Follow-up after colon cancer treatment in the Netherlands; a survey of patients, GPs, and colorectal surgeons

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.

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.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Worldwide, there is an increased focus on reorganizing prostate cancer survivorship care. In this study, we describe for the first time a process evaluation as part of a randomized controlled trial that is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. We found that within an RCT context, 67% patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. Patients who received primary care-based follow-up care experienced this to be more personal, efficient, and sustainable. However, patients, GPs, and specialists also indicated several challenges that are described in this study and should be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Abstract

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

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).

The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study

PURPOSE

To understand the role of routine follow-up visits in addressing prostate cancer survivors' supportive care and information needs.

METHODS

We audio-recorded follow-up visits of 32 prostate cancer survivors. Follow-up visits were analyzed according to the Verona Network of Sequence Analysis. We categorized survivors' cues, concerns, and questions into five supportive care domains and divided the responses by the healthcare professionals into providing versus reducing space that is to determine whether or not the response invites the patient to talk more about the expressed cue or concern.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer survivors mostly expressed cues, concerns, and questions (in the health system and information domain) about test results, potential impotence treatment, follow-up appointments, and (their) cancer treatment during follow-up visits. Survivors also expressed urinary complaints (physical and daily living domain) and worry about the recurrence of prostate cancer (psychological domain). Healthcare professionals were two times more likely to provide space on cues and concerns related to the physical and daily living domain than to psychological related issues.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up visits can serve to address prostate cancer survivors' supportive care and information needs, especially on the health system, information, and physical and daily living domain. Survivors also expressed problems in the psychological domain, although healthcare professionals scarcely provided space to these issues. We would like to encourage clinicians to use these results to personalize follow-up care. Also, these data can be used to develop tailored (eHealth) interventions to address supportive care and information needs and to develop new models of survivorship care delivery.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

Analysis of factors potentially predicting prognosis of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of the prognosis after colorectal cancer surgery is of great significance in patients with colorectal cancer. However, there is no systematic analysis of factors affecting the prognosis of colorectal cancer currently.

AIM

To systematically analyze the influence of clinical data and serological and histological indicators on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer, and to explore the indicators that can accurately assess the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 374 patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled. The clinical data, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and Dukes stage were recorded. All patients received examinations including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 199, C-reactive protein, albumin, D-dimer, and fibrinogen as well as routine blood tests one week before surgery. The tumor location, size, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis were recorded during surgery. The pathological tissue typing and expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and p53 were observed. All patients were followed for 3 years, and patients with endpoint events were defined as a poor prognosis group, and the remaining patients were defined as a good prognosis group. The differences in clinical data, serology, and histology were analyzed between the two groups. Multivariate COX regression was used to analyze the independent influencing factors for the prognosis of colorectal cancer. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of each of the independent influencing factors and their combination for the prognosis of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

The follow-up outcomes showed that 81 patients were in the good prognosis group and 274 patients in the poor prognosis group. The TNM stage, PCNA, Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR), D-dimer, and CEA were independent influencing factors for the prognosis of colorectal cancer (P = 0.000). NLR had the highest predictive power for colorectal cancer prognosis [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.925], followed by D-dimer (AUC = 0.879) and GPS (AUC = 0.872). The accuracy of the combination of all indicators in predicting the prognosis of colorectal cancer was the highest (AUC = 0.973), which was significantly higher than that of any of the indicators alone (P < 0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the combination were 92.59% and 90.51%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The independent influence factors for the prognosis of colorectal cancer include TNM stage, PCNA, GPS, NLR, CAR, D-dimer, and CEA. The combined assessment of the independent factors is the most accurate predictor of the prognosis after colorectal cancer surgery.

Experiences of general practitioners participating in oncology meetings with specialists to support GP-led survivorship care; an interview study from the Netherlands

Background: Due to ageing, increasing cancer incidence and improved treatment, the number of survivors of cancer increases. To overcome the growing demand for hospital care survivorship by the involvement of the general practitioner (GP) has been suggested. Dutch GPs started a project to offer survivorship care to their patients with the help of monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists.

Objectives: To evaluate the experiences of GPs with monthly oncology meetings in a GP-practice to support GP-led survivorship care of colon cancer patients.

Methods: This is a qualitative study in primary care centres in a region in the Netherlands around one hospital. GPs were recruited from practices organizing monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists. Ten of 15 participating GPs were interviewed until saturation. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and two independent researchers analysed the data.

Results: The oncology meetings and individual care plans attributed to a feeling of shared responsibility for the patients by the GP and the specialist. The meetings helped the GPs to be informed about the patients in the diagnostic and treatment phase, which was followed by a clear moment of transfer from hospital to primary care. GPs were better equipped to treat comorbidity and were more confident in providing survivorship care. Due to lack of reimbursement for survivorship care, the internal motivation of the GP must high.

