Patterns of cancer centre follow-up care for survivors of breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer

Exploring Men's Experiences with Follow-Up Care following Primary Treatment for Prostate Cancer in Atlantic Canada: A Qualitative Study

Prostate cancer is a common and life-altering condition among Canadian men, yet little is known about how follow-up care is provided to those who have completed treatment. Despite improving survival rates, survivors experience ongoing needs and are often not provided with support to manage them. This study sought to investigate the post-treatment experiences and needs of prostate cancer survivors and to determine if and how these needs are being met. Using a qualitative description design, prostate cancer survivors who had completed treatment took part in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded and analyzed thematically. The participants experienced varying levels of satisfaction with their follow-up care. While primary care providers played significant roles, continuity of care and specialist involvement varied. Most participants felt unprepared to manage the long-term effects of their cancer due to a lack of information and resources from their healthcare providers. Instead, participants turned to their peers for support. Ongoing physical and psychosocial needs went unmet and had significant impacts on their daily lives. Participants felt that support for these issues should be automatically integrated into their follow-up care. In summary, this study revealed the importance of integrated, patient-centered follow-up care for prostate cancer in Atlantic Canada.

Predicting Survivorship Appointment Nonattendance in a Community Cancer Center: A Machine-Learning Approach

Understanding and predicting cancer survivors' health care utilization is critical to promote quality care. The consultative system of survivorship care uses a onetime consultative appointment to transition patients from active treatment into survivorship follow-up care. Knowledge of attributes associated with nonattendance at this essential appointment is needed. An ability to predict patients with a likelihood of nonattendance would be of value to practitioners. Unfortunately, traditional data modeling techniques may not be useful in working with large numbers of variables from electronic medical record platforms. A variety of machine-learning algorithms were used to develop a model for predicting 843 survivors' nonattendance at a comprehensive community cancer center in the southeastern United States. A parsimonious model resulted in a k-fold classification accuracy of 67.3% and included three variables. Practitioners may be able to increase utilization of follow-up care among survivors by knowing which patient groups are more likely to be survivorship appointment nonattenders.

Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada

After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives in Leading Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist on the barriers associated with transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aimed to describe the current perspectives of PCPs in managing breast cancer follow-up.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed to PCPs in Toronto, ON, Canada. Questions examined PCPs' view of transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to their practices.

RESULTS

Of 800 PCPs invited, 126 responded (response rate: 15.7%). The types of practice models amongst respondents included blended capitation (42.9%), blended salary (27%), and fee-for-service (17.5%). Seventy-seven percent of respondents stated they provided follow-up care. Approximately half of the respondents stated they were somewhat comfortable providing follow-up care. PCP-led follow-up care was considered either very (49.2%) or somewhat appropriate (30.2%). When asked about financial remuneration, 43.7% of respondents stated it was somewhat important. The factors that influenced the feasibility of PCP-led follow-up care included receipt of a detailed follow-up care plan provided by the specialist after discharge (81%), the ability to re-refer to specialists rapidly (56.3%), and the ability to obtain regular updates of best practice changes (59.5%). The preferred means of educational updates included E-mail (40.5%), continuing medical education events (30.2%), and electronic medical records (19.8%). When the fee model was taken into consideration there was no significant difference in opinions regarding follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning to a PCP-led model was supported by most of the PCPs who participated in this study. Their perspective on PCP-led follow up care and barriers associated with implementation of this model of care needs to be further explored with future studies that include larger sample size and a more diverse PCP population.

