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

Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Increased cancer survival leads to more patients requiring oncological follow-up. Debate about how best to coordinate this care has led to the proposed involvement of general practitioners (GPs) rather than continued reliance on hospital care. However, we still require patient opinions to inform this debate.

METHODS

This qualitative interview study explored opinions about organization of follow-up care of patients treated curatively for breast and colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis was applied.

RESULTS

We interviewed 29 patients and identified three themes concerning care substitution: "benefits and barriers," "requirements," and "suitable patient groups." Benefits included accessibility, continuity, contextual knowledge, and psychosocial support. Barriers included concerns about cancer-specific expertise of GPs and longer waiting times. Requirements were sufficient time and remuneration, sufficient training, clear protocols, and shared-care including efficient communication with specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

According to patients with cancer, formal GP involvement appears feasible, although important barriers must be overcome before instituting care substitution. A possible solution are personalized follow-up plans based on three-way conversations with the specialist and the GP after the initial hospital care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With adequate training, time, and remuneration, formal GP involvement could ensure more comprehensive care, possibly starting with less complex cases.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Family and Community Nursing: Protocol for a Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Family and community nurses (FCNs) play a crucial role in delivering primary care to patients within their homes and communities. A key aspect of their role involves various health interventions, which are influenced by their unique competencies, such as health promotion, advanced clinical knowledge, and strong interpersonal skills. However, it is essential to understand which specific health outcomes these interventions impact to better understand the relationship between FCNs' skills and the health results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to outline the steps we will take to develop a set of core outcomes. These outcomes will be particularly sensitive to the health interventions carried out by FCNs, providing a clearer picture of their practice's impact.

METHODS

A Delphi survey will be used for this research, conducted from January to December 2024. The process will involve 5 steps and input from 3 stakeholder categories. These stakeholders will help identify a preliminary list of outcomes that will form the basis of our core outcome set (COS).

RESULTS

This guideline will be beneficial for a wide range of stakeholders involved in COS development, including COS developers, trialists, systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy makers, and patient groups. As of January 2024, we have successfully completed the first stage of the study, with the stakeholder group approving the reported outcomes and assigning participant lists for each stakeholder group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will provide a roadmap for identifying the key health outcomes influenced by the interventions of FCNs. The multistakeholder, multiphase approach will ensure a comprehensive and inclusive process. Ultimately, the findings will enhance our understanding of FCNs' impact on health outcomes, leading to more effective primary care strategies and policies.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/51084.

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review

PURPOSE

A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022.

RESULTS

Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort.

METHODS

We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Survivorship transitions in blood cancer: Identifying experiences and supportive care needs for caregivers

PURPOSE

Survivorship care often refers to continued healthcare after cancer treatment. Jacobsen and colleagues advocated to expand this to include patients on extended treatments and maintenance/prophylactic therapies, recognizing the care continuum as more complex. Transitions of care for individuals diagnosed with a blood cancer can be complicated. We sought to better understand blood cancer caregivers' experiences as their diagnosed family member encountered "survivorship transitions" across the continuum.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with adults caring for a parent or a child with a blood cancer. Caregivers were segmented into survivorship groups based on two transitional contexts: (1) when patients transitioned to a new line of therapy (active treatment or maintenance therapy); (2) when patients ended treatment. We conducted a thematic analysis and triangulated findings to compare transitional experiences.

RESULTS

Caregivers in both groups reported experiencing a "new normal," which included personal, relational, and environmental adjustments. Caregivers in the treatment transitions group (n = 23) also described uncertainty challenges (e.g., losing their "safety net") and disrupted expectations (e.g., feeling "caught off guard" by challenges). Whereas caregivers in the end-of-treatment transitions group (n = 15) described relief coupled with worry (e.g., feeling hopeful yet worried).

CONCLUSIONS

Survivorship transitions for caregivers are riddled with challenges that include difficult readjustments, uncertainty/worry, and unmet expectations. While there seems to be a cohesive experience of "survivorship transitions," each transition group revealed nuanced distinctions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Tailored supportive resources are needed for caregivers throughout survivorship transitions.