Conclusion: The oncology meetings fulfil the need for information and communication. Close cooperation between GPs and oncology specialists appears to be an essential factor for GPs to value GP-led survivorship care positively.

Colorectal cancer patients' preferences for type of caregiver during survivorship care

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are currently included in a secondary care-led survivorship care programme. Efforts are underway to transfer this survivorship care to primary care, but met with some reluctance by patients and caregivers. This study assesses (1) what caregiver patients prefer to contact for symptoms during survivorship care, (2) what patient factors are associated with a preferred caregiver, and (3) whether the type of symptom is associated with a preferred caregiver.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of CRC survivors at different time points. For 14 different symptoms, patients reported if they would consult a caregiver, and who they would contact if so. Patient and disease characteristics were retrieved from hospital and general practice records.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty patients participated (response rate 54%) of whom the average age was 67, 54% were male. The median time after surgery was seven months (range 0-60 months). Patients were divided fairly evenly between tumour stages 1-3, 33% had received chemotherapy. Men, patients older than 65 years, and patients with chronic comorbid conditions preferred to consult their general practitioner (GP). Women, patients with stage 3 disease, and patients that had received chemotherapy preferred to consult their secondary care provider. For all symptoms, patients were more likely to consult their GP, except for (1) rectal blood loss, (2) weight loss, and (3) fear that cancer had recurred, in which case they would consult both their primary and secondary care providers. Patients appreciated all caregivers involved in survivorship care highly; with 8 out of 10 points.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC survivors frequently consult their GP in the current situation, and for symptoms that could alarm them to a possible recurrent disease consult both their GP and secondary care provider. Patient and tumour characteristics influence patients' preferred caregiver.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

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

Need for general practitioner involvement and eHealth in colon cancer survivorship care: patients' perspectives

BACKGROUND

As colon cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic illness with a broad range of symptoms, there is a need for individually tailored care for these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients' opinions about GP involvement in survivorship care and the use of eHealth applications, such as Oncokompas2.0, to support self-management. Oncokompas2.0 is an interactive website that monitors quality of life via participant-reported outcomes and provides feedback and personalized supportive care.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients diagnosed with stages I-III colon cancer treated with curative intent. Twenty participants (nine men, age range 49-86 years) were recruited in five Dutch hospitals by purposive sampling. Thematic data analysis was done by two coders.

RESULTS

Possible benefits of greater GP involvement include better accessibility of care and additional guidance. Participants considered an increased workload for the already busy GP as a disadvantage. Requirements for greater GP involvement were assurance of sufficient knowledge and expertise of the GP and easy access to secondary care. Most participants expected that Oncokompas2.0 would increase awareness of symptoms and concerns and provide more insight into support possibilities. Reservations mentioned were the expected loss of personal contact with health professionals and the feasibility of implementation in the total patient population.

CONCLUSION

Colon cancer patients see some benefit of greater GP involvement and the use of Oncokompas2.0 to improve survivorship care. Our study results support initiatives to further explore GP-led survivorship care and the implementation of eHealth.

Review of guidance on recurrence risk management for general practitioners in breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma guidelines

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) will face cancer recurrences more frequently due to the rising number of cancer survivors and greater involvement of GPs in the follow-up care. Currently, GPs are uncertain about managing recurrence risks and may need more guidance.

OBJECTIVE

To explore what guidance is available for GPs on managing recurrence risks for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, and to examine whether recurrence risk management differs between these tumour types.

METHODS

Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma clinical practice guidelines were identified via searches on internet and the literature, and experts were approached to identify guidelines. Guidance on recurrence risk management that was (potentially) relevant for GPs was extracted and summarized into topics.

RESULTS

We included 24 breast cancer, 21 colorectal cancer and 15 melanoma guidelines. Identified topics on recurrence risk management were rather similar among the three tumour types. The main issue in the guidelines was recurrence detection through consecutive diagnostic testing. Guidelines agree on both routine and nonroutine tests, but, recommended frequencies for follow-up are inconsistent, except for mammography screening for breast cancer. Only six guidelines provided targeted guidance for GPs.

CONCLUSION

This inventory shows that recurrence risk management has overlapping areas between tumour types, making it more feasible for GPs to provide this care. However, few guidance on recurrence risk management is specific for GPs. Recommendations on time intervals of consecutive diagnostic tests are inconsistent, making it difficult for GPs to manage recurrence risks and illustrating the need for more guidance targeted for GPs.

