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

Receipt of follow-up care plans on colorectal cancer screening among breast, prostate, and lung cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to examine whether receipt of follow-up care plans is associated with greater guideline-concordant CRC screening stratified by breast, prostate, and lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

We used data from years 2016, 2018, and 2020 of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System on 3339 eligible treatment-utilizing cancer survivors with complete treatment. We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression to examine the mentioned association.

RESULTS

We observed that 83.9% of breast and 88.2% of prostate cancer survivors with follow-care plans received CRC screening (p-value < 0.001). The lowest CRC screening use was observed among lung cancer (70.8%). In multivariable analysis, receipt of follow-up care plans was strongly associated with greater odds of receiving CRC screening in breast (OR, 2.67; 95% CI: 1.71-4.16) and prostate (OR, 3.81; 95% CI: 2.30-6.31) cancer survivors. Regardless of provider type, 84 to 88% reduced likelihood of receipt of CRC screening when they received follow-up care plans among lung cancer survivors. Among those without follow-up care plans, breast (OR, 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.92) and lung (OR, 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.25) cancer survivors who received care from general practices were less likely to receive CRC screening compared to those who received care from non-general practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of follow-up care plans was associated with greater CRC screening use in breast and prostate cancers. Lung cancer survivors demonstrated lower screening use despite receipt of follow-up care plans.

IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient and provider communication regarding CRC screening recommendation should be included in their follow-up care plans.

FASTOCH: Feasibility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Patients With Cancer-A Multicenter Prospective Study

PURPOSE

Multiple studies have demonstrated that electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) improve overall survival and quality of life in cancer care. However, there are no specific prospective data on remote ePRO monitoring in the older population, although they represent a significant proportion of patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2022, patients age 75 years and older under active anticancer treatment were consecutively recruited in six institutions. Remote ePRO feasibility was determined in intention-to-test (ITT) on the basis of the number of active users in the overall population. Primary failure applied to patients who had no Internet access or declined to test ePROs, while the other patients were assigned to the ITT population. Feasibility was also determined per-protocol on the basis of the number of active patients in the ITT population.

RESULTS

Of the 473 patients included, primary failure applied to 288 patients (233 of whom had no Internet access). Among the 185 patients in ITT, 122 used ePROs, leading to a 26% feasibility in ITT and a 66% feasibility per protocol. In a multivariate analysis, the intent to test population was from a higher socioprofessional category (P = .009) and felt in better general condition in the Geriatric 8-score evaluation (P = .002). Active patients significantly differed from the inactive on their self-assessment of a better general condition (P < .001) only.

CONCLUSION

Our multicenter study showed a limited feasibility rate (26%) of remote ePROs monitoring for older patients with cancer, mainly because of technology barriers. Yet, among the patients who did have Internet access, most of them indeed used ePROs (66%). Given the expected benefit of ePROs, the technology barriers therefore need to be lifted to improve cancer care in older patients.

Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing longevity and advances in treatment have increased the cancer burden in the elderly, resulting in complex follow-up care needs; however, in China, little is known about the follow-up care preferences of these patients. This study quantified older cancer patients' preferences for follow-up care and examined the trade-offs they are willing to make to accept an alternative follow-up model.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted among inpatients aged over 60 years with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, at two large tertiary hospitals in Nantong, China. Preference weights for follow-up care were estimated using mixed logit analysis. Subgroup analysis and latent class analysis were used to explore preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Complete results were obtained from 422 patients (144 with breast cancer, 133 with prostate cancer, 145 with colorectal cancer), with a mean age of 70.81 years. Older cancer patients stated a preference for follow-up by specialists over primary healthcare (PHC) providers ( β = -1.18, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to -0.97). The provider of follow-up care services was the most valued attribute among patients with breast cancer (relative importance [RI] 37.17%), while remote contact services were prioritized by patients with prostate (RI 43.50%) and colorectal cancer (RI 33.01%). The uptake rate of an alternative care model integrating PHC increased compared with the baseline setting when patients were provided with preferred services (continuity of care, individualized care plans, and remote contact services).