Canadian Resources, Programs, and Models of Care to Support Cancer Survivors' Transition beyond Treatment: A Scoping Review

(1) Background: One in two Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, but as a result of the progress in diagnosis and treatment, more individuals are surviving cancer than ever before. However, the impact of cancer does not end with treatment. The objectives of this review are to (1) provide a broad overview of the supportive care interventions and models of care that have been researched to support Canadian post-treatment cancer survivors; and (2) analyze how these supportive care interventions and/or care models align with the practice recommendations put forth by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology/Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CAPO/CPAC). (2) Methods: An electronic search was completed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in January 2021. Included studies described supportive care interventions or models of care utilized by adult Canadian cancer survivors. (3) Results: Forty-two articles were included. Survivors utilized a multitude of supportive care interventions, with peer support and physical activity programs being most frequently cited. Four models of follow-up care were identified: primary care, oncology care, shared-care, and transition clinics. The supportive care interventions and models of care variably aligned with the recommendations set by CCO and CAPO/CPAC. The most commonly followed recommendation was the promotion of self-management and quality resources for patients. (4) Conclusions: Results indicate an inconsistency in access to supportive care interventions and the delivery of survivorship care for cancer survivors across Canada. Current efforts are being made to implement the recommendations by CCO and CAPO/CPAC; however, provision of these guidelines remains varied.

Assessing the relationship between patient-provider communication quality and quality of life among rural cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We explored relationships between patient-provider communication quality (PPCQ) and three quality of life (QOL) domains among self-identified rural cancer survivors: social well-being, functional well-being, and physical well-being. We hypothesized that high PPCQ would be associated with greater social and functional well-being, but be less associated with physical well-being, due to different theoretical mechanisms.

METHODS

All data were derived from the 2017-2018 Illinois Rural Cancer Assessment (IRCA). To measure PPCQ and QOL domains, we respectively used a dichotomous measure from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey's Experience Cancer care tool (high, low/medium) and continuous measures from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G).

RESULTS

Our sample of 139 participants was largely female, non-Hispanic White, married, and economically advantaged. After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, patients who reported high PPCQ exhibited greater social well-being (Std. β = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.35, p = 0.02) and functional well-being (Std. β = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.35, p = 0.03) than patients with low/medium PPCQ. No association was observed between PPCQ and physical well-being (Std. β = 0.06, 95% CI: - 2.51, 0.21, p = 0.41). Sensitivity analyses found similar, albeit attenuated, patterns.

CONCLUSION

Our findings aligned with our hypotheses. Future researchers should explore potential mechanisms underlying these differential associations. Specifically, PPCQ may be associated with social and functional well-being through interpersonal mechanisms, but may not be as associated with physical well-being due to multiple contextual factor rural survivors disproportionately face (e.g., limited healthcare access, economic hardship) and stronger associations with clinical factors.

Primary care use after cancer treatment: an analysis of linked administrative data

Background

Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care.

Methods

We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits.

Results

The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%.

Conclusions

Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.

Nurse-led follow-up in survivorship care of gynaecological malignancies-A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and psychosocial outcomes of nurse-led follow-up in survivorship care of gynaecological malignancies.

METHODS

Women with endometrial or ovarian cancer who were attending regular post-treatment follow-up at a tertiary referral centre were randomised into two groups-group-1: telephone follow-up by nurses and group-2: gynaecologists-led clinic follow-up. Women in group-1 were asked about their symptoms and quality of life (QoL) by nurses. Women in group-2 were followed up by gynaecologists and underwent symptom reviews and physical examinations. All ovarian cancer patients in both groups also had CA125 measured. All recruited women completed a QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), HADS-anxiety questionnaire and symptom checklist.

RESULTS

385 women (215 with endometrial and 170 with ovarian cancer) were randomised. There was no significant difference in the detection of recurrence according to the two follow-up protocols. However, women in the nurse-led arm scored higher on emotional (p = 0.023) and cognitive functioning (p = 0.012). Those in the gynaecologist-led arm scored higher on the HADS-anxiety scale (p = 0.001) and were more likely to report symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a preliminary non-inferiority of nurse-led follow-up, with improved psychological morbidity and QoL. Thus, nurse-led follow-up can be considered an effective substitute for hospital-based care.

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.

Adherence to quality breast cancer survivorship care in four Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In order to maximize later health, there are established components and guidelines for quality follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. However, adherence to quality follow-up in Canada may not be optimal, and may vary by province. We determined and compared the proportion of patients in each province who received adherent and non-adherent surveillance for recurrence, new cancers and late effects, recommended preventive care, and recommended physician visits for comorbidities.

