Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review

Diagnostic yield of follow-up in patients undergoing surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence on adherence, diagnostic performance and impact on survival to intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited.

AIM

To analyze the diagnostic performance of surveillance colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and tumor markers (TMs) in detecting CRC recurrence or metastasis during follow-up after CRC resection. Secondary objectives included degree of adherence to clinical practice guidelines surveillance recommendations and factors associated with adherence and all-cause and CRC mortality.

METHODS

The single-center retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing curative resection of stage I-III CRC during 2010-2015. Follow-up was performed using TMs every 6 months, yearly CT for 5 years, and colonoscopy at years 1 and 4. Demographic, primary tumor data, and results at follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

Of 574 included patients included, 153 had recurrences or metastases. Of this group, 136 (88.9%) were diagnosed by CT, 10 (6.5%) by CT and colonoscopy, and 7 (4.6%) by colonoscopy; only 67.8% showed TMs elevation. Adherence to follow-up recommendations was 68.8% for the first colonoscopy, 74% for the first CT scan, and 96.6% for the first blood test; these values declined over time. Younger age at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.93; 95%CI: 0.91-0.95], CRC stages I-II (OR 0.38; 95%CI: 0.24-0.61), and adherence to follow-up recommendations (OR 0.30; 95%CI: 0.20-0.46) were independently associated with lower risk for all-cause death at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

CT scan had the highest diagnostic yield. Adherence to follow-up recommendations was low and decreased during follow-up. Younger age at diagnosis, stage, and follow-up adherence were associated with lower 5-year mortality.

[Postsurgical follow-up and long-term monitoring of colorectal cancer : Radiology as a key component]

CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide. Postsurgical follow-up and long-term monitoring are essential to detect local recurrence, metastases, or secondary tumors at an early stage.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

According to the current guideline on colorectal cancer, radiologic follow-up is primarily performed using a single computed tomography (CT) scan 3 months after completion of therapy. Annual chest X‑ray examinations within the first 5 years after completion of treatment can be employed, and, due to cost-effective availability, regular abdominal ultrasound is recommended.

METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

The German guideline on colorectal cancer is currently being revised. As the sensitivity of ultrasound is inferior to CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoabdominal CT will probably become crucial in follow-up care with the revised guideline, which would align with international recommendations.

PERFORMANCE

CT is well suited for detecting local recurrence, as well as lung or liver metastases. MRI is used in assessing local cancer grades for treatment planning and monitoring. Structured reporting, stage- and guideline-based recommendations including follow-up intervals as well as interdisciplinary tumor conferences ensure high-quality follow-up care.

ACHIEVEMENTS

Radiology is essential to interdisciplinary follow-up care for colorectal cancer.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Structured reporting and clear recommendations on follow-up intervals should be standard in radiological reports. The importance of radiological follow-up for patients with colorectal cancer is likely to increase further with the guideline that is currently being revised.

Postoperative Surveillance Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Patients at Urban Medical Centers: Is It Adequate?

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequent cancers in the United States. There are recognized guidelines for monitoring after curative CRC excision. This study looks into the rate of compliance with surveillance guidelines following CRC resection, as well as the impact of demographic characteristics. Methods  Data was collected retrospectively including demographics, stage at diagnosis, and adherence to surveillance guidelines as recommended by the United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines for CRC patients who underwent curative surgical resection between 2005 and 2014 in two tertiary academic medical centers. Results  A total of 124 patients were included (male, 56.5%; female, 43.5%), 109 (87.9%) were African Americans, and 70 (56.5%) had Medicare/Medicaid insurance. Overall, appropriate clinical evaluation twice per year for three years following surgery was completed in 78 patients (63%). A total of 56 patients (45%) had carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels checked twice a year for three years. Surveillance colonoscopy one year postoperatively occurred in 64 (51.6%), and 37 (29.8%) had a second colonoscopy three years postoperatively. Abdomen/pelvis CT scan was obtained in 90 (72.5%) at one year postoperatively. In the entire cohort, strict adherence to post-resection surveillance only occurred in 46 (37.1%). There was no correlation between adherence to surveillance and gender (p=0.184), race (p=0.118), or insurance type (p=0.51). Conclusion Adherence to surveillance after curative CRC resection was inadequate regardless of socioeconomic status, medical insurance, or race. Measures should be taken to identify barriers and improve compliance with guidelines.

Characteristics and impact of interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with guideline recommendations for breast cancer: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients. Suboptimal compliance with breast cancer guideline recommendations remains frequent, and has been associated with a decreased survival. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize and determine the impact of available interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with CPGs recommendations in breast cancer healthcare.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews and primary studies in PubMed and Embase (from inception to May 2021). We included experimental and observational studies reporting on the use of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by one reviewer, and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Using the same approach, we synthesized the characteristics and the effects of the interventions by type of intervention (according to the EPOC taxonomy), and applied the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 35 primary studies reporting on 24 different interventions. Most frequently described interventions consisted in computerized decision support systems (12 studies); educational interventions (seven), audit and feedback (two), and multifaceted interventions (nine). There is low quality evidence that educational interventions targeted to healthcare professionals may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. There is moderate quality evidence that reminder systems for healthcare professionals improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. There is low quality evidence that multifaceted interventions may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. The effectiveness of the remaining types of interventions identified have not been evaluated with appropriate study designs for such purpose. There is very limited data on the costs of implementing these interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Different types of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs recommendations are available, and most of them show positive effects. More robust trials are needed to strengthen the available evidence base concerning their efficacy. Gathering data on the costs of implementing the proposed interventions is needed to inform decisions about their widespread implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42018092884 (PROSPERO).

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse.

METHODS

Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms.

RESULTS

Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

Disparities in post-operative surveillance testing for metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, treatment for metastatic recurrence is most effective when malignancies are detected early through surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level test and computer tomography (CT) imaging. However, utilization of these tests is low, and many survivors fail to meet the recommended guidelines. This population-based study assesses individual- and neighborhood-level factors associated with receipt of CEA and CT surveillance testing.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to identify Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC stages II-III between 2010 and 2013. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to estimate the effect of individual and neighborhood factors on receipt of CEA and CT tests within 18 months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 78% and 58% of CRC survivors received CEA and CT testing, respectively. We found significant within racial/ethnic differences in receipt of these surveillance tests. Medicare-Medicaid dual coverage was associated with 39% lower odds of receipt of CEA tests among non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks with dual coverage had almost two times the odds of receiving CEA tests compared to Blacks without dual coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study did not find significant differences in receipt of initial CEA and CT surveillance testing across racial/ethnic groups, the assessment of the factors that measure access to care suggests differences in access to these procedures within racial/ethnic groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our findings have implications for developing targeted interventions focused on promoting surveillance for the early detection of metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors and improve their health outcomes.