CONCLUSION

To encourage older cancer patients to use PHC-integrated follow-up care, alternative follow-up care models need to be based on patients' preferences before introducing them as a routine option.

International Survey of Psychosocial Care for Cancer Survivors in Low-/Middle- and High-Income Countries: Current Practices, Barriers, and Facilitators to Care

PURPOSE

The number of cancer survivors living with and beyond cancer treatment is rising globally. It is fundamental to understand the extent and type of psychosocial care services offered worldwide. We evaluated models of cancer survivorship care, psychosocial care practices in the post-treatment survivorship phase, and barriers/facilitators to delivery of psychosocial care services, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) Survivorship Special Interest Group led a cross-sectional online survey between March and November 2022. Health care professionals and researchers in psycho-oncology were invited through the IPOS global membership, social media, and snowballing. The survey was administered to individuals but included questions related to practices in their country at a national level.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-three respondents from 37 countries participated (40% from LMICs), with a median of 12 years of experience (IQR, 6-20) in the psycho-oncology field. Participants reported that the most common elements of routine survivorship care were related to the prevention/management of recurrences/new cancers (74%), physical late effects (59%), and chronic medical conditions (53%), whereas surveillance/management of psychosocial late effects (27%) and psychosocial/supportive care (25%) were least common. Service availability was more commonly reported in high-income countries (HICs) than LMICs related to reproductive health (29% v 17%), genetic counseling/support (40% v 20%), and identifying/managing distress (39% v 26%) and pain (66% v 48%). Key barriers included providers focusing on treatment not survivorship (57%), medical not psychosocial care (60%), and a lack of allied health providers to deliver psychosocial care (59%).

CONCLUSION

The psychosocial needs of people living with cancer are not adequately available and/or provided in post-treatment survivorship even in HICs, because of barriers at patient, provider, and system levels.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

Supporting Cancer Survivors Following Treatment for Non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility and Process Outcomes of a Nurse-Led Intervention

OBJECTIVE

Lymphoma is the sixth most common cancer in Australia and comprises 2.8% of worldwide cancer diagnoses. Research targeting development and evaluation of post-treatment care for debilitating complications resulting from the disease and its treatment is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led survivorship intervention, post-treatment in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, 3-arm, pilot, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial was used. People with lymphoma were recruited and randomized to the intervention (ENGAGE), education booklet only, or usual care arm. Participants receiving ENGAGE received an educational booklet and were offered 3 consultations (via various modes) with a cancer nurse to develop a survivorship care plan and healthcare goals. Participant distress and intervention acceptability was measured at baseline and 12-wk. Acceptability was measured via a satisfaction survey using a 11-point scale. Feasibility was measured using participation, retention rates, and process outcomes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants with HL and NHL were recruited to the study (11 = intervention, 11 = information only, 12 = usual care). Twenty-seven participants (79%) completed all time points from baseline to 12 wk. Seven (88%) of the 8 participants receiving ENGAGE completed all consultations using various modes to communicate with the nurse (videoconference 14/23, 61%; phone 5/23, 22%; face-to-face 4/23, 17%). Participants who completed the intervention were highly satisfied with ENGAGE.

CONCLUSION

The ENGAGE intervention is feasible and highly acceptable for lymphoma survivors. These findings will inform a larger trial assessing effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ENGAGE.

Implementing a group-based online mental well-being program for women living with and beyond breast cancer - A mixed methods study

PURPOSE

There is a gap in available mental well-being services in Australia for women diagnosed with breast cancer. This pilot mixed-methods uncontrolled study aimed to assess the feasibility of an online mental health and well-being intervention, the Be Well Plan (BWP), which enables participants to create a personalized, flexible well-being strategy.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with stages I-IV breast cancer were recruited into 4 asynchronous groups to participate in the BWP, a 5-week facilitator-led group-based mental health and well-being program. Psychological measures used at baseline and post-intervention included: the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Self-compassion Scale, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, 7-item General Anxiety Disorder scale, and EORC QLQ-C30. Multivariate analysis of variance and effect sizes were calculated on pre- and post-psychological measures, followed by qualitative content analysis on post-completion interviews with participants.

