Knowledge and Preferences of Primary Care Providers in Delivering Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care

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.

Cancer survivor late-effects, chronic health problems after cancer treatment: what's the evidence from population and registry data and where are the gaps?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Improvements in cancer treatment have led to more people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis but survivors may have increased health problems as they age. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate population data exploring incidence of late effects for cancer survivors.

RECENT FINDINGS

18 studies were identified between 2013 and 2023 that explored the impact on survivors' physical and emotional health. Patients who had been treated at least 2 years previously for cancer had significant cardiovascular risk factors compared with age-matched controls. Women with breast cancer were more likely to have cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, arrythmias and congestive heart failure. This was associated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab as part of systemic anti-cancer therapy. Survivors of colorectal cancer were three times more likely to have acute kidney injury than age-matched controls. Stress and mood disorders were higher in survivors of testicular cancer and prostate cancer.

SUMMARY

Population studies are important to identify the 'real world' consequences of cancer and its treatment beyond clinical trials. Knowledge is critical for managing an ageing cancer population. Data to personalise cancer survivorship care, not only helps determine potential health risks, but can improve secondary prevention, emotional health, recovery, and long-term outcomes.

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

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.

Unmet Needs and Receipt of Supportive Care Services in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Prior to Oncologic Treatment: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the supportive care (SC) needs and receipt of SC services among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients prior to oncologic treatment and to explore the influence of social determinants of health on these outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Newly diagnosed HNC patients were surveyed via telephone prior to oncologic treatment between 10/2019 and 1/2021 using a prospective, cross-sectional, bi-institutional, pilot study design. The primary study outcome was unmet SC needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form34 [SCNS-SF34]). Hospital type (university- vs county safety-net) was explored as an exposure. Descriptive statistics were performed using STATA16 (College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Among 158 potentially eligible patients, 129 were successfully contacted, 78 met the study criteria, and 50 completed the survey. The mean age was 61, 58% exhibited clinical stage III-IV disease, and 68% and 32% were treated at the university and county safety-net hospital, respectively. Patients were surveyed a median of 20 days after their first oncology visit and 17 days prior to initiation of oncology treatment. They had a median of 24 total needs (11 were met and 13 were unmet) and preferred to see a median of 4 SC services but received care from none. County safety-net patients had comparatively more unmet needs than university patients (14.5 vs 11.5, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment HNC patients at a bi-institutional academic medical center report a high number of unmet SC needs with corollary poor receipt of available SC services. Novel interventions to address this significant gap in care are needed.

Implementation barriers and considerations for recommending and administering the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in oncology settings

BACKGROUND

Survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer experience low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates-a crucial form of cancer prevention. Oncology provider recommendations may increase young survivors HPV vaccine intent, but HPV vaccination is not typically provided in the oncology setting. Thus, we explored the implementation barriers of providing the HPV vaccine in oncology.

METHODS

We interviewed oncology providers in a variety of specialty areas about their perceptions of the HPV vaccine and to explore barriers to recommending and administering the vaccine in their clinics. Interviews were audio recorded, quality checked, and thematically analyzed. Emergent themes were then mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

A total of N=24 oncology providers were interviewed. Most provided direct clinical care (87.5%) and most commonly specialized in pediatric oncology (20.8%), medical oncology (16.7%), bone marrow transplant (16.7%), and nurse coordination (16.7%). Two themes emerged within each COM-B domain. Capability: 1) educational barriers to HPV vaccination and 2) complicated post treatment HPV vaccination guidelines.

MOTIVATION

1) perceived importance of HPV vaccine and 2) concern about blurred scope of practice.

OPPORTUNITY

 1) hospital administration and time concern barriers and 2) clinical workflow integration concerns.

CONCLUSION

Implementing HPV vaccination in the oncology setting has the potential to increase HPV vaccination rates among young survivors. Multi-level barriers to providing the HPV vaccine in the oncology setting were identified by participants. Leveraging existing implementation strategies may be an effective way to mitigate provider identified barriers and increase vaccination rates.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

Substance use and mental health burden in head and neck and other cancer survivors: A National Health Interview Survey analysis

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence, alcohol abuse, depression, distress, and other adverse patient-level influences are common in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. Their interrelatedness and precise burden in comparison with survivors of other cancers are poorly understood.

METHODS

National Health Interview Survey data from 1997 to 2016 were pooled. The prevalence of adverse patient-level influences among HNC survivors and matched survivors of other cancers were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluating covariate associations with the primary study outcomes were performed. These included 1) current cigarette smoking and/or heavy alcohol use (>14 drinks per week) and 2) high mental health burden (severe psychological distress [Kessler Index ≥ 13] and/or frequent depressive/anxiety symptoms).

RESULTS

In all, 918 HNC survivors and 3672 matched survivors of other cancers were identified. Compared with other cancer survivors, more HNC survivors were current smokers and/or heavy drinkers (24.6% [95% CI, 21.5%-27.7%] vs 18.0% [95% CI, 16.6%-19.4%]) and exhibited a high mental health burden (18.6% [95% CI, 15.7%-21.5%] vs 13.0% [95% CI, 11.7%-14.3%]). In multivariable analyses, 1) a high mental health burden predicted for smoking and/or heavy drinking (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9), and 2) current cigarette smoking predicted for a high mental health burden (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3). Furthermore, nonpartnered marital status and uninsured/Medicaid insurance status were significantly associated with both cigarette smoking and/or heavy alcohol use (ORs, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.5] and 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.1], respectively) and a high mental health burden (ORs, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 -1.8] and 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2-4.2], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders should allocate greater supportive care resources to HNC survivors. The interdependence of substance abuse, adverse mental health symptoms, and other adverse patient-level influences requires development of novel, multimodal survivorship care interventions.