Health-Promoting Lifestyle in Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study on the Experiences and Perspectives of Colorectal Cancer Survivors and Healthcare Providers

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the experiences of survivors and healthcare providers about health-promoting lifestyle (HPL) in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is important in planning for coping with the disease, managing treatment side effects, increasing survival, and improving quality of life (QOL). This study was conducted to explore the experiences and perspectives of CRC survivors and healthcare providers about HPL in CRC survivors.

METHODS

This descriptive qualitative study was performed in 2020 at Omid and Imam Reza Hospitals in Mashhad, Iran. Participants were CRC survivors (n = 12) and healthcare providers (n = 33) who were selected by purposive sampling. Data were collected using in-depth semi-structured interview by face to face and then analyzed by Zhang and Wildemuth content analysis method. MaxQDA software was used to organize the data.

RESULTS

Following the treatment of cancer, CRC survivors seek to make changes in lifestyle and they choose a HPL that maintains or improves their health. HPL in CRC survivors includes nutrition, activity and rest, health responsibility, interpersonal relations, spiritual growth, and psychological management. The results showed that HPL can lead to motivation, the ability to self-care and improve daily performance, reduce treatment complications, and increase the QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC survivors can help change their lifestyle patterns with healthy eating, treatment adherence, regular physical activity, and good sleep habits. Furthermore, effective personal and social relationships, spiritual growth, and management of psychological disorders develop health-promoting behaviors in them. CRC survivors also face challenges and limitations in their life after treatment; identifying the components of a HPL in CRC survivors can lead to desirable care, treatment, education, and counseling services.

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines in patients following curative-intent colorectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that patients who have undergone curative-intent resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo colonoscopy one year following their surgery or at six months post-operatively if a pre-operative colonoscopy was not performed due to an obstructing lesion. We sought to determine adherence to postoperative surveillance colonoscopy guidelines in our National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center and potentially identify factors associated with non-adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent curative-intent CRC resection was performed between 2013 and 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based upon adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines. Demographic, tumor, and postoperative variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of all patients was 62. Fifty-seven percent of patients were male. Thirty-eight patients underwent surveillance colonoscopy in accordance with current guidelines. Sixty-two patients did not undergo surveillance colonoscopy postoperatively or did so outside of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Factors associated with non-adherence to surveillance colonoscopy included presence of comorbidities, albumin less than 3.5, and performance of a pre-operative colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines was low among our patients. Efforts should be directed toward patients at increased risk for non-adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines.

Follow-up surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors of different sexual orientations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance.

METHODS

An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test.

RESULTS

About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.

A literature review of post-treatment survivorship interventions for colorectal cancer survivors and/or their caregivers

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors have reported a number of concerns and unmet needs after treatment completion. This paper aims to explore existing survivorship interventions after CRC treatment according to the American Cancer Society CRC Survivorship Care Guidelines, to identify study gaps, and provide valuable evidence directing future research.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, including CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from 2005 to October 2020, were systematically searched to identify English or Chinese literature on CRC post-treatment survivorship interventions. Manual searching through the articles' references lists was also conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty studies met the criteria, and focused on addressing issues in four CRC Survivorship Care Guidelines domains. Several issues for CRC surveillance programmes remain to be explored. Regarding the long-term physical and psychosocial effects of CRC treatment, we found mounting evidence for various interventions to solve ostomy issues and improve distress/depression/anxiety, strong evidence for exercise to improve fatigue, and limited evidence in addressing CRC patient sexual concerns. For health promotion, high-quality evidence was found for exercises to improve cardiopulmonary fitness, metabolism, tumour-related biomarkers, and short-term improvement in physical fitness and QOL. Emerging evidence was found for a survivorship care plan to improve patient perceptions of care coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Further refinements based on the existing evidence, and the development of comprehensive CRC survivorship care comprising multiple essential survivorship components, are required. Furthermore, considering both survivor and caregiver cancer survivorship needs, future research may optimise the care delivered, and help survivors and their families live better with cancer.

Inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy among Medicare beneficiaries with surgically resected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, surveillance with colonoscopy is an important step for the early detection of local recurrence. Unfortunately, surveillance colonoscopy is underused, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. This study assesses the association between patient and neighborhood factors and receipt of surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data (2009-2014). Beneficiaries with surgically resected stage II or III CRC between the ages of 66 and 85 years were identified, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of factors on receipt of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 57.5% of the patients received initial surveillance colonoscopy. After adjustments for all factors, Blacks and Hispanics had lower odds of receiving colonoscopy than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs; 29.6% for Blacks; P = .002; 12.9% for Hispanics; P > .05). NHWs with Medicaid coverage had 35% lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than NHWs without Medicaid coverage. Minority patients with Medicaid were more likely to receive colonoscopy than their racial/ethnic counterparts without Medicaid coverage (P > .05). Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of ≥$90,000 had significantly lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of $0 to $30,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of initial surveillance colonoscopy remains low, and there are acute disparities between Black and NHW patients. The association between factors that assess a patient's ability to access colonoscopy and actual receipt of colonoscopy suggests inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy within and across racial/ethnic groups.

Patterns of surveillance for colorectal cancer: Experience from a single large tertiary institution

AIM

Colorectal cancer surveillance is an essential part of care and should include clinical review and follow-up investigations. There is limited information regarding postoperative surveillance and survivorship care in the Australian context. This study investigated patterns of colorectal cancer surveillance at a large tertiary institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of hospital records was conducted for all patients treated with curative surgery between January 2012 and June 2017. Provision of clinical surveillance, colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) within 24 months postoperatively were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate time-to-surveillance review and associated investigations.