RESULTS

Nineteen women (mean age 45.7, standard deviation = 7.74) were included in the study. Large effect sizes were reported for mental well-being, depressive symptoms, and anxiety (partial ω2 = 0.28, 0.21, and 0.20, respectively). Self-compassion, resilience, and quality of life results were not statistically significant. Qualitative content analysis provided insight into experiences with Program Delivery Experience, Application of the BWP, Mental Health Improvements, Supporter Involvement, Adopted Interventions, and Recruitment. Participants reported benefits in mindfulness, grounding techniques, and physical activities.

CONCLUSION

The BWP has the potential to be an effective intervention to support the mental health and well-being of breast cancer survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

This study highlights flexible interventions that accommodate the diverse needs of breast cancer survivors to improve mental well-being and alleviate psychological distress.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care.

METHODS

We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days.

RESULTS

We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad."

CONCLUSION

Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

BACKGROUND

Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration.

RESULTS

The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration.

DISCUSSION

Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.

METHODS

The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.

FINDINGS

150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.

INTERPRETATION

SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

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.

Cancer survivorship care: challenges and opportunities in Japan

This article discusses the current international scope and practices of cancer survivorship care and the challenges and opportunities of survivorship care in Japan. Cancer is a common illness in Japan; however, the national cancer control plan focuses only on limited survivorship-related issues, and there is no official national-level survivorship care strategy that addresses the diverse unmet needs of survivors. There is an urgent need to discuss and implement measures for quality survivorship care delivery under the current healthcare system in Japan. The Development of Survivorship Care Coordination Model Research Group, 2022, organized under the National Cancer Center Japan research grant from 2019 to 2022, identified four tasks that are required to realize quality survivorship care: (i) providing education opportunities for survivorship care stakeholders to raise awareness about the concept and the necessity of cancer survivorship care, (ii) providing training opportunities and cancer survivorship care certification for community healthcare providers, (iii) enforcing the economic basis of survivorship care and (iv) creating simpler systems that are organically linked with existing care systems. Collaboration among multiple players is indispensable to developing the philosophy of survivorship care and efficient care delivery. For this purpose, we need a platform where diverse players can participate equally towards the same goal: cancer survivors' optimal wellness.

Cancer survivorship programs for patients from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds: a scoping review

PURPOSE

People of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds face disparities in cancer care. This scoping review aims to identify the breadth of international literature focused on cancer survivorship programs/interventions specific to CALD populations, and barriers and facilitators to program participation.

METHODS

Scoping review included studies focused on interventions for CALD cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. Electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Scopus were searched, for original research articles from database inception to April 2022.

RESULTS

710 references were screened with 26 included: 14 randomized (54%), 6 mixed-method (23%), 4 non-randomized experimental (15%), 2 qualitative studies (8%). Most were United States-based (85%), in breast cancer survivors (88%; Table 1), of Hispanic/Latinx (54%) and Chinese (27%) backgrounds. Patient-reported outcome measures were frequently incorporated as primary endpoints (65%), or secondary endpoints (15%). 81% used multi-modal interventions with most encompassing domains of managing psychosocial (85%) or physical (77%) effects from cancer, and most were developed through community-based participatory methods (46%) or informed by earlier work by the same research groups (35%). Interventions were usually delivered by bilingual staff (88%). 17 studies (77%) met their primary endpoints, such as meeting feasibility targets or improvements in quality of life or psychological outcomes. Barriers and facilitators included cultural sensitivity, health literacy, socioeconomic status, acculturation, and access.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive outcomes were associated with cancer survivorship programs/interventions for CALD populations. As we identified only 26 studies over the last 14 years in this field, gaps surrounding provision of cancer survivorship care in CALD populations remain.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Ensuring culturally sensitive and specific delivery of cancer survivorship programs and interventions is paramount in providing optimal care for survivors from CALD backgrounds.