Patients' views on general practitioners' role during treatment and follow-up of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

To clarify experiences and preferences of patients regarding the current and future role of GPs during treatment and follow-up care of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured, audio-recorded, face-to-face interviews in patients' homes in the north of the Netherlands were performed. Patients were sampled purposively on age, gender, time since diagnoses and primary health care use. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically by two independent researchers until saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were interviewed. GPs played a significant and highly valued role directly after surgery by proactively contacting their patients and offered support in clarification of medical issues, lifestyle advice and care for treatment-related side effects. During follow-up, GPs provided psychosocial support for patients and family members, besides routine health care. Concerning the organization of future follow-up care, most patients expressed a preference for specialist-led services; some said that primary care-led care would be more accessible and less expensive.

CONCLUSION

Although at present patients perceived their GP is involved in CRC care, they would prefer their follow-up care in a hospital setting. If, in line with recent insights, future follow-up care might become more relying on testing for markers instead of imaging, there may be scope for incorporating this care in current GP routines.

Optimizing endometrial cancer follow-up and survivorship care for rural and other underserved women: Patient and provider perspectives

OBJECTIVES

This study describes patient and provider attitudes on transitioning cancer surveillance visits and treatment of comorbid conditions to the primary care setting in a rural patient population as a strategy for minimizing financial and travel related barriers for patients while simultaneously enhancing quality and availability of health care options.

METHODS

Focus group discussions and telephone interviews were conducted with endometrial cancer (EC) survivors and primary care providers (PCPs) to provide insights into post-treatment follow-up practices and the acceptability of transitioning follow-up to primary care setting utilizing a cancer survivorship care plan model.

RESULTS

EC survivors expressed high levels of satisfaction with their oncology care and suggested that transitioning to PCPs for follow-up care would be convenient yet challenging. Challenges cited include: 1) patient perceptions of deficits in PCP's understandings of cancer surveillance; 2) inability to identify a personal PCP; and 3) lack of communication between oncologists and PCPs. PCP participants similarly identified the need for extensive EC training and effective communication strategies with oncologists as necessary factors for accepting responsibility for EC follow-up care. Both groups offered strategies to create a more team based approach to EC survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the role of the PCP in the ongoing care of EC survivors was generally considered acceptable by both patients and providers in both rural and urban women. Successful coordination of care between cancer survivors, oncologists and PCPs will be a critical step in improving the cancer care delivery of our rural patient and provider population.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As survival rates improve, cancer is increasingly considered a chronic illness associated with significant long-term burden and sequelae, both physical and psychological. Various models of cancer care, including primary care physician (PCP)-led and shared-care, have been proposed, though a systematic review of PCPs' perspectives of their role and challenges in providing cancer care remains lacking. This systematic review summarises available literature on PCPs' perspectives of their role in cancer care.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH headings for articles from 1993-2015 exploring PCPs' views of their role in the care of patients/survivors of both child and adult cancers. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for full-text review, abstracted data and performed a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles representing the perspectives of 10,941 PCPs were captured. PCPs' confidence to provide care varied according to cancer phase (e.g. treatment versus survivorship), care domain (e.g. acute medical care versus psychological late effects), and disease prevalence (e.g. breast malignancies versus childhood cancers), with preferences for shared- versus independent-care models varying accordingly. Barriers included a lack of timely and specific information/communication from oncologists and limited knowledge/lack of guidelines, as well as lack of time, remuneration and patient trust.

LIMITATIONS

The data was limited by a lack of consideration of the preferences of patients and oncologists, leading to uncertainty about the acceptability and feasibility of suggested changes to cancer care.

DISCUSSION

PCPs appear willing to provide cancer care for patients/survivors; however, they report barriers and unmet needs related to providing such care. Future research/interventions should take into account the preferences and needs of PCPs.

Caring for cancer survivors: perspectives of oncologists, general practitioners and patients in Italy

AIM

The present survey investigates the views of medical oncologists, general practitioners (GPs) and patients about the various surveillance strategies.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted in Italy on a population of 329 medical oncologists, 380 GPs and 350 patients.

RESULTS

Most of GPs (n = 291; 76%) claim that follow-up should be provided by the collaboration between GPs and medical oncologists. Most medical oncologists report to have a poor relationship with GPs (n = 151; 46%) or no relationships at all (n = 14; 4%). Most patients believe there is no real collaboration between medical oncologists and GPs (n = 138; 54%).

CONCLUSION

GPs, medical oncologists and patients share the idea that the collaboration between oncologists and GPs for surveillance of cancer survivors is poor and should be improved.