RESULTS

A total of 675 patients were included in the study. Median time to first postoperative clinical review was 20 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 18-21) with only 31% of patients having their first postoperative clinic review within 2 weeks. Median time to first CEA was 100 days (95% CI, 92-109), with 47% of patients having their CEA checked within the first 3 months, increasing to 68% at 6 months. Median time to first follow-up CT scan was 262 days (95% CI, 242-278) and for colonoscopy, 560 days (95% CI, 477-625). Poor uptake of surveillance testing was more prevalent in patients from older age groups, those with multiple comorbidities, and higher stage cancers.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancer surveillance is multi-disciplinary and involves several parallel processes, many of which lead to inconsistent follow-up. Further prospective work is required to identify the reasons for variation in care and which aspects are most important to cancer patients.

Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs.

METHODS

We searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.59-0.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5 years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42018092884 ).

Survivorship in Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study of the Patterns and Documented Content of Follow-Up Visits

Survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) may experience a range of physical, psychosocial, and practical challenges as a consequence of their diagnosis. We assessed the patterns and documented content of follow-up visits within the first three years following treatment, in comparison to survivorship care guidelines. Survivors with stage I-III CRC who underwent curative resection at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre from July 2015 to January 2018 were followed for up to 1080 days. Patterns of follow-up were calculated by recording the date and specialty of each visit; documented content was assessed using a study-specific audit tool for the first year (360 days) of follow-up. Forty-eight survivors comprised the study population, 34 of whom (71%) attended the recommended two to four follow-up visits in their first year. Visit notes documented new symptoms (96%), physical changes (85%), physical examination (63%), and investigations (56%–90%); none had documented discussions of screening for other primary cancers, or regular health checks and/or screening. Each survivor had at least one outpatient letter that was sent to their primary care physician, but responsibilities were not adequately defined (31%). Although survivors had regular follow-up in their first year, documentation did not consistently address aspects of wider survivorship care.

Implementing Quality Colon Cancer Survivorship Care: A Practical Proposal for a Path Forward

There are currently close to 17 million survivors of cancer in the United States. This number is expected to grow as both an aging population and improved treatment increase the number of survivors. Consequently, the importance of quality survivorship care has been recognized, but implementing, measuring, and paying for this care in a highly fragmented health care system, across a broad spectrum of diseases, is difficult. Quality measurement tied to payment is one approach that has commonly been used to improve the quality of care in the US health care system, but the complexity of applying quality measurement metrics across the spectrum of cancer survivorship care had led to stalemate. In this article, we draw on prior work to develop a quality cancer survivorship framework and propose a practical path forward with a focus on the provision of colon cancer survivorship care within integrated health care delivery networks. With this narrowly defined approach, we hope that we can promote a practical solution that can be extended to other diseases and payment systems over time.

Cancer surveillance and preventive services in a diverse sample of breast and colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors diagnosed at an early age remain at risk for cancer recurrence and other chronic diseases. This study assessed engagement in surveillance for recurrence, cancer screening, and other recommended preventive health services among breast and colorectal cancer survivors with early-onset disease (≤ 50 years) who were diagnosed in California.

METHODS

Breast and colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed with early-onset cancer between 1999 and 2009 were identified through the California Cancer Registry, the state-based cancer registry, and surveyed. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess correlates of receipt of cancer surveillance, cancer screening, and other preventive health services.

RESULTS

Of the 497 survivors that were invited to participate in the study, 156 completed the survey for a response rate of 31%. The sample was 50 years of age on average (range 32-69 years) with a mean time since diagnosis of 9 years. The majority of the sample (71%) was a racial/ethnic minority (24% Latino, 15% African American, 29% Asian). Overall, 80% received appropriate surveillance for recurrence, and 72% received recommended screening for early detection of other cancers (breast, cervical, colorectal). Increasing age was associated with lower likelihood of early detection screening (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.69), and higher income was associated with a greater likelihood (aOR 4.89, 95% CI 1.62-14.81). Screening rates were highest for blood pressure (96%), cholesterol (86%), and diabetes (81%), followed by dental visits (64%) and flu vaccination (35%). Greater use of recommended preventive health services was associated with increasing age, female sex, higher education level, and having health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of survivors received appropriate surveillance for recurrence, engagement in other preventive health services varied substantially.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Efforts are needed to address gaps in the use of recommended cancer screening and preventive health services among cancer survivors, particularly survivors with early-onset disease who may be at increased risk for additional cancers and common chronic conditions over their lifetime.

Virtual Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Bringing Scope Rate to Target

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopy is recommended at 1 year after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection to detect locally recurrent CRC, earlier work at our Veterans Affairs (VA) facility demonstrated that 35% of patients achieve this metric.

STUDY DESIGN

The interdisciplinary team used quality improvement methods to standardize processes and implement a gastroenterology-managed virtual surveillance clinic. The intervention clinic was implemented in August 2014. Veterans who underwent resection for stage I to III CRC at a single VA facility from January 2010 to December 2017 were included, with those undergoing resection between January 2010 and July 2014 considered pre-intervention and those undergoing resection between August 2014 and December 2017 considered post-intervention. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eligible patients for whom endoscopy was completed within 1 year of resection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who completed endoscopy within 18 months of resection or at any time post-resection and time to surveillance endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients underwent resection for stage I to III CRC from 2010 to 2017; of these, 160 (86%) were eligible for endoscopy at 1-year post-resection (98 pre-intervention and 62 post-intervention). In the pre-intervention period, 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) underwent surveillance endoscopy within 1 year vs 31 of 62 (50.0%) post-intervention (p = 0.031). When evaluated at 18 months after resection, 56 of 98 patients (57.1%) in the pre-intervention group vs 52 of 62 (83.9%) in the post-intervention group underwent surveillance endoscopy (p = 0.001). Median time from resection to endoscopy decreased during the study period, from 1.19 years pre-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.74 years) to 1.0 years post-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.09 years) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a virtual surveillance clinic with standardized processes was associated with increased guideline-concordant endoscopic surveillance after CRC resection.

