Which patients with colorectal cancer are followed up by general practitioners? A population-based study

Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.

The experiences of cancer survivors while transitioning from tertiary to primary care

PURPOSE

In current fiscally constrained health care systems, the transition of cancer survivors to primary care from tertiary care settings is becoming more common and necessary. The purpose of our study was to explore the experiences of survivors who are transitioning from tertiary to primary care.

METHODS

One focus group and ten individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data saturation was reached with 13 participants. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

Eight categories relating to the main content category of transition readiness were identified in the analysis. Several factors affected participant transition readiness: how the transition was introduced, perceived continuity of care, support from health care providers, clarity of the timeline throughout the transition, and desire for a "roadmap." Although all participants spoke about the effect of their relationships with health care providers (tertiary, transition, and primary care), their relationship with the primary care provider had the most influence on their transition readiness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided insights into survivor experiences during the transition to primary care. Transition readiness of survivors is affected by many factors, with their relationship with the primary care provider being particularly influential. Understanding transition readiness from the survivor perspective could prove useful in ensuring patient-centred care as transitions from tertiary to primary care become commonplace.

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.

Health-care utilization by prognosis profile in a managed care setting: using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator SEER*CSC

BACKGROUND

Accurate estimation of the probability of dying of cancer versus other causes is needed to inform goals of care for cancer patients. Further, prognosis may also influence health-care utilization. This paper describes health service utilization patterns of subgroups of prostate cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with different relative probabilities of dying of their cancer or other conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of cancer patients from Kaiser Permanente Colorado were divided into three groups using the predicted probabilities of dying of cancer and other causes calculated by the nomograms in the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator. Demographic, disease-related characteristics, and health service utilization patterns were described across subgroups.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 2092 patients (1102 prostate cancer and 990 CRC). A new diagnosis of cancer increased utilization of cancer-related services with rates as high as 9.1/1000 person-days for prostate cancer and 36.2/1000 person-days for CRC. Little change was observed in the number of primary and other specialty care visits from prediagnosis to 1 and 2 years postdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that although a new diagnosis of cancer increased utilization of cancer-related services for an extended time period, the timing of cancer diagnosis did not appear to affect other types of utilization. Future research should assess the reason for the lack of impact of cancer and unrelated comorbid conditions on utilization and whether desired outcomes of care were achieved.

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.

Keeping primary care "in the loop": General practitioners want better communication with specialists and hospitals when caring for people diagnosed with cancer

AIM

To investigate general practitioners' (GP) perceptions about communication when providing cancer care.

METHODS

A self-report survey, which included an open response section, was mailed to a random sample of 1969 eligible Australian GPs. Content analysis of open response comments pertaining to communication was undertaken in order to ascertain GPs' views about communication issues in the provision of cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 648 GPs who completed the survey, 68 (10%) included open response comments about interprofessional communication. Participants who commented on communication were a median age of 50 years and worked 33 h/week; 28% were male and 59% practiced in the metropolitan area. Comments pertaining to communication were coded using five non-mutually exclusive categories: being kept in the loop; continuity of care; relationships with specialists; positive communication experiences; and strategies for improving communication.GPs repeatedly noted the importance of receiving detailed and timely communication from specialists and hospitals, particularly in relation to patients' treatment regimes and follow-up care. Several GPs remarked that they were left out of "the information loop" and that patients were "lost" or "dumped" after referral.

CONCLUSION

While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, detailed and timely communication between specialists and GPs is imperative to support shared care and ensure optimal patient outcomes. This research highlights the need for established channels of communication between specialist and primary care medicine to support greater involvement by GPs in cancer care.

Patterns of colorectal cancer care in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in women and the third most common in men worldwide. In this study, we used MEDLINE to conduct a systematic review of existing literature published in English between 2000 and 2010 on patterns of colorectal cancer care. Specifically, this review examined 66 studies conducted in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to assess patterns of initial care, post-diagnostic surveillance, and end-of-life care for colorectal cancer. The majority of studies in this review reported rates of initial care, and limited research examined either post-diagnostic surveillance or end-of-life care for colorectal cancer. Older colorectal cancer patients and individuals with comorbidities generally received less surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. Patients with lower socioeconomic status were less likely to receive treatment, and variations in patterns of care were observed by patient demographic and clinical characteristics, geographical location, and hospital setting. However, there was wide variability in data collection and measures, health-care systems, patient populations, and population representativeness, making direct comparisons challenging. Future research and policy efforts should emphasize increased comparability of data systems, promote data standardization, and encourage collaboration between and within European cancer registries and administrative databases.

Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Regular surveillance decreases the risk of recurrent cancer in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. However, studies suggest that receipt of follow-up tests is not consistent with guidelines. This systematic review aimed to: (1) examine receipt of recommended post-treatment surveillance tests and procedures among CRC survivors, including adherence to established guidelines, and (2) identify correlates of CRC surveillance.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus databases were conducted using terms adapted for each database's keywords and subject headings. Studies were screened for inclusion using a three-step process: (1) lead author reviewed abstracts of all eligible studies; (2) coauthors reviewed random 5 % samples of abstracts; and (3) two sets of coauthors reviewed all "maybe" abstracts. Discrepancies were adjudicated through discussion.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies are included in the review. Overall adherence ranged from 12 to 87 %. Within the initial 12 to 18 months post-treatment, adherence to recommended office visits was 93 %. Adherence ranged from 78 to 98 % for physical exams, 18-61 % for colonoscopy, and 17-71 % for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. By 2 to 3 years post-treatment, cumulative adherence ranged from 70 to 88 % for office visits, 89-93 % for physical exams, 49-94 % for colonoscopy, and 7-79 % for CEA testing. Between 18 and 28 % of CRC survivors received greater than recommended overall surveillance; overuse of physical exams (42 %), colonoscopy (24-76 %), and metastatic disease testing (1-29 %) was also prevalent. Studies of correlates of CRC surveillance focused on sociodemographic and disease/treatment characteristics, and patterns of association were inconsistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Deviation from surveillance recommendations includes both under- and overuse. Examination of modifiable determinants is needed to inform interventions targeting appropriate and timely receipt of recommended surveillance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Among CRC survivors, it remains unclear what modifiable psychosocial factors are associated with the observed under- and overuse of surveillance. Understanding and intervening with these psychosocial factors is critical to improving adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance and thereby reducing mortality among this group of survivors.

Do survivorship care plans make a difference? A primary care provider perspective

INTRODUCTION

The growing numbers of cancer survivors will challenge the ability of oncologists to provide ongoing surveillance care. Tools such as survivorship care plans (SCPs) are needed to effectively care for these patients. The UCLA-LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence has been providing SCPs to cancer survivors and their providers since 2006. We sought to examine views on the value and impact of SCPs from a primary care provider (PCP) perspective.

METHODS

As part of a quality improvement project, we invited 32 PCPs who had received at least one SCP to participate in a semistructured interview focused on (1) the perceived value of SCPs for patient management and (2) PCP attitudes toward follow-up care for cancer survivors. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifteen PCPs participated in the interviews and had received a total of 30 SCPs. Ten of them indicated reading the SCPs before being contacted for the interview. All 10 PCPs indicated that the SCP provided additional information about the patient's cancer history and/or recommendations for follow-up care, and eight reported a resulting change in patient care. PCPs identified useful elements of the SCP that assisted them with patient care, and they valued the comprehensive format of the SCP. PCPs indicated that after reading the SCPs they felt more confident and better prepared to care for the cancer survivor.

CONCLUSION

SCPs were highly valued by these PCPs, increasing their knowledge about survivors' cancer history and recommended surveillance care and influencing patient care.

Australian general practitioners' preferences for managing the care of people diagnosed with cancer

AIM

To investigate general practitioners' (GPs) preferences for involvement in the management of people diagnosed with the seven most frequent cancers and any barriers to or concerns about an expanded role for GPs.

METHODS

A self-report survey was mailed to a random sample of 1969 Australian GPs.

RESULTS

In all, 33% (648) of GPs participated. Participants were a median of 50 years and worked 38 h per week; 53% were male and 68% practiced in metropolitan areas. Most participants preferred to be involved in cancer prevention (86%) and initial diagnosis (85%). Fewer were interested in monitoring for recurrence (70%), follow up after treatment (68%), coordinating psychological support (70%) and palliative care (68%). Only 52% of GPs had a preference for providing supportive care to manage the symptoms of cancer treatment, 45% for managing postoperative care and 40% for coordinating treatment. On multivariate analysis, preference for involvement in more aspects of cancer management increased with age (P = 0.030), if the GP practiced in rural compared to metropolitan areas (P = 0.005), was a partner in a practice compared to a sole practitioner (P = 0.003), had previously received cancer-specific training (P < 0.001) or was interested in future training (P < 0.001). Open responses identified limited time, communication and information transfer between GP and specialists as important barriers to involvement in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, with training, good communication and support from specialists this role may be successfully expanded.