Knowledge, Perception, and Skills, and Practices of Oncology Nurses in Cancer Survivorship Care: a Scoping Review

Survivorship care focuses on the well-being and quality of life of people affected by cancer. Oncology nurses play an essential role in survivorship care and must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and competencies to provide survivorship care. This scoping review explored the existing literature on nurses' knowledge, perception, skills, or practices in delivering cancer survivorship care for adult cancer survivors. A scoping review was conducted through databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo in February 2022, following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Fourteen original research studies were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and targeted oncology registered nurses. The studies primarily focused on the knowledge (n = 2, 14.3%), perception of responsibility (n = 8, 57.1%), and practice (n = 9, 64.3%) regarding survivorship care among oncology nurses, reporting widely varied results. Nine studies reported perceived skills, practice, and perceived barriers as the most used outcome measurements, while two assessed nurses' cancer survivorship care knowledge. The main gaps were discrepancies between oncology nurses' perceptions of responsibility and practices in delivering survivorship care. Lack of time, knowledge, and skills were reported as significant factors impeding survivorship care provision among oncology nurses. Limited research shows a gap in integrating knowledge into survivorship care practices among oncology nurses. Further studies are needed to develop educational programs on survivorship care to support the integration of survivorship care into oncology nurses' practice.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164.

CONCLUSIONS

GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Exercise Training in Elderly Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Due to the aging of the population, in 70% of cases, a new cancer diagnosis equals a cancer diagnosis in a geriatric patient. In this population, beyond the concept of mortality and morbidity, functional capacity, disability, and quality of life remain crucial. In fact, when the functional status is preserved, the pathogenetic curve towards disability will stop or even regress. The present systematic review investigated the effectiveness of physical exercise, as part of a holistic assessment of the patient, for preventing disability and improving the patient’s quality of life, and partially reducing all-cause mortality. This evidence must point towards decentralization of care by implementing the development of rehabilitation programs for elderly cancer patients either before or after anti-cancer therapy.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Sarcoma Survivors: Results from the SURVSARC Study

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is often reported as an unmet concern by cancer patients. The aim of our study was to investigate (1) the prevalence of FCR in sarcoma survivors; (2) the factors associated with a higher level of FCR; the relationship between (3) FCR and global health status and (4) FCR and use of follow-up care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among sarcoma survivors 2 to 10 years after diagnosis. Patients completed the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), the global health status subscale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a custom-made questionnaire on follow-up care.

RESULTS

In total, 1047 patients were included (response rate 55%). The prevalence of high FCR was 45%. Factors associated with high FCR were female sex with 1.6 higher odds (95% CI 1.22-2.25; p = 0.001); having ≥1 comorbidities and receiving any treatment other than surgery alone with 1.5 (95% CI 1.07-2.05; p = 0.017) and 1.4 (95% CI 1.06-1.98; p = 0.020) higher odds, respectively. Patients on active follow-up had 1.7 higher odds (95% CI 1.20-2.61; p = 0.004) and patients with higher levels of FCR scored lower on the global health status scale (72 vs. 83 p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe FCR is common in sarcoma survivors and high levels are related to a decreased global health status. FCR deserves more attention in sarcoma survivorship, and structured support programs should be developed to deliver interventions in a correct and time adequate environment.

Quantifying Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Associated With Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship

Importance

Oncologic treatment is costly to the health care system and to individuals, but patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) also have long-term care needs after treatment. Survivors of HNC require specific consideration given their rapidly growing numbers. This subpopulation of cancer survivors often experiences long-term treatment-associated morbidity.

Objective

To describe the total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with HNC survivorship and the risk factors for financial toxicity among this population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective review and economic evaluation of a cohort of US adults with a diagnosis of HNC from 2006 to 2018. The study used data the from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to June 2022.

Exposures

Treatment for HNC.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Total and OOP medical costs were assessed monthly and reported relative to the date of HNC diagnosis. The primary outcome was the difference between a patient's mean monthly survivorship costs (13-60 months after diagnosis) and mean monthly baseline costs (7-12 months before diagnosis). Univariate and multivariable linear regression models were created for total and OOP costs to generate coefficient estimates with 95% CIs.

Results

The study cohort of this economic evaluation included 19 098 patients with HNC (median [range] age, 56 [18-64] years; 14 144 [74.1%] men and 4954 [25.9%] women; race and ethnicity were not considered). Throughout the survivorship period, median total and OOP costs were $372 per month and $31 per month higher than baseline costs, respectively, with variation in expenses by demographic information, health plan type, and oncologic variables. In the multivariable model, greater total and OOP excess survivorship costs were associated with female sex ($343/mo; 95% CI, $126 to $560 and $9/mo; 95% CI, $4 to $14). Highest and lowest total excess survivorship costs associated with cancer site were seen for hypopharyngeal ($1908/mo; 95% CI, $1102 to $2714) and oropharyngeal cancers (-$703/mo; 95% CI, -$967 to -$439) vs oral cavity cancers. Compared with surgery or radiation therapy alone, multimodal treatment was generally associated with excess OOP survivorship costs.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this retrospective economic evaluation review suggest that the costs of HNC survivorship remain persistently elevated above baseline costs for at least 5 years after diagnosis. High survivorship costs were associated with female sex, hypopharyngeal tumors, and treatment with multimodal therapy. Practitioners should seek to minimize costs for these patients at higher-risk of financial toxicity after treatment and work to provide directed supportive services.