A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Screening with fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) reduces colorectal cancer mortality. Failure to complete repeat tests may compromise screening effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of repeat FOBT across diverse health care settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from 1997 to 2017 and reported repeat FOBT over ≥2 screening rounds. Studies (n = 27 reported in 35 articles) measured repeat FOBT as (i) proportion of Round 1 participants completing repeat FOBT in Round 2; (ii) proportion completing two, consecutive FOBT; or (iii) proportion completing ≥3 rounds. Among those who completed FOBT in Round 1, 24.6% to 89.6% completed repeat FOBT in Round 2 [median: 82.0%; interquartile range (IQR): 73.7%-84.6%]. The proportion completing FOBT in two rounds ranged from 16.4% to 80.0% (median: 46.6%; IQR: 40.5%-50.0%), and in studies examining ≥3 rounds, repeat FOBT ranged from 0.8% to 64.1% (median: 39.2%; IQR: 19.7%-49.4%). Repeat FOBT appeared higher in mailed outreach (69.1%-89.6%) compared with opportunistic screening (24.6%-48.6%). Few studies examined correlates of repeat FOBT. In summary, we observed a wide prevalence of repeat FOBT, and prevalence generally declined in successive screening rounds. Interventions that increase and maintain participation in FOBT are needed to optimize effectiveness of this screening strategy.

Understanding Long-Term Cancer Survivors' Preferences for Ongoing Medical Care

BACKGROUND

Due to risk for treatment-related late effects and concerns about cancer recurrence, long-term cancer survivors have unique medical needs. Survivors' preferences for care may influence adherence and care utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To describe survivors' preferences for care and factors associated with preferred and actual care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of participants in a longitudinal study using mailed questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS

Survivors of ten common cancers (n = 2,107, mean years from diagnosis 8.9).

MAIN MEASURES

(1) Survivors' preferences for primary care physician (PCP) and oncologist responsibilities across four types of care: cancer follow-up, cancer screening, preventive health, and comorbid conditions. (2) Survivor-reported visits to PCPs and oncologists.

KEY RESULTS

The response rate was 42.1%. Most long-term survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up (63%) and subsequent screening (65%), while preferring PCP-led preventive health (77%) and comorbid condition (83%) care. Most survivors (88%) preferred oncologists involved in cancer follow-up care, but only 60% reported an oncologist visit in the previous 4 years, and 96% reported a PCP visit in the previous 4 years. In multivariable regressions, those with higher fear of cancer recurrence were less likely to prefer PCP-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.93-0.98), as did survivors with advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.56, CI = 0.39-0.79). Those with higher fear of recurrence (OR = 1.03, CI = 1.01-1.04) or who preferred oncologist-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.63-2.65) had greater odds of seeing an oncologist in the last 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cancer survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up and screening, yet many had not seen an oncologist recently. Survivors preferred PCP-led care for other preventive services and management of comorbid conditions. These findings highlight the important role PCPs could play in survivor care, suggesting the need for PCP-oriented education and health system policies that support high-quality PCP-led survivor care.

Factors Influencing Adherence to Recommended Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Experiences and Behaviors of Colorectal Cancer Survivors

The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the USA is increasing and factors associated with CRC surveillance require attention. This study examined the role of personal, provider, and practice-level factors on CRC survivor care surveillance experiences and outcomes. A telephone survey, informed by the Chronic Care Model, was conducted over a 1-year period with 150 CRC survivors identified via the South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Participants were ages ≥ 21 years and diagnosed with stages I-III CRC within 1.5 years of study enrollment. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Adherence was defined as receipt of surveillance colonoscopy at 13 months post-CRC surgery, as recommended by evidence-based guidelines. The majority of participants were male (55%) and white (86%), with a median age of 65 years (range 25-89). Almost half (43%) had attained a high school degree or less. Cancer stage was fairly evenly distributed, and 58% had received treatment by surgery alone (provider-level factor). Few participants (56%) received a survivorship care plan (practice-level factor), and adherence to surveillance colonoscopy was lowest (36%) among participants with more than one comorbidity (personal-level factor). Logistic regression models showed that the only significant effect of personal, provider, or practice-level factors on CRC surveillance adherence was related to type of health insurance coverage (private/HMO vs. other; p = 0.04). This is one of the first studies to evaluate CRC surveillance in a socioeconomically diverse sample. The only associations found among the examined factors and adherence were related to type of health insurance coverage. Participants with private/HMO health insurance were significantly more likely than participants with "other" health insurance coverage types (i.e., none, Medicare without supplement, Medicare with supplement) to be adherent to the 13-month colonoscopy. Therefore, future education strategies and patient navigation interventions could focus on identifying and overcoming multi-level barriers to CRC surveillance services.

Evaluating Surveillance Patterns after Chemoradiation-Only Compared with Conventional Management for Older Patients with Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Upfront chemoradiation with omission of surgery (CR-only) is increasingly being used to treat rectal cancer. When CR-only is used with curative intent, intense surveillance is recommended. We hypothesized that in practice, few patients treated with CR-only receive intensive post-treatment surveillance.

STUDY DESIGN

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare, all nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients (≥66 years old) diagnosed from 2004 to 2012, who received upfront chemoradiation, were included. Patients who received CR-only were compared with patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy plus proctectomy. In the 24 months after treatment, markers of surveillance, including carcinoembryonic antigen testing (CEA), endoscopy, and imaging, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2,482 individuals met the inclusion criteria: 21% (n = 514) had CR-only and 79% had conventional treatment (ie chemoradiation plus proctectomy). Only 2.5% and 3.4% of those in the CR-only and conventional treatment groups, respectively, were in complete compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network surveillance guidelines during the first 2 years post-treatment (p < 0.01). The CR-only group was less likely than the conventional treatment group to receive: CEA (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.65), endoscopy (aRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87), and office visits (aRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. However, there were similar rates of cross-sectional imaging between groups (aRR 1.31; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance was poor for all Medicare patients with rectal cancer. Despite recommendations for closer follow-up, patients treated with CR-only were less likely to receive surveillance than those treated with conventional treatment. Efforts should be made to increase adherence to surveillance guidelines for all rectal cancer patients treated with curative intent, but particularly for those with higher risk of recurrence, such as those treated with CR-only.

Translating IDEA to Practice and Beyond: Managing Stage II and III Colon Cancer

Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for resected stage III colon cancer since the 1990s; the evolution from 12 to 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy and the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine therapy have led to the current accepted standard. However, controversies remain. What is the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II disease, and in whom? What is the optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy? How should patients with early-stage colon cancer be followed after surgery and adjuvant treatment? Recent evidence has emerged to help inform these important questions, including the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant therapy (IDEA) collaboration, which is the largest, prospective study in colon cancer with 12,834 patients. This review discusses current and future risk stratification strategies in stage II disease: the optimal duration of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy in stage II and III disease according to the IDEA study, and the recent evidence and updated recommendations for surveillance of early-stage colon cancer after resection.

