Role of oncologists and primary care physicians in providing follow-up care to non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors within 5 years of diagnosis: a population-based study

Preventive health care in blood cancer survivors: results from the ABC study

BACKGROUND

Blood cancer survivors are at increased risk for second primary malignancies, cardiovascular diseases, and infections. Little is known about preventive care in blood cancer survivors.

METHODS

Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer patients diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval from the last intense treatment. One section of the retrospective study covered preventive care (cancer screening, cardiovascular screening, vaccination).

RESULTS

Preventive care was delivered by a general practitioner for 1100 of 1504 responding survivors (73.1%), by an oncologist for 125 (8.3%), by a general practitioner together with an oncologist for 156 (10.4%), and by other disciplines for 123 (8.2%). Cancer screening was more consistently performed by general practitioners than by oncologists. The converse was true for vaccination, with particularly high vaccination rates in allogeneic transplant recipients. Cardiovascular screening did not differ between care providers. Cancer and cardiovascular screening rates in survivors eligible for statutory prevention programs were higher than in the general population (skin cancer screening 71.1%; fecal occult blood testing 70.4%; colonoscopy 64.6%; clinical breast examination 92.1%; mammography 86.8%; cervical smear 86.0%; digital rectal examination 61.9%; blood pressure test 69.4%; urine glucose test 54.4%; blood lipid test 76.7%; information about overweight 71.0%). The Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination rate was higher (37.0%) and the influenza vaccination rate was lower (57.0%) than in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of preventive care is high among German blood cancer survivors. To ensure widespread delivery and avoid redundancy, communication between oncologists and preventive care providers is essential.

Health care access and utilization among adult cancer survivors: Results from the National Institutes of Health "All of Us" Research Program

Background

Many cancer survivors face financial difficulties that prevent them from receiving appropriate health care. Racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of health care have been reported among cancer survivors, but recent data for important racial/ethnic subgroups of the US population are lacking.

Methods

To learn more about barriers to healthcare access faced by cancer survivors, we analyzed data from the NIH “All of Us” Research Program. Data were analyzed about demographic factors and other personal characteristics, personal medical history of cancer, healthcare utilization, and access to care.

Results

As of November 2020, a total of 5426 participants had a history of cancer (excluding skin cancer). About 88.2% were non‐Hispanic White; 3.9% were Black, African American, or African; 1.3% were Asian; 4.1% were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; and 1.2% reported more than one race. Just over one‐half had an annual income of $75,000 or greater. The majority of the participants (71.7%) were college graduates or had an advanced degree. About 47.0%% had private health insurance, 41.0% had Medicare, 6.0% had Medicaid, and the remainder had military, Veterans Affairs, other insurance, or no health insurance. Frequently cited reasons for delayed care in the past 12 months were “had to pay out of pocket for some or all of the procedures,” “deductible was too high/or could not afford the deductible,” “couldn't afford the copay,” “couldn't get time off work,” and “were nervous about seeing a health care provider.”

Discussion

A minority of cancer survivors who participated in the NIH “All of Us” Program had difficulty paying for health care in the past 12 months. Of particular concern are minorities such as African American and Hispanic cancer survivors along with those who are low income.

Many cancer survivors face financial problems that prevent them from receiving timely and recommended health care. A minority of cancer survivors who participated in the NIH “All of Us” Research Program had difficulty paying for health care in the past 12 months. Of particular concern are minorities such as African American and Hispanic cancer survivors along with those who are low income.

Compliance with cancer screening and influenza vaccination guidelines in non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors

PURPOSE

Compliance with US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age-appropriate cancer screening and immunization guidelines in lymphoma survivors is not known. We sought to measure compliance in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors and identify any differences based on patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

METHODS

Eligible NHL survivors were identified from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) prospective cohort study. Survivors self-reported colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening and influenza immunization in a questionnaire 3 years post-diagnosis (FU3). The USPSTF guidelines were used to define compliance. Chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics of compliant versus non-compliant survivors.