Mitigating long-term and delayed adverse events associated with cancer treatment: implications for survivorship

Despite the importance of chemotherapy-associated adverse events in oncology practice and the broad range of interventions available to mitigate them, limited systematic efforts have been made to identify, critically appraise and summarize the totality of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. Herein, we review the most common long-term (continued beyond treatment) and late or delayed (following treatment) adverse events associated with chemotherapy and other anticancer treatments that pose major threats in terms of survival, quality of life and continuation of optimal therapy. These adverse effects often emerge during and continue beyond the course of therapy or arise among survivors in the months and years following treatment. For each of these adverse effects, we discuss and critically evaluate their underlying biological mechanisms, the most commonly used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for their appropriate management. Furthermore, we discuss risk factors and validated risk-assessment tools for identifying patients most likely to be harmed by chemotherapy and potentially benefit from effective interventions. Finally, we highlight promising emerging supportive-care opportunities for the ever-increasing number of cancer survivors at continuing risk of adverse treatment effects.

The Role of Nurses in the Quality of Cancer Care Management: Perceptions of Cancer Survivors and Oncology Teams

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of cancer survivors and oncology professionals of quality in cancer care and the role of oncology nurses in prompting and maintaining quality across the cancer care continuum.

DATA SOURCES

Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 cancer survivors and 22 healthcare professionals between August and October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti v8 software according to a thematic analysis method based on grounded theory. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) was used to guide the report of the study.

CONCLUSION

Four main themes emerged from the interviews, which are outlined as follows. (1) Patient participation in the cancer care plan: shared information and decision-making; (2) emotional and support aspects in cancer care; (3) continuity in cancer care: from being a patient at the hospital to a survivor in the community; and (4) cancer care management. Cancer survivors pointed to elements that can increase the quality of cancer care, including the ongoing provision of information, support in decision-making, and continuity of care. Oncology staff interviewees mentioned the need for a single staff member to manage the cancer care plan and serve as a case manager for patients and survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have a central role in achieving the highest possible quality of cancer care for the growing number of survivors and their families. It is recommended to expand the role of oncology nurses, providing them the training and competencies needed to formally declare them as care managers throughout the continuum of cancer care.

Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review existing literature on knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2022 for quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality. Outcomes were characterized by domains of quality cancer survivorship care.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were included, representing 28 unique studies; 22 cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 23) and Europe (n = 8). For surveys, sample sizes ranged between 29 and 1124 PCPs. Knowledge and confidence in management of physical (n = 19) and psychosocial effects (n = 12), and surveillance for recurrences (n = 14) were described most often. Generally, a greater proportion of PCPs reported confidence in managing psychosocial effects (24-47% of PCPs, n= 5 studies) than physical effects (10-37%, n = 8). PCPs generally thought they had the necessary knowledge to detect recurrences (62-78%, n = 5), but reported limited confidence to do so (6-40%, n = 5). There was a commonly perceived need for education on long-term and late physical effects (n = 6), and cancer surveillance guidelines (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' knowledge and confidence in cancer survivorship care varies across care domains. Suboptimal outcomes were identified in managing physical effects and recurrences after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These results provide insights into the potential role of PCPs in cancer survivorship care, medical education, and development of targeted interventions.

Survivorship care plans and information for rural cancer survivors

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the amount and type of survivorship care information received by cancer survivors living in rural Australia and whether this varies according to demographic factors or cancer type.

METHODS

Self-reported receipt of a survivorship care plan (SCP) and information on various aspects of survivorship care (e.g., managing side effects, healthy lifestyles, psychosocial advice and monitoring for recurrence) were collected from 215 cancer survivors who had returned home to a rural area in Queensland Australia after receiving cancer treatment in a major city within the previous 5 years (72% in the previous 12 months). Logistic regression was used to assess for differences across demographic factors and cancer type.