METHODS

Cohorts consisted of all adult women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2010/2012 in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC) N = 9338; Manitoba N = 2688; Ontario N = 23,700; Nova Scotia (NS) N = 2735), identified from provincial cancer registries, alive and cancer-free at 30 months post-diagnosis. Their healthcare utilization was determined from one to 5 years post-treatment, using linked administrative databases. Adherence, underuse, and overuse of recommended services were evaluated yearly and compared using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In all provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had more than the recommended number of visits to either an oncologist or primary care physician (range 53.8% NS Year 3; 85.8% Ontario Year 4). The proportion of patients with the guideline-recommended number of oncologist visits varied by province (range 29.8% BC Year 5; 74.8% Ontario Year 5), and the proportion of patients with less than the recommended number of specified breast cancer-related visits with either an oncologist or primary care physician ranged from 32.6% (Ontario Year 2) to 84.4% (NS Year 3). Underuse of surveillance breast imaging was identified in NS and BC. The proportion of patients receiving imaging for metastatic disease (not recommended in the guidelines) in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario (not reported in NS) ranged from 20.3% (BC Year 5) to 53.3% (Ontario Year 2). Compliance with recommended physician visits for patients with several chronic conditions was high in Ontario and NS. Preventive care was less than optimal in all provinces with available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of breast cancer survivor follow-up care varies among provinces. Results point to exploration of factors affecting differences, province-specific opportunities for care improvement, and the value of administrative datasets for health system assessment.

Health care services use among long-term breast cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Long-term breast cancer survivors are women surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis. This systematic review aimed to summarize the main characteristics and patterns of healthcare service use (frequency of visits, health providers visited, and preventive care performed) among long-term breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

We used standard Cochrane Collaboration methods and searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to January 2018. We included English language observational studies reporting health service use among long-term cancer survivors. The quality of the studies was appraised through the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Two independent reviewers performed both the study quality assessment and the data extraction.

RESULTS

A total of 23 observational studies were included that reported data on health services use by long-term breast cancer survivors. Despite heterogeneity among studies, about half of them reported that breast cancer survivors visited a medical provider at least once a year, as recommended by breast cancer survival guidelines. Although survivors visited medical providers with the recommended frequency, a substantial number used specialist care instead of primary care during follow-up. The results showed underuse of the recommended annual mammogram.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term breast cancer survivors differ in their health services use with regard to the frequency of visits as well as the health providers seen. Our results indicate the need for active surveillance through primary care providers in coordination with specialized care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

This review could help to standardize the management of breast cancer survivors and decision-makers to adapt their guidelines and clinical protocols.

Recommendations for follow-up of colorectal cancer survivors

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the tumours with the highest incidence and mortality in the Spanish population. Nevertheless, the advances in prevention and treatment have contributed to an increased number of patients who survive for prolonged periods of time. In addition, despite recurrences, improved survival following metastasis resection is likewise on the rise. This underscores the importance of carrying out follow-up programmes even in low-risk patients for the early detection of recurrence. The main objective of this article is to provide a set of recommendations for optimising the follow-up of CRC survivors as well as for managing the sequelae that result from either pharmacological or surgical treatment.

Rural Primary Care Offices and Cancer Survivorship Care: Part of the Care Trajectory for Cancer Survivors

Background:

A cancer diagnosis is a monumental event in a patient’s life and with the number of cancer survivors increasing; most of these patients will be taken care of by a primary care provider at some point after their cancer therapy. The purpose of this study is to identify primary care physician’s needs to care for a patient who has had cancer.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey of the physician members of the Iowa Research Network was conducted. The survey was designed to measure physician confidence in cancer survivor’s care, office strategies regarding cancer survivorship care, and resources available for patients with cancer. Two hundred seventy-four Iowa Research Network members were invited to participate in this survey.