RESULTS

A total of 1833 MER participants from 2005 to 2012 completed a FU3. Rates of breast and prostate cancer screening were 96% and 72%, respectively. No differences in compliance based on patient or disease characteristics or treatment were observed. Ninety-two percent of survivors were compliant with colorectal cancer screening. Older age, indolent lymphoma histology, and 2008-2012 year of diagnosis were associated with higher compliance. Eighty-two percent of survivors were compliant with influenza vaccination and older age was associated with higher compliance.

CONCLUSION

NHL survivors have high compliance with USPSTF recommendations for cancer screening and immunization. Survivors who are younger or have aggressive lymphomas are less likely to meet the colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Older survivors are more likely to receive influenza vaccination.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Measures to further improve preventive care for NHL survivors, especially those younger in age, are necessary.

Health care use during cancer survivorship: Review of 5 years of evidence

Improvements in treatment strategies have resulted in increasing survival rates among patients diagnosed with cancer but also result in a growing population of individuals who have greater health care needs. These needs will persist from diagnosis throughout the continuing phase of care, or the survivorship phase. To better define models of survivorship care, there must be a strong evidence base in survivor health care use patterns. The objective of this review, which covers studies from 2012 to January 2018, was to evaluate the available evidence on patterns of health care visits among survivors of adult cancers and to understand what is known about the rate of health care visits, the physician specialties associated with these visits, and/or the types health care settings (eg, outpatient, emergency room). The findings underscore the importance of primary care, with the majority of studies reporting that >90% of survivors visited a primary care provider in the prior year. Visits to oncologists and/or other physician specialties were positively associated with receiving cancer screenings and obtaining quality care for noncancer-related conditions. High care density/low care fragmentation between physician specialties had lower costs and a lower likelihood of redundant health care utilization. The follow-up in almost all studies was 3 years, providing short-term evidence; however, as the survivorship period lengthens with improved treatments, longer follow-up will be required. The long-term patterns with which survivors of cancer engage the health care system are critical to designing long-term follow-up care plans that are effective in addressing the complex morbidity that survivors experience.

Impact of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on visits to different provider specialties among elderly Medicare beneficiaries: challenges for care coordination

Newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can pose significant challenges to care coordination. We utilized a social-ecological model to understand the impact of DLBCL diagnosis on visits to primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, a key component of care coordination, over a 3-year period of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We used hurdle models and multivariable logistic regression with the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result-Medicare linked dataset to analyze visits to PCPs and specialists by DLBCL patients (n = 5,455) compared with noncancer patients (n = 14,770). DLBCL patients were more likely to visit PCPs (adjusted odds ratio, AOR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 1.25 [1.18, 1.31]) and had greater number of visits to PCPs (β, SE: 0.384, -0.014) than noncancer patients. Further, DLBCL patients were more likely to have any visit to cardiologists (AOR [95% CI]: 1.40 [1.32, 1.47]), endocrinologists (1.43, [1.21, 1.70]), and pulmonologists (1.51 [1.36, 1.67]) than noncancer patients. Among DLBCL patients, the number of PCP visits markedly increased during the treatment period compared with the baseline period (β, SE: 0.491, -0.028) and then decreased to baseline levels (-0.464, -0.022). Visits to PCPs and specialists were much more frequent for DLBCL patients than noncancer patients, which drastically increased during the DLBCL treatment period for chronic care. More chronic conditions, treatment side effects, and frequent testing may have increased visits to PCPs and specialists. Interventions to improve care coordination may need to target the DLBCL treatment period, when patients are most vulnerable to poor care coordination.

More frequent use of health care services among distressed compared with nondistressed survivors of lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Results from the population-based PROFILES registry

BACKGROUND

Follow-up care for a growing population of survivors of lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) together with the adverse effects these survivors may experience as a result of their cancer and treatment have led to more pressure being placed on health care services. The objectives of the current study were to: 1) compare the use of medical care services by survivors with that of a normative population; 2) evaluate the use of medical and psychosocial care services among distressed and nondistressed survivors; and 3) identify associated sociodemographic and clinical factors.

METHODS

Survivors of lymphoma and CLL diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 were selected via the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire and questions regarding health care. Outcomes were compared with an age-matched and sex-matched normative population.