Patient experiences of GP-led colon cancer survivorship care: a Dutch mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer survivorship care constitutes both follow-up and aftercare. GP involvement may help to personalise care.

AIM

To explore patients' experiences of GP-led versus surgeon-led survivorship care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients with stage I to III colon cancer were recruited from eight Dutch hospitals and randomised to receive care by either the GP or surgeon.

METHOD

A mixed-methods approach was used to compare GP-led care with surgeon-led care. After 1 year the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used to measure quality aspects of care. Next, interviews were performed at various time points (3-6 years after surgery) to explore patients' experiences in depth.

RESULTS

A total of 261 questionnaires were returned by patients and 25 semi-structured interviews were included in the study. Overall, patients were satisfied with both GP-led and surgeon-led care (ratings 9.6 [standard deviation {SD} 1.1] versus 9.4 [SD 1.1] out of 10). No important differences were seen in quality of care as measured by CQI. Interviews revealed that patients often had little expectation of care from either healthcare professional. They described follow-up consultations as short, medically oriented, and centred around discussing follow-up test results. Patients also reported few symptoms. Care for patients in the GP-led group was organised in different ways, ranging from solely on patient's initiative to shared care. Patients sometimes desired a more guiding role from their GP, whereas others preferred to be proactive themselves.

CONCLUSION

Patients experienced a high quality of colon cancer survivorship care from both GPs and surgeons. If the GP is going to be more involved, patients require a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe

BACKGROUND

The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research.

RESULTS

We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs

Background

Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).

Aim

To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.

Design and setting

A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.

Method

Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.

Results

Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients’ homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.

Conclusion

Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.

Addressing colon cancer patients' needs during follow-up consultations at the outpatient clinic: a multicenter qualitative observational study

Purpose

To describe colon cancer patients’ needs and how healthcare providers respond to these needs during routine follow-up consultations in hospital.

Methods

A multicenter qualitative observational study, consisting of follow-up consultations by surgeons and specialized oncology nurses. Consultations were analyzed according to Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences. Patients’ questions, cues, and concerns were derived from the data and categorized into supportive care domains. Responses of healthcare providers were defined as providing or reducing space for disclosure. Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a short questionnaire.

Results

Consultations with 30 patients were observed. Questions typically centered around the health system and information domain (i.e., follow-up schedule and test results; 92%). Cues and concerns were mostly associated with the physical and daily living domain (i.e., experiencing symptoms and difficulties resuming daily routine; 43%), followed by health system and information (i.e., miscommunication or lack of clarity about follow-up; 28%), and psychological domain (i.e., fear of recurrence and complications; 28%). Problems in the sexuality domain hardly ever arose (0%). Healthcare providers provided space to talk about half of the cues and concerns (54%). Responses to cancer-related versus unrelated problems were similar. Overall, the patients were satisfied with the information and communication received.

Conclusions

Colon cancer patients express various needs during consultations. Healthcare providers respond to different types of needs in a similar fashion. We encourage clinicians to discuss all supportive care domains, including sexuality, and provide space for further disclosure. General practitioners are trained to provide holistic care and could play a greater role.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07222-z.

Improved models of care for cancer survivors

The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.

Adherence to Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines and Health Care Utilization Patterns Among Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Survivors in Singapore

Currently, limited information is available on care provided to breast cancer survivors in Singapore. This study aims to assess the quality of post-treatment cancer survivorship care among breast cancer survivors on the basis of compliance with international guidelines up to 5 years post-primary treatment.

We evaluated the adherence to international breast cancer survivorship care guidelines in Singapore.

