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

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.

Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life cancer survivorship core questionnaire

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental, and social health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. In this phase III study, we pretested the provisional core questionnaire (QLQ-SURV111) and aimed to identify essential and optional scales.

METHODS

We pretested the QLQ-SURV111 in 492 cancer survivors from 17 countries with one of 11 cancer diagnoses. We applied the EORTC QLG decision rules and employed factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to assess and, where necessary, modify the hypothesized questionnaire scales. We calculated correlations between the survivorship scales and the QLQ-C30 summary score and carried out a Delphi survey among healthcare professionals, patient representatives, and cancer researchers to distinguish between essential and optional scales.

RESULTS

Fifty-four percent of the sample was male, mean age was 60 years, and, on average, time since completion of treatment was 3.8 years. Eleven items were excluded, resulting in the QLQ-SURV100, with 12 functional and 9 symptom scales, a symptom checklist, 4 single items, and 10 conditional items. The essential survivorship scales consist of 73 items.

CONCLUSIONS

The QLQ-SURV100 has been developed to assess comprehensively the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors. It includes essential and optional scales and will be validated further in an international phase IV study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The availability of this questionnaire will facilitate a standardized and robust assessment of the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

A systematic review of multimodal prehabilitation in breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in women. Prehabilitation may offer improvements in physical and psychological wellbeing among participants prior to treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy of prehabilitation in participants diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Studies exploring the impact of prehabilitation in participants with breast cancer were included. Studies were assessed independently according to pre-eligibility criteria, with data extraction and methodological quality assessed in parallel.

RESULTS

3184 records were identified according to our search criteria, and 14 articles were included. Articles comprised of quantitative randomised controlled trials (n = 7), quantitative non-randomised studies (n = 5), a qualitative study (n = 1), and a mixed-method study (n = 1). The majority of selected studies completed exercise programs (n = 4) or had exercise components (n = 2), with two focusing on upper-limb exercise. Five articles reported complementary and alternative therapies (n = 5). Two articles reported smoking cessation (n = 2), with a single study reporting multi-modal prehabilitation (n = 1). Mostly, prehabilitation improved outcomes including physical function, quality of life, and psychosocial variables (P < 0.05). The qualitative data identified preferences for multimodal prehabilitation, compared to unimodal with  an interest in receiving support for longer.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation for patients with breast cancer is an emerging research area that appears to improve outcomes, however, ensuring that adequate intervention timeframes, follow-up, and population groups should be considered for future investigations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The implementation of prehabilitation interventions for individuals diagnosed with breast cancer should be utilised by multidisciplinary teams to provide holistic care to patients as it has the potential to improve outcomes across the cancer care trajectory.

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.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.

Defining a patient-centered approach to cancer survivorship care: development of the patient centered survivorship care index (PC-SCI)

Purpose

This study presents the validation of an index that defines and measures a patient-centered approach to quality survivorship care.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of 1,278 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers to identify their priorities for cancer survivorship care. We identified 42 items that were “very important or absolutely essential” to study participants. We then conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) to develop and validate the Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index (PC-SCI).

Results

A seven-factor structure was identified based on EFA on a randomly split half sample and then validated by CFA based on the other half sample. The seven factors include: (1) information and support in survivorship (7 items), (2) having a medical home (10 items) (3) patient engagement in care (3 items), (4) care coordination (5 items), (5) insurance navigation (3 items), (6) care transitions from oncologist to primary care (3 items), and (7) prevention and wellness services (5 items). All factors have excellent composite reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84-0.94, Coefficient of Omega: 0.81-0.94).

Conclusions

Providing quality post-treatment care is critical for the long-term health and well-being of survivors. The PC-SCI defines a patient-centered approach to survivorship care to complement clinical practice guidelines. The PC-SCI has acceptable composite reliability, providing the field with a valid instrument of patient-centered survivorship care. The PC-SCI provides cancer centers with a means to guide, measure and monitor the development of their survivorship care to align with patient priorities of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02362750, 13 February 2015

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07356-6.