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.

Identification and management of late dysfunction in survivors of head and neck cancer: Implementation and outcomes of an interdisciplinary quality of life (IQOL) clinic

BACKGROUND

Identifying and treating late dysfunction in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) is important; however, an effective way to do so is not established.

METHODS

A quality improvement initiative altering our HNC survivorship clinic to include surveillance by rehabilitation providers was undertaken. The nature of dysfunction identified, along with the number and type of referrals to ancillary/support services were collected and compared to baseline.

RESULTS

The baseline, single-provider, clinic evaluated 61 patients and referred 2 (3%) to ancillary/support services. Fifty-seven patients were evaluated in the interdisciplinary clinic, with 36 (63%) referred to at least one ancillary/support service for new/progressive dysfunction. Of 59 referrals made, 22 (37%) were for dysphagia, 17(29%) were for neck/shoulder dysfunction, and 28 (47%) were attended by the patient.

CONCLUSION

Many HNC survivors exhibit late dysfunction appropriate for referral to ancillary/support services. A survivorship clinic including surveillance by rehabilitation specialists may optimize identification of dysfunction.

Impact of provider type and number of providers on surveillance testing among survivors of head and neck cancers

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for follow-up after head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment recommend frequent clinical examinations and surveillance testing. Here, the authors describe real-world follow-up care for HNC survivors and variations in surveillance testing.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, this study examined a population-based cohort of HNC survivors between 2001 and 2011 Usage of cross-sectional head and neck imaging (CHNI), chest imaging (CI), positron emission tomography (PET), fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy (FNPL), and, in irradiated patients, thyroid function testing (TFT) was captured over 2 consecutive surveillance years. Multivariate modeling with logistic regression analyses was used to assess variations by clinical factors, nonclinical factors, number and types of providers seen and their evolution over time.

RESULTS

Among 13,836 HNC survivors, the majority saw a medical, radiation, or surgical oncologist and a primary care provider (PCP; 81.7%) in their first year of surveillance. However, only 58.1% underwent either PET or CHNI, 47.8% underwent CHNI, 64.1% underwent CI, 32.5% underwent PET scans, 55.0% underwent FNPL, and 55.9% underwent TFT. In multivariate analyses, patients who followed up with more providers and those who followed up with both a PCP and an oncologist were more likely to undergo surveillance testing (P < .007). However, adjusting for providers seen did not explain the variations in surveillance testing rates based on age, race, education, income level, and place of residence. Over time, there was a gradual increase in the use of PET scans and TFT during surveillance years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large SEER-Medicare data study, only half of HNC survivors received the recommended testing, and greater compliance was seen in those who followed up with both an oncologist and a PCP. More attention is needed to minimize variations in surveillance testing across sociodemographic groups.

Head and neck cancer survivorship from the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

Survivorship is a critical part of head and neck cancer (HNC) care. In order to design better processes, we assessed care provided to long-term HNC survivors and their priorities for ongoing care.

METHODS

A survey was provided to HNC survivors at clinic appointments, including our HNC survivorship clinic. Questions focused on priorities for care in the otolaryngology clinic, types of care provided, and opioid use.

RESULTS

Of 168 respondents, the most common priority for survivors was surveillance for recurrence (first priority in 75%), with general health the next most common (8%). Few respondents reported active primary care involvement in survivorship. About 10% of patients reported current opioid use.

CONCLUSION

Survivors face a large burden of symptoms and deficits, but our data show that most survivors focus on recurrence. Few survivors reported recall of survivorship care plan delivery or discussing cancer care needs with primary care providers.

Improving Interorganizational Coordination Between Primary Care and Oncology: Adapting a Chronic Care Management Model for Patients With Cancer

The objective of this study was to explore the implementation of a payment and delivery system innovation to improve coordination and communication between primary care and oncology. We employed a qualitative case study approach, conducting interviews (n = 18), and reviewing archival materials. Chronic care coordinators and the cancer center social worker acted as boundary spanners. The chronic care coordinator role built on medical home infrastructure, applying the chronic care model to cancer care. Coordination from primary care to oncology became more routinized, with information sharing prompted by specific events. These new boundary spanner roles enabled greater coordination around uncertain and interdependent tasks. Recommendations for scaling up include the following: establish systematic approaches to learning from implementation, leverage existing capacity for scalability, and attend to the content and purpose of information sharing.

Assessing Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Needs, and Preferences for Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Plans

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a "living document." We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

Documentation and incidence of late effects and screening recommendations for adolescent and young adult head and neck cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy

PURPOSE

A retrospective review of adolescent and young adult (AYA) head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) at British Columbia Cancer  was performed to determine the incidence of late toxicities, the documented late side effects discussed and the screening recommendations provided at the time of transfer of care to primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

Charts (n = 162) were reviewed for all patients 15 to 35 years at diagnosis with HNC treated with RT from 1960 to 2010 who survived > 5 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

A discussion regarding the risk of long-term side effects was documented in the initial consultation for 85% of patients. The majority of patients (78%) developed > 1 documented late effect. The most common were xerostomia (44%), skin changes (28%), neck fibrosis (22%), nasal crusting (16%), epistaxis (16%), and dental decay (14%). In all, 20% were currently followed or were followed until they died. Of the 80% transferred to their PCP, 14% had a formal discharge summary. For those discharged from British Columbia Cancer, documented recommendations included regular dental care (34%) and screening for hypothyroidism (5%) and second malignancy (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of AYA HNC patients treated with RT developed late side effects, and most PCPs were not sent a discharge summary outlining screening recommendations for delayed late effects.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

AYA HNC survivors treated with RT are at high risk for late effects and would benefit from a survivorship care plan outlining these risks and screening recommendations.