[Survivorship care plans for cancer patients: the importance of risk stratification, self-management and health literacy in the age of digital care]

In Deutschland wie allen anderen Industrieländern weltweit nimmt mit einer älter werdenden Bevölkerung und einer verbesserten Krebsfrüherkennung, Diagnostik und onkologischen Behandlung die Zahl der Patienten, die geheilt werden oder lange Zeit mit der Erkrankung leben, deutlich zu (Cancer Survivors). Ein Leben mit und nach einer Krebserkrankung bedeutet für viele Patienten ein Leben mit körperlichen und psychosozialen krankheits- und behandlungsbedingten Langzeit- und Spätfolgen. Angesichts des demografischen Wandels, der steigenden Krebsprävalenz sowie des medizinischen Fortschritts ist eine der dringenden Fragen, wie eine qualitativ hochwertige individualisierte und gleichzeitig finanzierbare Krebsversorgung für älter werdende, häufig multimorbide Patienten sichergestellt werden kann.

Diese Entwicklungen erfordern neben einer Stärkung der Krebsprävention die Erforschung und Umsetzung einer individualisierten Nachsorge im Rahmen von Survivorship-Care-Programmen (SCP). Übergreifende Zielsetzung von SCP ist es, den körperlichen wie psychosozialen Langzeit- und Spätfolgen vorzubeugen bzw. diese zu minimieren, die Mortalität zu senken sowie die Lebensqualität von Patienten zu verbessern. Die Evidenz zur Wirksamkeit von SCP hinsichtlich der Verbesserung patientenberichteter Endpunkte ist bislang nicht eindeutig. Die Bereitstellung von maßgeschneiderten Informationen sowie von risikomodifizierenden und bedarfsorientierten Angeboten auf der Basis einer Risikostratifizierung wird als zentraler Bestandteil bei der Implementierung von SCP angesehen. Dabei nimmt die Förderung von Selbstmanagement- und Gesundheitskompetenzen der Patienten, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Zunahme von digitalen Gesundheitsanwendungen, einen hohen Stellenwert ein.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown.

METHODS

Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome.

RESULTS

In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners

BACKGROUND

With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Defining research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship in Australia: a modified Delphi study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship.

METHODS

A two-round modified online Delphi study was completed by Australian experts in cancer survivorship. Initial priorities were generated from the literature and organized into four research categories: physiological outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, population groups, and health services; and one research infrastructure category. In round 1 (R1), panelists ranked the importance of 77 items on a five-point scale (not at all important to very important). In round 2 (R2), panelists ranked their top 5 priorities within each category. Panelists also specified the type of research needed, such as biological, exploratory, intervention development, or implementation, for the items within each research category.

RESULTS

Response rates were 76% (63/82) and 82% (68/82) respectively. After R1, 12 items were added, and 16 items combined or reworded. In R2, the highest prioritized research topics and the preferred type of research in each category were: biological research in cancer progression and recurrence; implementation and dissemination research for fear of recurrence; exploratory research for rare cancer types; and implementation research for quality of care topics. Data availability was listed as the most important priority for research infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has defined priorities that can be used to support coordinated action between researchers, funding bodies, and other key stakeholders. Designing future research which addresses these priorities will expand our ability to meet survivors' diverse needs and lead to improved outcomes.

Future care for long-term cancer survivors: towards a new model

Purpose

The increase in the prevalence "long-term cancer survivor” (LCS) patients is expected to increase the cost of LCS care. The aim of this study was to obtain information that would allow to optimise the current model of health management in Spain to adapt it to one of efficient LCS patient care.

Methods

This qualitative study was carried out using Delphi methodology. An advisory committee defined the criteria for participation, select the panel of experts, prepare the questionnaire, interpret the results and draft the final report.

Results

232 people took part in the study (48 oncologists). Absolute consensus was reached in three of the proposed sections: oncological epidemiology, training of health professionals and ICT functions.

Conclusion

The role of primary care in the clinical management of LCS patients needs to be upgraded, coordination with the oncologist and hospital care is essential. The funding model needs to be adapted to determine the funding conditions for new drugs and technologies.

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care

OBJECTIVES

The I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients treated with curative intent for stages I-III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed.

RESULTS

Out of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4860.

Effect of general practitioner-led versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care, with or without eHealth support, on quality of life (I CARE): an interim analysis of 1-year results of a randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is associated with an increased risk of physical and psychosocial morbidity, even after treatment. General practitioner (GP) care could be beneficial to help to reduce this morbidity. We aimed to assess quality of life (QOL) in patients who received GP-led survivorship care after treatment for colon cancer compared with those who received surgeon-led care. Furthermore, the effect of an eHealth app (Oncokompas) on QOL was assessed in both patient groups.