The role of the GP in follow-up cancer care: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to explore the role of the general practitioners, family physicians and primary care physicians (GP) in the provision of follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for primary research focussing on the role of the GP from the perspective of GPs and patients. Data were extracted using a standardised form and synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The initial search generated 6487 articles: 25 quantitative and 33 qualitative articles were included. Articles focused on patients' and GPs' perspectives of the GP role in follow-up cancer care. Some studies reported on the current role of the GP, barriers and enablers to GP involvement from the perspective of the GP and suggestions for future GP roles. Variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector exist. However, GPs and patients across the included studies supported a greater GP role in follow-up cancer care. This included greater support for care coordination, screening, diagnosis and management of physical and psychological effects of cancer and its treatment, symptom and pain relief, health promotion, palliative care and continuing normal general health care provision.

CONCLUSION

While there are variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector, GPs and patients across the reviewed studies supported a greater role by the GP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Greater GP role in cancer care could improve the quality of patient care for cancer survivors. Better communication between the tertiary sector and GP across the cancer phases would enable clear delineation of roles.

Primary care-led survivorship care for patients with colon cancer and the use of eHealth: a qualitative study on perspectives of general practitioners

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) regarding their current and future role in survivorship care of patients with colon cancer, and to assess their perspectives on patients' self-management capacities and the value of the eHealth application Oncokompas(2.0) used by patients.

SETTING

GPs from the central part of the Netherlands were interviewed at their location of preference.

PARTICIPANTS

20 GPs participated (10 men, 10 women, age range 34-65 years, median age 49.5 years). The median years of experience as a GP was 14.5 years (range 3-34 years).

RESULTS

GPs indicated attempting to keep in contact with patients after colon cancer treatment and mentioned being aware of symptoms of recurrent disease. Most participants would have liked to be more involved and expected to be able to provide survivorship care of colon cancer. Requirements mentioned were agreements with secondary care and a protocol. GPs considered Oncokompas(2.0), which stimulates patients to structure their own survivorship care, as a useful additional tool for a specific group of patients (ie, young and highly-educated patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the perspectives of the GPs, survivorship care of colon cancer in primary care is deemed feasible and the use of an eHealth application such as Oncokompas(2.0) is expected to benefit specific groups of patients after colon cancer treatment.

Improving care after colon cancer treatment in The Netherlands, personalised care to enhance quality of life (I CARE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

It is expected that in 2020 more than 17,000 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in The Netherlands. To date, patients are included in a surgeon-led follow-up programme whose main focus is recurrence detection. However, patients often experience multiple physical and psychosocial problems. Currently, these problems are not always encountered. More care by a generalist is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, patients prefer to undergo rehabilitation in their own environment and to be more involved in their own health care. eHealth applications might enhance this. Oncokompas^2.0 is an online self-management application which facilitates access to supportive care. This study aims to evaluate primary care follow-up and aftercare in comparison with secondary care follow-up and aftercare for patients with colon cancer. Second, the added value of Oncokompas^2.0 to care will be assessed.

Methods/Design

This is a multi-centre 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial with a calculated sample size of 300 patients. Patients with stage I, II, or III colon carcinoma are eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned in four groups: (1) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care, (2) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care with additional use of Oncokompas^2.0, (3) follow-up and aftercare in primary care, and (4) follow-up and aftercare in primary care with additional use of Oncokompas^2.0. The primary outcome is quality of life. Secondary outcomes include physical outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, number of investigations, referrals and related communication between secondary and primary care, (time of) recurrence detection and protocol adherence, attention to preventive care, self-management of patients, patient satisfaction, and preference of care at the end of the trial. Data collection will be done by questionnaires and extractions from electronic medical records.

Discussion

The results of this study will provide evidence, which has been scarce to date, on prominent general practitioner involvement in care for colon cancer patients after initial treatment. Also, it evaluates the efficacy of an eHealth application to enhance patient empowerment.

Dutch trial register

NTR4860 (registered on 2 October 2014)

Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefit from general practitioner support? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature.

METHODS

Studies were sourced from six academic databases - AustHealth (n = 202), CINAHL (n = 500), the Cochrane Library (reviews and trials; n = 200), Embase (n = 368), PHCRIS (n = 132) and PubMed/Medline (n = 410). Studies that focused on interventions designed for patients receiving follow-up care and reported cancer care provided by a general practitioner delivered alongside specialist care were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 papers were identified as relevant for this review (3 randomised control trials; 4 cross-sectional, 5 cohort and 3 qualitative studies, and 3 systematic reviews). The reviewed studies indicated that providing general practitioner-led supportive interventions for post-treatment care of cancer patients is feasible and acceptable to patients. General practitioner involvement resulted in improved physical and psychosocial well-being of patients and continuity of care, especially for patients with concomitant health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Involving general practitioners in post-treatment cancer care is beneficial to patients. However, proactive initiatives that encourage and facilitate patients to consult their general practitioner about their needs or symptoms of recurrence should be considered.