A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed survivorship care plan receipt on patient satisfaction and knowledge of diagnosis and treatment

The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01-01-2010 and 10-10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described.

RESULTS

Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns.

CONCLUSION

The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.

OUP accepted manuscript

Appropriate models of survivorship care for the growing number of adult survivors of childhood cancer are unclear. We conducted a realist review to describe how models of care that include primary care and relevant resources (eg, tools, training) could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. We first developed an initial program theory based on qualitative literature (studies, commentaries, opinion pieces) and stakeholder consultations. We then reviewed quantitative evidence and consulted stakeholders to refine the program theory and develop and refine context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses regarding how models of care that include primary care could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. Effectiveness for both resources and models is defined by survivors living longer and feeling better through high-value care. Intermediate measures of effectiveness evaluate the extent to which survivors and providers understand the survivor’s history, risks, symptoms and problems, health-care needs, and available resources. Thus, the models of care and resources are intended to provide information to survivors and/or primary care providers to enable them to obtain/deliver appropriate care. The variables from our program theory found most consistently in the literature include oncology vs primary care specialty, survivor and provider knowledge, provider comfort treating childhood cancer survivors, communication and coordination between and among providers and survivors, and delivery/receipt of prevention and surveillance of late effects. In turn, these variables were prominent in our context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses. The findings from this realist review can inform future research to improve childhood cancer survivorship care and outcomes.

Survivorship, Version 1.2021

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor's complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted.

RESULTS

Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.

The effect of cancer treatment summaries on patient-centered communication and quality of care for cancer survivors: A pooled cross-sectional HINTS analysis

OBJECTIVE

Provision of cancer treatment summaries to patients is recommended to improve patient-centered communication (PCC). The objective of this study is to assess relationships between cancer treatment summary receipt, PCC, and quality of care (QOC).

METHODS

Linear and logistic regression of cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was conducted using data from years 2012, 2014, and 2017. The independent variable was receipt of treatment summary; the dependent variables were overall PCC score, six domains of PCC, and QOC.

RESULTS

In the pooled sample, 36.9% of patients with cancer treatment history reported receiving a treatment summary. There was a significant positive association between overall PCC score and treatment summary receipt, and higher odds of high scores for the PCC domains "responding to emotions" and "managing uncertainty." We did not observe significant associations between treatment summary receipt and other PCC domains or QOC.

CONCLUSION

Providing patients cancer treatment summaries may improve PCC, but fewer than half of patients reported receiving one of these summaries.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providing cancer treatment summaries is important, however, providing them without engaging in additional communication may be insufficient to improve all patient-centered care domains or quality of care.

Has the Quality of Patient-Provider Communication About Survivorship Care Improved?

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to assess whether the quality of patient-provider communication on key elements of cancer survivorship care changed between 2011 and 2016.

METHODS

Participating survivors completed the 2011 or 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys (N = 2,266). Participants reported whether any clinician ever discussed different aspects of survivorship care. Responses ranged from "Did not discuss at all" to "Discussed it with me in detail". Distributions of responses were compared among all respondents and only among those who had received cancer-directed treatment within 3 years of the survey.

RESULTS

In 2011, the percentage of survivors who did not receive detailed instructions on follow-up care, late or long-term adverse effects, lifestyle recommendations, and emotional or social needs were 35.1% (95% CI, 31.9% to 38.4%), 54.2% (95% CI, 50.7% to 57.6%), 58.9% (95% CI, 55.3% to 62.5%), and 69.2% (95% CI, 65.9% to 72.3%), respectively, and the corresponding proportions for 2016 were 35.4% (95% CI, 31.9% to 37.8%), 55.5% (95% CI, 51.7% to 59.3%), 57.8% (95% CI, 54.2% to 61.2%), and 68.2% (95% CI, 64.3% to 71.8%), respectively. Findings were similar among recently treated respondents. Only 24% in 2011 and 22% in 2016 reported having detailed discussions about all four topics. In 2016, 47.6% of patients (95% CI, 43.8% to 51.4%) reported not having detailed discussions with their providers about a summary of their cancer treatments.

CONCLUSION

Clear gaps in the quality of communication between survivors of cancer and providers persist. Our results highlight the need for continued efforts to improve communication between survivors of cancer and providers, including targeted interventions in key survivorship care areas.