Results:

Eighty-two physicians (30%) completed the questionnaire with 96% reporting that they are aware of their patient’s cancer survivorship status. Seventy-one physicians reported they were aware of cancer survivorship status by an oncologist sending a note to the office, 68 being diagnosed in their office, 61 by the patient keeping the office apprised, and 15 receiving a survivorship care plan. Physicians reported the top changes in a cancer survivor’s physical health as fatigue (81%) and pain (59%). Sixty-two physicians reported not feeling confident for managing chemobrain, cardiotoxicity (71%), and skin changes (35%). Male physicians were significantly more confident managing patients’ skin changes (P = .049) and musculoskeletal disturbances than female physicians (P = .027), while female physicians were significantly more confident managing early-onset menopause than male physicians (P = .027).

Conclusion:

Most respondents are aware of their patients who are cancer survivors and are mostly confident in the care they provide for them related to long-term effects and side effects of cancer therapies with limited receipt of cancer survivorship care plans.

Examination of Health System Resources and Costs Associated With Transitioning Cancer Survivors to Primary Care: A Propensity-Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND:

Transitioning low-risk cancer survivors back to their primary care provider (PCP) has been shown to be safe but the effect on health system resources and costs has not been examined.

METHODS:

A Well Follow-Up Care Initiative (WFCI) was implemented in the publicly funded health system. Low-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors in the WFCI intervention group were transitioned from oncologist-led cancer clinics to PCPs. We compared health system costs ($2,014 in Canadian dollars) and resource utilization in this intervention group with that in propensity-score-matched nontransitioned BC survivors (ie, controls) diagnosed in the same year, with similar disease profile and patient characteristics using publicly funded administrative databases.

RESULTS:

A total of 2,324 BC survivors from the WFCI intervention group were 1:1 matched to controls and observed for 25 months. Compared with controls, survivors in the intervention group incurred a similar number of PCP visits (6.9 v 7.5) and fewer oncologist visits (0.3 v 1.2) per person-year. Fewer survivors in the intervention group (20.1%) were hospitalized than in the control group (24.4%). There were no differences in emergency visits. More survivors in the intervention group had mammograms (82.6% v 73.1%), but other diagnostic tests were less frequent. There was a 39.3% reduction in overall mean annual costs ($6,575 v $10,832) and a 22.1% reduction in overall median annual costs ($2,261 v $2,903). Overall survival in the intervention group was not worse than controls.

CONCLUSION:

Transitioning low-risk BC survivors to PCPs was associated with lower health system resource use and a lower annual cost per patient than matched controls. The WFCI model represents a reasonable approach at the population level to delivering quality care for low-risk BC survivors that seems to be cost effective.

Evaluation of the delivery of survivorship care plans for South Asian female breast cancer survivors residing in Canada

Background

This paper focuses on phase iii of a study evaluating the development and implementation of a survivorship care plan (scp) that could ultimately improve post-treatment quality of life for South Asian (sa) breast cancer survivors (bcss). Evaluating the utility of the scp was important to understand how sociocultural influences might affect uptake of the scp by sa bcss, especially as they transition from treatment to community care.

Methods

Post-treatment discharge planning using an individualized scp at discharge for sa female breast cancer patients with stage i or ii disease was offered as a pilot service to oncologists at BC Cancer's Fraser Valley and Abbotsford centres. A longitudinal study using a mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the utility of that service at 1 year after discharge.

Results

Participants (n = 16) completed a survey about their scp delivery experience, and a 1-year post implementation survey about the scp content and its utility. Most participants reported the discharge appointments to be extremely or very helpful with respect to post-treatment care questions. All have visited their family physicians for follow-up as recommended. The three major sources of support were family, faith, and family physician. Qualitative responses from the health care professionals who developed or implemented the scps identified two challenges in scp delivery: engaging patients or family members in relationship, and translating key information through interpreters.

Conclusions

It is important to evaluate the utility of scps for sa female survivors, who might differ from the general bcs population because of a different understanding of the disease; language barriers; strong influence of family members; societal stigmas; and personal, social, cultural, and religious beliefs and values. A formal nurse-led discharge appointment with discussions about follow-up care and an individualized scp outlining the short- and long-term effects of treatment are recommended. Particular attention has to be paid to the practical and psychosocial needs of sa bcss and their supporting family members.