Deficiencies in postoperative surveillance for veterans with gastrointestinal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

National guidelines for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers offer surveillance algorithms to facilitate detection of recurrent disease, yet adherence rates are unknown. We sought to characterize postoperative surveillance patterns for veterans with GI cancer at a tertiary care Veterans Affairs Hospital.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for colorectal, gastroesophageal or hepatopancreaticobiliary malignancy from 2010-2016. We calculated the annual rate of cancer-directed clinic visits and abdominal imaging and used National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a benchmark by which to assess adequate surveillance.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median surveillance time was 1203 days. Overall, 44% of patients had insufficient surveillance. Specifically, 11% received no postoperative imaging and 7% had no cancer-directed clinic visits. An additional 30% received less than recommended surveillance imaging and 12% attended fewer than recommended clinic visits. By disease site, insufficient imaging was most common for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer (63%), while inadequate clinic follow-up was highest for colorectal cancer (24%).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of veterans with GI cancer received either inadequate postoperative surveillance based on national guidelines. This deficiency represents an opportunity for improvement through targeted efforts, including telemedicine and education of patients and providers.

Prevalence of cancer and management in elderly nursing home residents. A descriptive study in 45 French nursing homes

This study aimed to determine cancer prevalence occurring after the age of 75 in 45 French nursing homes (NH), as well as residents' characteristics and parameters associated with cancer-specific management. Descriptive retrospective study including 214 residents (mean age, 89.7 years) with cancer diagnosed after age 75. The studied parameters were sociodemographic, functional, nutritional and cognitive data; comorbidity assessment; date of tumoral diagnosis; cancer type; tumoral stage; treatment plan; multidisciplinary staff decision and oncologic follow-up. Our results showed that cancer prevalence in NH was 8.4 ± 1.1%, diagnosed before admission in 63% of cases. The most common tumoral sites were skin (26%), digestive tract and breast (18% for both); 12% had metastasis. Cognitive impairment was the most common comorbidity (42%), and 44% of the residents were highly dependent. Multivariate analysis showed that therapeutic decisions were associated with age. Older patients had less staging exploration (odd ratios [ORs], 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.97) and underwent less cancer-specific treatment (ORs, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.86-0.99). Oncologic follow-up was more frequent in younger patients (ORs, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.81-0.99) and those with recent diagnosis (ORs, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.23-0.61). This study identified factors associated with substandard neoplastic management in elderly NH residents. It highlights needs for information, education and training in cancer detection to improve cancer consideration and care in NH.

Adherence to postresection colorectal cancer surveillance at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Guidelines recommend surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), but rates of adherence to surveillance are variable and have not been studied at National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The aim of this study was to determine rates of adherence to standard postresection CRC surveillance recommendations including physician visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT), and colonoscopy after CRC resection at three NCI‐designated centers.

Data on patients with resected CRC from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. Adherence to physician visits was defined as having at least two visits within 14 months after surgical resection. CEA adherence was defined as having at least four CEA levels drawn within 14 months. CT and colonoscopy adherence were defined as completing each between 10 and 14 months from surgical resection. Chi‐square test and logistic regression analyses were performed for overall adherence and adherence to individual components.

A total of 241 CRC patients were included. Overall adherence was 23%. While adherence to physician visits was over 98%, adherence to CEA levels, CT, and colonoscopy were each less than 50%. Center was an independent predictor of adherence to CEA, CT, and/or colonoscopy. Stage III disease predicted CT adherence, while distance traveled of 40 miles or less predicted colonoscopy adherence.

Overall adherence to postresection CRC guideline‐recommended care is low at NCI‐designated centers. Adherence rates to surveillance vary by center, stage, and distance traveled for care. Understanding factors associated with adherence is critical to ensure CRC patients benefit from postresection surveillance.

Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States

Introduction

Guideline-recommended surveillance reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence, yet surveillance rates are low in the United States (US). Little is known about CRC surveillance rates among patients without health insurance and their primary care clinicians/oncologists' attitudes towards surveillance care.

Methods

A retrospective study of 205 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III CRC from 2008-2010 was conducted in an integrated system with a network of providers delivering care to patients lacking health insurance coverage. Surveillance patterns were characterized from medical records and logistic regression models examined correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance. 41 Parkland primary care physicians (PCPs) and 24 oncologists completed surveys to assess their attitudes and practices regarding CRC surveillance.

Results

38% of CRC patients received guideline-concordant surveillance; those with early stage cancers were less likely to receive surveillance (OR=0.35; 95 CI: 0.14, 0.87). PCPs and oncologists differed markedly on who is responsible for cancer surveillance care. 77% of oncologists responded that PCPs evaluated patients for cancer recurrence while 76% of PCPs responded that these services were either ordered by oncologists or shared with PCPs. 67% of oncologists said they rarely provide a treatment and surveillance care plan to survivors and over half said that they infrequently communicate with patients' other physicians about who will follow patients for their cancer and other medical issues.

Discussion

Care coordination between PCP and oncologist is needed to improve CRC surveillance. New models of shared care clearly delineating roles for oncologists and PCPs are needed to improve CRC survivorship care.

Patterns of follow up and survivorship care for people with colorectal cancer in new South Wales, Australia: a population-based survey

Background

The incidence and survival rates for colorectal cancer in Australia are among the highest in the world. With population growth and ageing there are increasing numbers of colorectal cancer survivors in the community, yet little is known of their ongoing follow up and survivorship care experiences. This study investigated patterns and predictors of follow up and survivorship care received and recommended for adults with colorectal cancer in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

Methods

Cross-sectional analysis within the NSW Bowel Cancer Care Survey, a population-based cohort of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer between April 2012 and May 2013 in NSW. One year after diagnosis, participants completed a study specific questionnaire about their follow up and survivorship care experience and plans. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of guideline-recommended care.