RESULTS

Only 35% of participants reported receiving a SCP and proportions of those reporting the receipt of specific information varied from 74% for information on short-term side effects to less than 30% for information on finances, chemoprevention and monitoring for signs of recurrence. No significant differences were found in the receipt of survivorship care information across demographic factors or cancer type.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that cancer survivors living in rural areas are not consistently provided with adequate survivorship care information, particularly that pertaining to long-term health and recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Without improved systems for delivering survivorship care information to patients returning home to rural communities after treatment, these cancer survivors risk missing out on necessary information and advice to maintain their health, wellbeing and long-term recovery.

The Future of Breast Cancer Research in the Survivorship Field

Prevalence of survivors of breast cancer has been steadily increasing in the last 20 years. Currently, more than 90% of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are expected to be alive at 5 years from diagnosis thanks to early detection and breakthrough innovations in multimodal treatment strategies. Alongside this advancement in clinical outcomes, survivors of breast cancer might experience several specific challenges and present with unique needs. Survivorship trajectories after diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can be significantly impacted by long-lasting and severe treatment-related side effects, including physical problems, psychological distress, fertility issues in young women, and impaired social and work reintegration, which add up to patients' individual risk of cancer recurrence and second primary malignancies. Alongside cancer-specific sequelae, survivors still present with general health needs, including management of chronic preexisting or ensuing conditions. Survivorship care should implement high-quality, evidence-based strategies to promptly screen, identify, and address survivors' needs in a comprehensive way and minimize the impact of severe treatment sequelae, preexisting comorbidities, unhealthy lifestyles, and risk of recurrence on quality of life. This narrative review focuses on core areas of survivorship care and discuss the state of the art and future research perspectives in key domains including selected long-term side effects, surveillance for recurrences and second cancers, well-being promotion, and specific survivors' needs.

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.

Uptake of Team Care Arrangements for adults newly diagnosed with cancer

BACKGROUND

Medicare-subsidised Team Care Arrangements (TCAs) support Australian general practitioners to implement shared care between collaborating health professionals for patients with chronic medical conditions and complex needs. We assessed the prevalence of TCAs, factors associated with TCA uptake and visits to TCA-subsidised allied health practitioners, for adults newly diagnosed with cancer in New South Wales, Australia.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective individual patient data linkage study with 13 951 45 and Up Study participants diagnosed with incident cancer during 2006-16. We used a proportional hazards model to estimate the factors associated with receipt of a TCA after cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

In total, 6630 patients had a TCA plan initiated (47.5%). A TCA was more likely for patients aged ≥65years, those with higher service utilisation 4-15months prior to cancer diagnosis, a higher number of comorbidities, lower self-rated overall health status, living in areas of greater socio-economic disadvantage, lower educational attainment and those with no private health insurance. A total of 4084 (61.6%) patients with a TCA had at least one TCA-subsidised allied health visit within 24months of the TCA.

CONCLUSIONS

TCAs appear to be well targeted at cancer patients with chronic health conditions and lower socioeconomic status. Nevertheless, not all patients with a TCA subsequently attended a TCA-subsidised allied healthcare professional. This suggests either a misunderstanding of the plan, the receipt of allied health via other public schemes, a low prioritisation of the plan compared to other health care, or suboptimal availability of these services.

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for navigating breast cancer survivorship care

BACKGROUND

The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).

METHODS

We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.

RESULTS

We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

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.

Long-COVID and long-term cancer survivorship-Shared lessons and opportunities

As of 2022, close to 90 million persons in the United States, 243 million persons in Europe and 585 million worldwide have been infected with the novel SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) virus and survived. Estimates vary but suggest that up to 50% may experience long‐term sequelae, termed ‘Long‐COVID’. While Long‐COVID is a new condition, the phenomenon of disabling long‐term effects following an illness requiring ongoing surveillance and management is not. In this commentary, we discuss how Long‐COVID parallels the experiences of long‐term cancer survivors, highlight shared challenges and offer opportunities to improve research and clinical care for both growing populations of patients as well as other long‐term chronic, disabling conditions.

