Implementation of nationwide cancer survivorship plans: Experience from the UK

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.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US

Importance

Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors.

Objective

To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019.

Results

The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

Early-Onset Cancers in Adults: A Review of Epidemiology, Supportive Care Needs and Future Research Priorities

Rising incidence of specific types of early-age onset cancers in adults aged 18-49 years has been reported in high-income countries. In this review, we summarise the epidemiology of early-onset cancers using exemplar data from a high-income UK region, discuss supportive care needs for young patients and outline future research directions. The incidence rate of early-onset cancers increased by 20.5% from 1993 to 2019 in Northern Ireland. Differences in types of cancer were observed between sexes and across age groups of 18-29, 30-39 and 40-49 years. One and five-year net survival was mostly better in 18-29-year-olds for all cancers combined compared to older age groups for both sexes, but there were variations in specific cancer types. Poorer survival was observed for patients with brain/central nervous system, connective and soft tissue or lung cancers. Patients with early-onset cancers face unique supportive care needs and require holistic care. The impact of cancer treatment on fertility and fertility preservation treatments is an important consideration. Social media can be used for patient support, information, fundraising, advocacy work and recruitment to research studies. We also outline suggested future research priorities for early-onset cancers, spanning prevention, diagnosis, treatment and supportive care needs.

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.

Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care

Transitioning survivorship care from oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs) is a reasonable alternative to oncologist-led care. This study assessed oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding sharing/transitioning survivorship care. A prospective survey of oncologists within a regional cancer program assessing self-reported barriers and facilitators to sharing/transitioning survivorship care was disseminated. In total, 63% (n = 39) of surveyed oncologists responded. Patient preference (89%) and anxiety (84%) are key to transition of care decisions; reduced remuneration (95%) and fewer longitudinal relationships (63%) do not contribute. Oncologists agreed that more patients could be shared/transitioned. Barriers include treatment-related toxicities (82% agree), tumor-specific factors (60–90% agree) and perception of PCP willingness to participate in survivorship care (47% agree). Oncologists appear willing to share/transition more survivors to PCPs, though barriers exist that warrant further study. Understanding these issues is critical to developing policies supporting comprehensive survivorship care models that address both cancer and non-cancer health needs. The demonstrated feasibility of this project warrants a larger-scale survey of oncologists with respect to the transition of survivorship care to PCPs, to further inform effective interventions to support high-quality survivorship care.

'Still living with it even though it's gone': Using interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore shared experiences of living with and beyond breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Living with and beyond cancer is an increasingly common experience. While research is uncovering valuable individual experiences of those living with and beyond cancer, it has been argued that this idiographic approach is limited in outlook, reach and impact. This study contributes to the understanding of what it means to live with and beyond cancer by complementing idiographic knowledge with multiple perspectives from a group of participants who are living with and beyond cancer, to explore how individual experiences may be relevant to others.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had received treatment for breast (n = 6), prostate (n = 6) or colorectal cancer (n = 6). Data were analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The early findings were then shared with a wider group of people who had received treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer (n = 26) in six focus groups, to explore whether they had similar experiences.

RESULTS

While individual accounts of living with and beyond cancer detail unique features specific to each person's experience, focus group discussions illustrated how participant life worlds interact and overlap. The findings identified thematic similarities within and between individual and group levels and across cancer types. Three super-ordinate themes describe the shared experience of living with and beyond cancer: i) the cancer shock, ii) managing cancer and getting through and iii) getting over cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

A multiple perspective approach informs our understanding of shared experiences of living with and beyond cancer. This knowledge can be used to direct, design, and deliver relevant supportive cancer care.

What are the holistic experiences of adults living long-term with the consequences of cancer and its treatment? A qualitative evidence synthesis

PURPOSE

The number of people living with and beyond cancer is increasing; a significant number of these people will experience the long-term and late effects of cancer and its treatment. Research into this group has been identified as a priority to better understand healthcare needs. This review identified and synthesised qualitative research data relating to the lived experience of the consequences of cancer and its treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search via electronic databases was conducted in July 2019. Literature was identified that explored the experience of adults living beyond cancer from their own perspective. Thematic synthesis was used to extract and analyse data.

RESULTS

Six articles were reviewed. Three main themes were identified with four subthemes:1. Living with an altered sense of self; 2. Things are never going to be quite the same again (2.1. The unexpected. 2.2 The uncertain.); 3. Ways of coping with the unexpected and the uncertain. (3.1. Drawing on internal resilience. 3.2. The influence and impact of external relationships.). The findings showed that the participants' world-view changed after cancer and this affected everyday lives both positively and negatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience of having had cancer remains significant long after diagnosis and treatment, yet effective preparation and ongoing support for living beyond cancer is lacking. The experience of living long-term after cancer is characterised by an altered sense of self and has implications for long-term wellbeing. Further research should explore healthcare needs and services required to adequately meet the needs of this growing group of people.