Results

Of 1007 eligible people, 560 (56%) participated in the NSW Bowel Cancer Care Survey with 483 (86% of study participants, 48% of invited sample) completing the survivorship survey. Among these 483 participants, only 110 (23%, 95% Confidence Interval CI 19–27%) had received a written follow up plan, with this more common among migrants, non-urban dwellers and those with little experience of the health system. Of 379 (78%) people treated with curative intent, most were receiving ongoing colorectal cancer follow up from multiple providers with 28% (23–32%) attending three or more different doctors. However, less than half had received guideline-recommended follow-up colonoscopy (46%, CI 41–51%) or carcino-embryonic antigen assay (35%, CI 30–40%). Socio-economic advantage was associated with receipt of guideline-recommended care. While participants reported high interest in improving general health and lifestyle since their cancer diagnosis, few had received advice about screening for other cancers (24%, CI 19–28%) or assistance with lifestyle modification (30%, CI 26–34%). Less than half (47%, CI 43–52%) had discussed their family’s risk of cancer with a doctor since their diagnosis.

Conclusions

Survivorship care was highly variable, with evident socioeconomic disparities and missed opportunities for health promotion.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4297-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined factors associated with overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1998 to March 2017. Studies were included if they were written in English, contained original data, involved a US population, and examined factors potentially associated with overuse of CRC screening. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality, and extracted data. In 8 studies, the associations between patient factors, including age, sex, race, and number of comorbidities, were tested and were inconsistently associated with CRC screening overuse. Overuse of screening was greater in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic regions and in urban areas and was lower in academically affiliated centers. Although the literature supports important overuse of CRC screening, it remains unclear what drives these practices. Future research should thoroughly explore these factors and test the impact of interventions to reduce overuse of screening.

Practice variation and practice guidelines: Attitudes of generalist and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants

Objective

To understand clinicians' beliefs about practice variation and how variation might be reduced.

Methods

We surveyed board-certified physicians (N = 178), nurse practitioners (N = 60), and physician assistants (N = 12) at an academic medical center and two community clinics, representing family medicine, general internal medicine, and cardiology, from February—April 2016. The Internet-based questionnaire ascertained clinicians' beliefs regarding practice variation, clinical practice guidelines, and costs.

Results

Respondents agreed that practice variation should be reduced (mean [SD] 4.5 [1.1]; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), but agreed less strongly (4.1 [1.0]) that it can realistically be reduced. They moderately agreed that variation is justified by situational differences (3.9 [1.2]). They strongly agreed (5.2 [0.8]) that clinicians should help reduce healthcare costs, but agreed less strongly (4.4 [1.1]) that reducing practice variation would reduce costs. Nearly all respondents (234/249 [94%]) currently depend on practice guidelines. Clinicians rated differences in clinician style and experience as most influencing practice variation, and inaccessibility of guidelines as least influential. Time to apply standards, and patient decision aids, were rated most likely to help standardize practice. Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (vs physicians) and less experienced (vs senior) clinicians rated more favorably several factors that might help to standardize practice. Differences by specialty and academic vs community practice were small.

Conclusions

Clinicians believe that practice variation should be reduced, but are less certain that this can be achieved. Accessibility of guidelines is not a significant barrier to practice standardization, whereas more time to apply standards is viewed as potentially helpful.

A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance?

METHODS

Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design.

RESULTS

Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study

PURPOSE

We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test.

RESULTS

Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.

Cancer survivorship: Advancing the concept in the context of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Previous conceptualizations of cancer survivorship have focused on heterogeneous cancer survivors, with little consideration of the validity of conclusions for homogeneous tumour groups. This paper aims to examine the concept of cancer survivorship in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

Rodgers' (1989) Evolutionary Method of Concept Analysis guided this study. A systematic search of PUBMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2016 to identify studies of CRC survivorship. The Braun and Clarke (2006) framework guided the analysis and interpretation of data extracted from eighty-five publications.

RESULTS

Similar to general populations of cancer survivors, CRC survivors experience survivorship as an individual, life-changing process, punctuated by uncertainty and a duality of positive and negative outcomes affecting quality of life. However, CRC survivors experience specific concerns arising from the management of their disease. The concept of cancer survivorship has evolved over the past decade as the importance of navigating the healthcare system and its resources, and the constellation of met and unmet needs of cancer survivors are realised.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight core similarities between survivorship in the context of CRC and other tumour groups, but underlines issues specific to CRC survivorship. Communication and support are key issues in survivorship care which may detrimentally affect CRC survivors' well-being if they are inadequately addressed. Healthcare professionals (HCP's) therefore have a duty to ensure cancer survivors' health, information and supportive care needs are met in the aftermath of treatment.

Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer

With the increase in colorectal cancer burden, surveillance following endoscopic and surgical resection is an essential issue. The aim of surveillance programs is improvement of patient survival by early detection of residual tumor tissue or local recurrence, metachronous colorectal tumors, and metastases. Appropriate surveillance should be determined according to this risk of factors. In current guidelines, only surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after endoscopic resection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia, whereas intensive, multimodality surveillance using colonoscopy, radiological imaging and tumor marker measurements is recommended following surgical resection of invasive colorectal cancer. Detailed recommendations, including the timing of surveillance, are described based on high-quality evidence. However, there are still many unresolved issues for which more high-quality evidence is required.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative colonoscopy surveillance strategies to mitigate metachronous colorectal cancer incidence

BACKGROUND

The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer (MCRC) among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors varies significantly, and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance practice for mitigating MCRC incidence is unknown.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to compare the performances of the US Multi-Society Task Force guideline and all clinically reasonable colonoscopy surveillance strategies for 50- to 79-year-old posttreatment CRC patients with a computer simulation model.