Factors influencing cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care: results from the pan-Canadian Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition Study survey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer collected survey responses from cancer survivors about their experiences with follow-up cancer care. We included respondents from this survey if they were diagnosed with non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Our primary outcome was cancer survivors' self-reported overall experience with follow-up cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 8402 cancer survivors included in our study, 81.8% (n = 6,875) reported a positive experience with their follow-up cancer care. The individual factors associated with positive overall experiences were more commonly those associated with self-perceptions of respondents' personal health and well-being rather than baseline sociodemographic factors, such as sex, income, or education. For example, respondents were more likely to report a positive experience if they perceived their quality of life as good (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5, p < 0.01) or reported not having an unmet practical concern (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.01). The structural factors most strongly associated with positive overall experiences included respondents perceiving their oncology specialist was in charge of their follow-up cancer care (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.5, p < 0.01) and reporting the coordination of their follow-up cancer care among healthcare providers was good or very good (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.7-10.6, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

While real-world experiences with follow-up cancer care in Canada are reported to be positive by most cancer survivors included in this study, we found differences exist based on individual and structural factors. A better understanding of the reasons for these differences is required to guide the provision of high-quality follow-up care that is adapted to the needs and resources of individuals and contexts.

Support-seeking by cancer caregivers living in rural Australia

OBJECTIVE

Rural cancer caregivers report poor wellbeing and high unmet needs for support. This study investigates sources of support sought by cancer caregivers living in rural Australia, and factors associated with support-seeking.

METHODS

Informal caregivers of people with cancer completed a questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, caregiver factors and support-seeking. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and logistic regression were used to identify common sources of support and factors associated with support-seeking. Alluvial and radar plots were used to identify and describe support-seeking profiles.

FINDINGS

Of 244 rural caregivers, 64% reported seeking support for themselves, 72% for the cancer patient, and 22% did not seek any support. The most common sources of support were general practitioners and online. Higher caregiver burden, higher income, caring for someone with anxiety/depression or caring for someone who has difficulty completing their usual activities were associated with seeking support from a greater number of sources. The 'No support-seekers' profile had the highest proportions of caregivers who were male, caring for someone <12 months post-diagnosis and lower income earners.

CONCLUSIONS

Many rural caregivers seek support for themselves and the cancer patient, commonly from medical and online sources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Further work may be needed to reduce caregiver burden and support caregivers who are male, caring for someone recently diagnosed, and those with lower incomes.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada

After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.

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.

[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.

Feasibility, acceptability, and utility of a nurse-led survivorship program for people with metastatic melanoma (MELCARE)

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapy (TT) have improved the survival of people with metastatic melanoma. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of a novel model of nurse-led, telehealth-delivered survivorship care (MELCARE) for this survivor group.

METHODS

People ≥ 18 years diagnosed with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma who were ≥ 6 months post initiation of ICI/TT with a radiological response suggestive of a long-term response to ICI/TT were recruited from a specialist melanoma centre in Australia. All participants received MELCARE, a nurse-led survivorship program involving two telehealth consultations 3 months apart, needs assessment using the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List, and creation of a survivorship care plan. Feasibility, acceptability, and utility were assessed using rates of consent and study completion, time taken to complete each component of MELCARE, the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), and a customised utility survey.

RESULTS

31/54 (57%) people consented. Participants were male (21, 68%), with a median age of 67 (range: 46-82). Eleven (35%) were receiving/had received ipilimumab and nivolumab and 27 (87%) had ceased treatment. Feasibility was demonstrated with 97% completing MELCARE. Utility was demonstrated on a customised survey and supported by a reduction in the mean DT score (initial: 5.6, SD: 2.9; follow-up: 1.5, SD: 1.2). Acceptability was demonstrated on 3/4 AIM items.

CONCLUSION

MELCARE was feasible and acceptable with high levels of utility. However, the consent rate was 57% indicating some people do not require support. Future studies should consider MELCARE's optimal timing, resourcing, and cost-effectiveness.