METHODS

We did a pragmatic two-by-two factorial, open-label, randomised, controlled trial at eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were receiving primary surgical treatment for stage I-III colon cancer or rectosigmoid carcinoma and qualified for routine follow-up according to Dutch national guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1)-via computer-generated variable block randomisation stratified by age and tumour stage-to survivorship care overseen by a surgeon, survivorship care overseen by a surgeon with access to Oncokompas, survivorship care overseen by a GP, or survivorship care overseen by a GP with access to Oncokompas. Blinding of the trial was not possible. The primary endpoint of the trial was QOL at 5 years, as measured by the change from baseline in the European Organistion for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. Here, we report an unplanned interim analysis of QOL at the 12-month follow-up. Grouped comparisons were done (ie, both GP-led care groups were compared with both surgeon-led groups, and both Oncokompas groups were compared with both no Oncokompas groups). Differences in change of QOL between trial groups were estimated with linear mixed-effects models. A change of ten units was considered clinically meaningful. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4860.

FINDINGS

Between March 26, 2015, and Nov 21, 2018, 353 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. There were 50 early withdrawals (27 patient decisions and 23 GP withdrawals). Of the remaining 303 participants, 79 were assigned to surgeon-led care, 83 to surgeon-led care with Oncokompas, 73 to GP-led care, and 68 to GP-led care with Oncokompas. Median follow-up was 12·2 months (IQR 12·0-13·0) in all groups. At baseline, QOL was high in all trial groups. At 12 months, there was no clinically meaningful difference in change from baseline in QOL between the GP-led care groups and the surgeon-led care groups (difference in summary score -2·3 [95% CI -5·0 to 0·4]) or between the Oncokompas and no Oncokompas groups (-0·1 [-2·8 to 2·6]).

INTERPRETATION

In terms of QOL, GP-led survivorship care can be considered as an alternative to surgeon-led care within the first year after colon cancer treatment. Other outcomes, including patient and physician preferences, will be important for decisions about the type of survivorship care.

FUNDING

Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).

Rationale and Design of a Telehealth Self-Management, Shared Care Intervention for Post-treatment Survivors of Lung and Colorectal Cancer

Survivors of lung and colorectal cancer have high post-treatment needs; the majority are older and suffer from greater comorbidities and poor quality of life (QOL). They remain underrepresented in research, leading to significant disparities in post-treatment outcomes. Personalized post-treatment follow-up care and care coordination among healthcare teams is a priority for survivors of lung and colorectal cancer. However, there are few evidence-based interventions that address survivors' post-treatment needs beyond the use of a follow-up care plan. This paper describes the rationale and design of an evidence-informed telehealth intervention that integrates shared care coordination between oncology/primary care and self-management skills building to empower post-treatment survivors of lung and colorectal cancer. The intervention design was informed by (1) contemporary published evidence on cancer survivorship, (2) our previous research in lung and colorectal cancer survivorship, (3) the chronic care self-management model (CCM), and (4) shared post-treatment follow-up care between oncology and primary care. A two-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial will determine the efficacy of the telehealth intervention to improve cancer care delivery and survivor-specific outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428905.

Outcomes of cancer survivorship education and training for primary care providers: a systematic review

Purpose

To identify published literature regarding cancer survivorship education programs for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess their outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2005 and September 2020. The Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation model were used to summarize program content and outcomes, respectively. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two authors.

Results

Twenty-one studies were included, describing self-directed online courses (n=4), presentations (n=2), workshops and training sessions (n=6), placement programs (n=3), a live webinar, a fellowship program, a referral program, a survivorship conference, a dual in-person workshop and webinar, and an in-person seminar and online webinar series. Eight studies described the use of a learner framework or theory to guide program development. All 21 programs were generally beneficial to PCP learners (e.g., increased confidence, knowledge, behavior change); however, methodological bias suggests caution in accepting claims. Three studies reported positive outcomes at the patient level (i.e., satisfaction with care) and organizational level (i.e., increased screening referrals, changes to institution practice standards).

Conclusions

A range of cancer survivorship PCP education programs exist. Evidence for clinical effectiveness was rarely reported. Future educational programs should be tailored to PCPs, utilize an evidence-based survivorship framework, and evaluate patient- and system-level outcomes.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

PCPs have an important role in addressing the diverse health care needs of cancer survivors. Improving the content, approach, and evaluation of PCP-focused cancer survivorship education programs could have a positive impact on health outcomes among cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01018-6.