RESULTS

The US guideline [(1,3,5)] recommends the first colonoscopy 1 year after treatment, whereas the second and third colonoscopies are to be repeated at 3- and 5-year intervals. Some promising alternative cost-effective strategies were identified. In comparison with the US guideline, under various scenarios for a 20-year period, 1) reducing the surveillance interval of the guideline after the first colonoscopy by 1 year [(1,2,5)] would save up to 78 discounted life-years (LYs) and prevent 23 MCRCs per 1000 patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ≤ $23,270/LY), 2) reducing the intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopies by 1 year [(1,2,4)] would save/prevent up to 109 discounted LYs and 36 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $52,155/LY), and 3) reducing the surveillance intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopy by 1 and 2 years [(1,2,3)] would save/prevent up to 141 discounted LYs and 50 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $63,822/LY). These strategies would require up to 1100 additional colonoscopies per 1000 patients. Although the US guideline might not be cost-effective in comparison with a less intensive oncology guideline [(3,3,5); the ICER could be as high as $140,000/LY], the promising strategies would be cost-effective in comparison with such less intensive guidelines unless the cumulative MCRC incidence were very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The US guideline might be improved by a slight increase in the surveillance intensity at the expense of moderately increased cost. More research is warranted to explore the benefits/harms of such practices. Cancer 2016;122:2560-70. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Tumor size is an independent risk predictor for metachronous colorectal cancer

Non-hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at higher risk of developing independent metachronous CRC than cancer-naïve individuals, but the reason is unknown. We studied metachronous CRC risk factors among one thousand five Japanese CRC patients who underwent surgery for CRC. Relative hazard risk of clinical and pathological features was assessed by univariate and multivariate Cox's proportional hazard regression analysis. Observed metachronous CRC incidence was also compared with the expected cancer incidence of the general population in Japan. Twenty-seven metachronous CRCs developed in 24 patients (2.4%) during a follow-up period of 3,676 person-years. Multivariate analysis revealed two factors associated with a high metachronous CRC risk: synchronous CRC (HR = 6.13; p = 1.3x10(-4)) and tumor size ≥ 6.5 cm (HR = 4.34; p = 1x10(-3)). Patients with either synchronous or large solitary tumors exhibited a higher risk for metachronous CRC than patients with solitary small tumors (HR = 7.3; p = 4.3x10(-6)) and that the general Japanese population (SIR = 7.01; p = 3.5x10(-9)), while patients with solitary small tumors did not (SIR = 1.07; p = 0.8). If patients younger than 60 years were excluded, the observations remained unchanged, with tumor size becoming stronger predictor (HR = 5.67; p = 1.7x10(-4)) than the presence of synchronous CRC (HR = 5.34; p = 9.6x10(-4)). Our novel finding that primary tumor size is a strong independent risk factor for metachronous CRC increases the sensitivity of prediction more than twice the presence of synchronous CRC. Our data provides new insights to assess the risk for metachronous lesions that should improve the surveillance regimen for CRC.

A Formative Study of Colon Cancer Surveillance Care: Implications for Survivor-Centered Interventions

Colon cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States, and an increasing number of survivors has underscored the need for improved colon cancer surveillance care quality. Post-treatment surveillance includes follow-up care visits and tests as well as psychosocial support and lifestyle counseling. This formative study explored the individual, interpersonal, and organizational-level factors related to adherence to surveillance care guidelines to identify modifiable factors for potential educational intervention strategies. A convenience sample of 22 survivors (12 women and 10 men) from two cancer centers were recruited to participate in focus groups or key informant telephone interviews to explore their experiences with care after completing treatment and complete a brief survey. Content analysis was used to identify themes. Results confirmed that survivors navigated a complex surveillance care schedule and described a strong trust in their health care providers that guided their follow-up care experiences. Participants defined the terms "survivorship" and "follow-up" in a variety of different ways. Individual-level themes critical to survivors' experiences included having a positive attitude, relying on one's faith, and coping with fears. Interpersonal-level themes centered around interactions and communication with family and health care providers in follow-up care. While organizational-level factors were highlighted infrequently, participants rated office reminder systems and communication among their multiple providers as valuable. Educational interventions capitalizing on survivors' connections with their physicians and focusing on preparing survivors for what to expect in the next phase of their cancer experience, could be beneficial at the end of treatment to activate survivors for the transition to the post-treatment period.

Trends in surveillance for resected colorectal cancer, 2001-2009

BACKGROUND

Little is known about recent trends in surveillance among the more than 1 million US colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Moreover, for stage I disease, which accounts for more than 30% of survivors, the guidelines are limited, and the use of surveillance has not been well studied. Guidelines were changed in 2005 to include recommendations for computed tomography (CT) surveillance in select patients, but the impact of these changes has not been explored.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who were identified in the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and underwent resection of stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009 was performed. The receipt of guideline-determined sufficient surveillance, including office visits, colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and CT imaging, in the 3 years after resection was evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 23,990 colon cancer patients and 5665 rectal cancer patients. Rates of office visits and colonoscopy were high and stable over the study period. Rates of CEA surveillance increased over the study period but remained low, even for stage III disease. Rates of CT imaging increased gradually during the study period, but the 2005 guideline change had no effect. Stage II patients, including high-risk patients, received surveillance at significantly lower rates than stage III patients despite similar recommendations. Conversely, up to 30% of stage I patients received nonrecommended CEA testing and CT imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be substantial underuse of surveillance for CRC survivors and particularly for stage II patients, who constitute almost 40% of survivors. The 2005 guideline change had a negligible impact on CT surveillance. Conversely, although guidelines are limited, many stage I patients are receiving intensive surveillance.

Optimal delivery of colorectal cancer follow-up care: improving patient outcomes

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. With population aging and increases in survival, the number of CRC survivors is projected to rise dramatically. The time following initial treatment is often described as a period of transition from intensive hospital-based care back into "regular life." This review provides an overview of recommended follow-up care for people with CRC who have been treated with curative intent, as well as exploring the current state of the research that underpins these guidelines. For patients, key concerns following treatment include the development of recurrent and new cancers, late and long-term effects of cancer and treatment, and the interplay of these factors with daily function and general health. For physicians, survivorship care plans can be a tool for coordinating the surveillance, intervention, and prevention of these key patient concerns. Though much of the research in cancer survivorship to date has focused on surveillance for recurrent disease, many national guidelines differ in their conclusions about the frequency and timing of follow-up tests. Most CRC guidelines refer only briefly to the management of side effects, despite reports that many patients have a range of ongoing physiological, psychosocial, and functional needs. Guidance for surveillance and intervention is often limited by a small number of heterogeneous trials conducted in this patient group. However, recently released survivorship guidelines emphasize the potential for the effectiveness of secondary prevention strategies, such as physical activity, to improve patient outcomes. There is also emerging evidence for the role of primary care providers and nurse coordinated care to support the transition and increase the cost-effectiveness of follow-up. The shift in focus from recurrence alone to the assessment and management of a range of survivorship issues will be important for ensuring that this growing group of patients achieves optimal outcomes.

