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

Background

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Implications for cancer survivors

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

Time to diagnosis of symptomatic gastric and oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: Where is the room for improvement?

Background

An efficient diagnostic pathway and early stage diagnosis for cancer patients is widely pursued. This study aims to chart the duration of the diagnostic pathway for patients with symptomatic oesophageal and gastric cancer, to identify factors associated with long duration and to assess the association of duration with tumour stage at diagnosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study, using electronic health records of six routine primary care databases covering about 640,000 patients, partly linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Symptomatic patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer (2010–2015) that presented in primary care were included. Duration of four diagnostic intervals was determined: patient interval; first symptoms to primary care consultation, primary care interval; consultation to referral, secondary care interval; referral to diagnosis, and the diagnostic interval; consultation to diagnosis. Characteristics associated with ‘long duration’ (≥P75 duration) were assessed using log-binomial regression. Median durations were stratified for tumour stages.

Results

Among 312 symptomatic patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer, median durations were: patient interval: 29 days (interquartile interval 15–73), primary care interval: 12 days (interquartile interval 1–43), secondary care interval: 13 days (interquartile interval 6–29) and diagnostic interval: 31 days (11–74). Patient interval duration was comparable for patients with and without alarm symptoms. Absence of cancer-specific alarm symptoms was associated with ‘long duration’ of primary care interval and secondary care interval: relative risk 5.0 (95% confidence interval 2.7–9.1) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.3–3.7), respectively. Median diagnostic interval duration for local stage disease was 51 days (interquartile interval 13–135) versus 27 days (interquartile interval 11–71) for advanced stage (p = 0.07).

Conclusion

In the diagnostic pathway of upper gastrointestinal cancers, the longest interval is the patient interval. Reducing time to diagnosis may be achieved by improving patients’ awareness of alarm symptoms and by diagnostic strategies which better identify cancer patients despite low suspicion.

Follow-up after colon cancer treatment in the Netherlands; a survey of patients, GPs, and colorectal surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Follow-up to detect recurrence is an important feature of care after colon cancer treatment. Currently, follow-up visits are surgeon-led with focus on recurrence. To date, there is increasing interest for general practitioners (GPs) providing this care, as GPs might provide more holistic care. The present study assessed how surgeons, GPs, and patients evaluate current surgeon-led colon cancer follow-up and to list their views on possible future GP-led follow-up.

METHODS

The study consists of a cross-sectional survey including colorectal surgeons, patients who participate or recently finished a follow-up programme, and GPs in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven out of 191 GPs, 113 out of 238 surgeons, and 186 out of 243 patients responded. Patients are satisfied about current surgeon-led follow-up, especially about recurrence detection and identification of physical problems (94% and 85% respectively). However, only 56% and 49% of the patients were satisfied about the identification of psychological and social problems respectively. Only 16% of the patients evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively. Regarding healthcare providers, surgeons were more positive compared to GPs; 49% of the surgeons, and only 30% of the GPs evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively (P = 0.002). Furthermore, several reservations and principle requirements for GP-led follow-up were identified.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest an unfavourable view among patients and healthcare providers, especially GPs, regarding a central role for GPs in colon cancer follow-up. However, low satisfaction on psychosocial aspects in current follow-up points out a lack in care. Therefore, the results provide a justification to explore future GP-led care further.

Outcome of cervical spine surgery in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Cervical spine instability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may lead to cervical myelopathy or occipital neuralgia, or both. Morbidity and mortality in patients with RA treated with cervical spine surgery during two years of follow up were evaluated.

METHODS

Between 1992 and 1996 55 patients with RA underwent cervical spine surgery because of occipital neuralgia or cervical myelopathy, or both. Patients were classified according to the Ranawat criteria for pain and neurological assessment before operation and three months and two years postoperatively. For occipital neuralgia a successful operation was defined as complete relief of pain and for cervical myelopathy as neurological improvement.

RESULTS

Occipital neuralgia was present in 17 patients, cervical myelopathy in 14 patients, and 24 had both. Surgical treatment in the patients with symptoms of occipital neuralgia who were still alive two years after surgery was successful in 18/29 (62%). In the surviving patients with cervical myelopathy neurological improvement of at least one Ranawat class was seen in 16/24 (67%). Postoperative mortality within six weeks was 3/51 (6%). Within two years after the operation 14 /51 (27%) of the patients had died; in most patients the cause of death was not related to surgery. The highest mortality (50%) was found in the group of six patients with quadriparesis and very poor functional capacity (Ranawat IIIB).

CONCLUSION

Cervical spine surgery in patients with RA performed because of occipital neuralgia or cervical myelopathy, or both, is successful in most patients who are alive two years after surgery. However, the mortality rate during these two years is relatively high, which seems to be largely related to the severity of the underlying disease and not to the surgery itself.