RESULTS

A total of 1444 survivors responded (69%). Survivors of lymphoma and CLL contacted their general practitioner (3.8 vs 2.3; P<.001) and medical specialist (5.7 vs 1.6; P<.001) more often within the last year compared with a normative population. In addition, psychologically distressed survivors had even more medical contacts and received psychosocial care more often compared with nondistressed survivors. In addition to psychological distress, comorbidity, female sex, and older age were found to be associated with a greater use of medical services, whereas younger age was associated with receiving psychosocial care.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of lymphoma and CLL, especially those who are psychologically distressed, report an increased use of health care services compared with a normative population. Further studies are needed to explore whether the use of widely applicable psychosocial interventions could reduce the frequency of medical contacts. Cancer 2018;124:3016-24. © 2018 Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Improving the Transition From Oncology to Primary Care Teams: A Case for Shared Leadership

This article discusses the case of a 47-year-old woman who underwent primary therapy with curative intent for breast cancer. The case illustrates a number of failure events in transferring information and responsibility from oncology to primary care teams. The article emphasizes the importance of shared leadership, as multiple team members, dispersed in time and space, pursue their own objectives while achieving the common goal of coordinating care for survivors of cancer transitioning across settings. Shared leadership is defined as a team property comprising shared responsibility and mutual influence between the patient and the patient’s family, primary care providers, and oncology teams, whereby they lead each other toward quality and safety of care. Teams, including the patient-family, should achieve leadership when their contribution is relevant in managing task interdependence during transition. Shared leadership fosters coordinated actions to enable functioning as an integrated team-of-teams. This article illustrates how shared leadership can make a difference to coordinate interfaces and pathways, from therapy with curative intent to the follow-up and management of survivors of breast cancer. The detailed case is elaborated as a clinical vignette. It can be used by care providers and researchers to consider the need for new models of care for survivors of cancer by addressing the following questions. Who accepts shared leadership, how, with whom, and under what conditions? What is the evidence that supports the answers to these questions? The detailed case is also valuable for medical and allied health professional education.

Trends in quality of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma care: is it getting better?

This study outlines trends in quality of delivered non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) care in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2011 and to what extend this was influenced by the national Visible Care program, which aimed at increasing transparency by providing insight into the quality of healthcare. We analyzed data collected from medical records in two observational studies, combined into 20 validated quality indicators (QIs) of which 6 were included in the national program. A random sample of 771 patients, diagnosed with NHL in 26 Dutch hospitals, was examined. Multilevel regression analyses were used to assess differences in quality of NHL care and to provide insight into the effect of the national program. We reported improved adherence to only 3 out of 6 QIs involved in the national program and none of the other 14 validated QIs. Improvement was shown for performance of all recommended staging techniques (from 26  to  43 %), assessment of International Prognostic Index (from 21  to  43 %), and multidisciplinary discussion of patients (from 23  to  41 %). We found limited improvement in quality of NHL care between 2007 and 2011; improvement potential (<80 % adherence) was still present for 13 QIs. The national program seems to have a small positive effect, but has not influenced all 20 indicators which represent the most important, measurable parts in quality of NHL care. These results illustrate the need for tailored implementation and quality improvement initiatives.

Models of survivorship care provision in adult patients with haematological cancer: an integrative literature review

PURPOSE

Increasing numbers of haematology cancer survivors warrants identification of the most effective model of survivorship care to survivors from a diverse range of haematological cancers with aggressive treatment regimens. This review aimed to identify models of survivorship care to support the needs of haematology cancer survivors.

METHOD

An integrative literature review method utilised a search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycArticles, and Cochrane Library) for eligible articles (up to July 2014). Articles were included if they proposed or reported the use of a model of care for haematology cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included in this review. Eight articles proposed and described models of care, and six reported the use of a range of survivorship models of care in haematology cancer survivors. No randomised controlled trials or literature reviews were found to have been undertaken specifically with this cohort of cancer survivors. There was variation in the models described and who provided the survivorship care.

CONCLUSION

Due to the lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of models of care, it is difficult to determine the best model of care for haematology cancer survivors. Many different models of care are being put into practice before robust research is conducted. Therefore, well-designed high-quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are required to inform clinical practice.