Quality of life and mental health in breast cancer survivors compared with non-cancer controls: a study of patient-reported outcomes in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

There is limited high-quality evidence on quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in breast cancer survivors and women with no history of cancer. We aimed to address this by comparing patient-reported outcomes between breast cancer survivors and women with no history of breast cancer.

METHODS

Breast cancer survivors and women with no prior cancer were selected from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database, which includes population-based primary care electronic health record data. Breast cancer survivors and controls were frequency matched by age and primary care practice. Outcomes were assessed with validated instruments via postal questionnaire. Linear and logistic regression models were fitted to estimate adjusted associations between breast cancer survivorship and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 356 breast cancer survivors (8.1 years post diagnosis) and 252 women with no prior cancer participated in the study. Compared with non-cancer controls, breast cancer survivors had poorer QoL in the domains of cognitive problems (adjusted β (aβ) = 1.4, p = 0.01), sexual function (aβ = 1.7, p = 0.02) and fatigue (aβ = 1.3, p = 0.01), but no difference in negative feelings, positive feelings, pain, or social avoidance. Breast cancer survivors had higher odds of borderline-probable anxiety (score ≥ 8) (adjusted OR = 1.47, 95%CI:1.15-1.87), but no differences in depression. Advanced stage at diagnosis and chemotherapy treatment were associated with poorer QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with women with no history of cancer, breast cancer survivors report more problems with cognition, sexual function, fatigue, and anxiety, particularly where their cancer was advanced and/or treated with chemotherapy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Breast cancer survivors with more advanced disease and/or treated with chemotherapy should be closely monitored and, when possible, offered evidence-based intervention for fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and sexual problems.

Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted.

RESULTS

Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.

Building Personalized Cancer Follow-up Care Pathways in the United States: Lessons Learned From Implementation in England, Northern Ireland, and Australia

There is a global need to transform cancer follow-up care to address the needs of cancer survivors while efficiently using the health care system to limit the effects of provider shortages, gaps in provider knowledge, and already overburdened clinics; improve the mental health of clinicians; and limit costs to health care systems and patients. England, Northern Ireland, and Australia are implementing an approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways depending on the types and levels of resources needed for patients' long-term care that has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. This article discusses lessons learned from these implementation efforts, identifying the necessary components of these care models and barriers and facilitators to implementation of this care. Specifically, the United States and other countries looking to transform follow-up care should consider how to develop six key principles of this care: algorithms to triage patients to pathways; methods to assess patient issues to guide care; remote monitoring systems; methods to support patients in self-management; ways to coordinate care and information exchange between oncology, primary care, specialists, and patients; and methods to engage all stakeholders and secure their ongoing buy-in. Next steps to advance this work in the United States are discussed.

Implementing personalized pathways for cancer follow-up care in the United States: Proceedings from an American Cancer Society-American Society of Clinical Oncology summit

A new approach to cancer follow-up care is necessary to meet the needs of cancer survivors while dealing with increasing volume and provider shortages, knowledge gaps, and costs to both health care systems and patients. An approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways, depending on the type(s) and level(s) of resources needed for patients' long-term care, is in use in the United Kingdom and other countries and has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. Recognizing that testing and implementing a similar personalized approach to cancer follow-up care in the United States will require a multipronged strategy, the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a summit in January 2018 to identify the needed steps to move this work from concept to implementation. The summit identified 4 key strategies going forward: 1) developing a candidate model (or models) of care delivery; 2) building the case for implementation by conducting studies modeling the effects of personalized pathways of follow-up care on patient outcomes, workforce and health care resources, and utilization and costs; 3) creating consensus-based guidelines to guide the delivery of personalized care pathways; and 4) identifying and filling research gaps to develop and implement needed care changes. While these national strategies are pursued, oncology and primary care providers can lay the groundwork for implementation by assessing their patients' risk of recurrence and the chronic and late effects of cancer as well as other health care needs and resources available for care and by considering triaging patients accordingly, referring patients to appropriate specialized survivorship clinics as these are developed, helping to support patients who are capable of self-managing their health, setting expectations with patients from diagnosis onward for the need for follow-up in primary care and/or a survivorship clinic, and improving coordination of care between oncology and primary care.