consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and quality and accreditation professionals. Survey items were based on international literature and considered three domains: Policy, process and outcome. In round 1 (R1), experts ranked the importance of 68 criteria on a five-point Likert scale. Criteria were retained if scored 4 (important) or 5 (very important) by >75% participants. In round 2 (R2), experts ranked top 10 criteria per domain. Response rates were 79% (70/89) and 84% (76/91), respectively. After R1, six criteria were removed and six were added. From R2, ten items for each domain were retained. These 30 items formed the Quality Framework. A consensus meeting considered priority items from the Quality Framework and feasibility of data collection. Prioritized items included having a policy on survivorship care; the existence of a multidisciplinary survivorship program (policy); appropriate processes to assess survivors' emotional, psychological and physical needs following treatment and stratification to appropriate models of care (process); and collecting patient-reported outcomes, quality of life and survival rates (outcome).

Dissemination of cancer survivorship care plans: who is being left out?

OBJECTIVES

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend a clear and effectively explained comprehensive survivorship care plan (SCP) be given to all cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to understand the relationship between social determinants of health (SDOH) and self-reported receipt of SCP by cancer survivors in the USA.

METHODS

We analyzed an adult population of cancer survivors in the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System's (BRFSS) Survivorship modules. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association of SDOH and reported receipt of SCP.

RESULTS

There were 7061 cancer patients eligible for an SCP. The probability of reporting receipt of SCP decreased with lower educational achievement (high school/some college: AOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, p = 0.02; < high school: AOR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.97, p = 0.03) compared to those with at least one college degree. Additionally, being widowed/divorced/separated (widowed/divorced/separated: AOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61-0.86, p < 0.01 vs. married/cohabiting) and uninsured (uninsured: AOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.0.34-0.80, p < 0.01 vs. insured) increased the odds of not receiving an SCP. Younger patients were more likely to receive an SCP than those over 65 (18-24 years: AOR = 6.62, 95% CI: 1.87-24.49, p < 0.01 vs. 65+ years).

CONCLUSION

Among cancer survivors, SDOH such as low educational achievement, widowed/divorced/separated marital status, and being uninsured were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an SCP. Future studies should evaluate how omission of SCP in these patients influences the quality of care during the transition from oncologists to primary care.