Examining Adherence With Recommendations for Follow-Up in the Prevention Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors Study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of health professionals' recommendations for medical follow-up among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Mailed surveys and telephone interviews with CRC survivors in California.

SAMPLE

593 adults diagnosed with a primary CRC six to seven years before the time of the study.

METHODS

Participants were identified through California Cancer Registry records and invited to take part in a survey delivered via mail or through telephone interview.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

The survey assessed cancer history, current preventive health practices, health status, demographics, and other cancer-related experiences.

FINDINGS

More than 70% of CRC survivors received recommendations for routine checkups, surveillance colonoscopy, or other cancer screenings after completing CRC treatment, and 18%-22% received no such recommendations. Recommendations were sometimes given in writing. Receiving a recommendation for a specific type of follow-up was associated with greater adherence to corresponding guidelines for routine checkups, colonoscopy, mammography, and Papanicolaou testing. Receiving written (versus unwritten) recommendations led to greater adherence only for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CRC survivors reported receiving recommendations for long-term medical follow-up and largely adhered to guidelines for follow-up. Receiving a health professional's recommendation for follow-up was consistently associated with patient adherence, and limited evidence showed that recommendations in written form led to greater adherence than unwritten recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Given the increasingly important role of the oncology nurse in survivorship care, nurses can be instrumental in ensuring appropriate surveillance and follow-up care among CRC survivors. Conveying recommendations in written form, as is done in survivorship care plans, may be particularly effective.

Clinical follow-up does not improve survival after resection of stage I-III colorectal cancer: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of clinical follow-up alongside CT & CEA in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. Despite this, clinical review remains part of most surveillance protocols. This study assessed the efficacy of clinical follow-up in addition to CT/CEA in detecting disease recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for CRC at a single centre between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Follow-up included clinical review, CT and CEA for 5 years. The primary endpoint of the study was method of detection of recurrence. Secondary endpoints included detection of surgically treatable recurrence, compliance with follow-up, disease free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

118 patients with stage I-III CRC were included. Only 68.9% of scheduled follow-up events were performed (76.6% clinical reviews, 76.2% CT scans and 60.4% CEA tests). At median follow-up of 36 months, 26 patients had developed recurrence (median DFS 45.8 months). 17 patients (14.7%) had died (median OS 49.3 months). Sensitivity and specificity of follow up modality in detecting recurrence were; CT (92.3%, 100%), CEA (57.7%, 100%), clinical review (23.0%, 27.2%). Addition of clinical review did not identify any disease recurrence that was not detected by scheduled CT. Eight patients (30.7%) had surgically treatable recurrence - all were identified by scheduled CT.

CONCLUSION

The addition of CEA testing and clinical review to scheduled CT scanning offered no benefit in the detection of recurrent disease. Clinical review could be removed from follow-up protocols without any reduction in the detection of recurrent cancer.

Colorectal cancer surveillance: what's new and what's next

The accumulated evidence from two decades of randomized controlled trials has not yet resolved the question of how best to monitor colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors for early detection of recurrent and metachronous disease or even whether doing so has its intended effect. A new wave of trial data in the coming years and an evolving knowledge of relevant biomarkers may bring us closer to understanding what surveillance strategies are most effective for a given subset of patients. To best apply these insights, a number of important research questions need to be addressed, and new decision making tools must be developed. In this review, we summarize available randomized controlled trial evidence comparing alternative surveillance testing strategies, describe ongoing trials in the area, and compare professional society recommendations for surveillance. In addition, we discuss innovations relevant to CRC surveillance and outline a research agenda which will inform a more risk-stratified and personalized approach to follow-up.

Surveillance instructions and knowledge among African American colorectal cancer survivors

INTRODUCTION

African Americans are less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to receive appropriate surveillance, an important component of care to achieve better long-term outcomes and well-being after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. This study explored survivors' understanding of surveillance instructions and purpose.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Interviews with 60 African American CRC survivors were recorded and transcribed. Compliance with surveillance guidelines was defined by disease stage and self-reported tests. Four coders (blind to compliance status) independently reviewed transcripts. Frequency of themes was reported by compliance status.

RESULTS

Survivors (4 to 6 years postdiagnosis; women, 57%; age ≥ 65 years, 60%; rural location, 57%; early-stage disease, 62%) were 48% noncompliant. Most survivors reported receiving surveillance instructions from providers (compliant, 80%; noncompliant, 76%). There was variation in recommended frequency of procedures (eg, every 3 or 12 months) and in importance of surveillance stressed by physicians. Most survivors understood the need for follow-up (compliant, 87%; noncompliant, 79%). Lack of knowledge of/interest in surveillance was more common among noncompliant individuals (compliant, 32%; noncompliant, 52%).

CONCLUSION

Patients' limited understanding about the importance of CRC surveillance and procedures may negatively affect compliance with recommendations in African American CRC survivors. Clear and enhanced communications about post-treatment recommendations in this population are warranted.

Experiencia del paciente: una nueva forma de entender la atención al paciente oncológico

En el presente trabajo se analiza el concepto de Experiencia del Paciente (PX) así como las variables que contribuyen a la mejora del mismo. El objetivo es explicar su utilidad clínica en el ámbito de la salud, en concreto sobre la población oncológica, además de demostrar el papel activo que la Psicooncología puede tener en la implementación de esta estrategia, en relación directa con la humanización de la asistencia sanitaria. Para ello, se ha revisado la literatura con evidencia empírica existente hasta el momento y que sitúa la experiencia del paciente como un pilar indispensable a la hora de mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica, junto con la efectividad del tratamiento y la seguridad del paciente. Estos elementos presentan una interacción positiva entre ellos y están moderados por la comunicación médico-paciente, lo que evidencia la necesidad de desarrollar habilidades de comunicación por los profesionales en la práctica clínica, la coordinación de la atención sanitaria, el acceso a los servicios y la percepción del paciente respecto a la atención recibida. La experiencia del paciente resulta clínicamente relevante e influyente en la recuperación del estado de salud del paciente, así como constituye un cambio en la cultura sanitaria, cuyo protagonista es el paciente y en torno a él debe girar dicho cambio de manera multidisciplinar e integral por parte de los profesionales sanitarios implicados en su cuidado. Se concluye con una nueva línea de actuación del psicooncólogo en la experiencia del paciente para promover un servicio oncológico de calidad.