General Practitioners' perceptions of their role in cancer care and factors which influence this role

Effective cancer care depends on inter-sectoral and inter-professional communication. General Practitioners (GPs) play a pivotal role in managing the health of most Australians, but their role in cancer care is unclear. This qualitative study explored GPs' views of this role and factors influencing their engagement with cancer care. Twelve metropolitan and non-metropolitan GPs in Queensland, Australia, were recruited between April and May 2008, and three focus groups and one interview were conducted using open-ended questions. The transcripts were analysed thematically. The first theme, GPs' perceptions of their role, comprised subthemes corresponding to four phases of the trajectory. The second theme, Enhancing GPs' involvement in ongoing cancer care, comprised subthemes regarding enhanced communication and clarification of roles and expectations. GPs' role in cancer care fluctuates between active advocacy during diagnosis and palliation, and ambivalent redundancy in between. The role is influenced by socioeconomic, clinical and geographical factors, patients' expectations and GPs' motivation. Not all participants wanted an enhanced role in cancer care, but all valued better specialist-GP communication. Role clarification is needed, together with greater mutual trust between GPs and specialists. Key needs included accessible competency training and mentoring for doctors unfamiliar with the system. Existing system barriers and workforce pressures in general practice must be addressed to improve the sharing of cancer care. Only one metropolitan focus group was conducted, so saturation of themes may not have been reached. The challenges of providing cancer care in busy metropolitan practices are multiplied in non-metropolitan settings with less accessible resources and where distance affects specialist communication. Non-metropolitan GPs learn from experience how to overcome referral and communication challenges. While the GPs identified solutions to their concerns, the role can be daunting. GPs are motivated to provide long-term care for their patients, but need to be acknowledged and supported by the health system.

An international review of the patterns and determinants of health service utilisation by adult cancer survivors

Background

There is a need to review factors related to health service utilisation by the increasing number of cancer survivors in order to inform care planning and the organisation and delivery of services.

Methods

Studies were identified via systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index and the SEER-MEDICARE library. Methodological quality was assessed using STROBE; and the Andersen Behavioural Model was used as a framework to structure, organise and analyse the results of the review.

Results

Younger, white cancer survivors were most likely to receive follow-up screening, preventive care, visit their physician, utilise professional mental health services and least likely to be hospitalised. Utilisation rates of other health professionals such as physiotherapists were low. Only studies of health service use conducted in the USA investigated the role of type of health insurance and ethnicity. There appeared to be disparate service use among US samples in terms of ethnicity and socio-demographic status, regardless of type of health insurance provision s- this may be explained by underlying differences in health-seeking behaviours. Overall, use of follow-up care appeared to be lower than expected and barriers existed for particular groups of cancer survivors.

Conclusions

Studies focussed on the use of a specific type of service rather than adopting a whole-system approach and future health services research should address this shortcoming. Overall, there is a need to improve access to care for all cancer survivors. Studies were predominantly US-based focussing mainly on breast or colorectal cancer. Thus, the generalisability of findings to other health-care systems and cancer sites is unclear. The Andersen Behavioural Model provided an appropriate framework for studying and understanding health service use among cancer survivors. The active involvement of physicians and use of personalised care plans are required in order to ensure that post-treatment needs and recommendations for care are met.

Primary care physicians' views of routine follow-up care of cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors is an important clinical and health service issue. Because of a lack of evidence supporting advantages of long-term follow-up care in oncology clinics, there is increasing interest for the locus of this care to be provided by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, current Canadian PCP views on this issue have been largely unknown.

METHODS

A mail survey of a random sample of PCPs across Canada, stratified by region and proximity to urban centers, was conducted. Views on routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors and modalities to facilitate PCPs in providing this care were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 330 PCPs responded (adjusted response rate, 51.7%). After completion of active treatment, PCPs were willing to assume exclusive responsibility for routine follow-up care after 2.4 +/- 2.3 years had elapsed for prostate cancer, 2.6 +/- 2.6 years for colorectal cancer, 2.8 +/- 2.5 years for breast cancer, and 3.2 +/- 2.7 years for lymphoma. PCPs already providing this care were willing to provide exclusive care sooner. The most useful modalities PCPs felt would assist them in assuming exclusive responsibility for follow-up cancer care were (1) a patient-specific letter from the specialist, (2) printed guidelines, (3) expedited routes of rereferral, and (4) expedited access to investigations for suspected recurrence.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate information and support in place, PCPs reported being willing to assume exclusive responsibility for the follow-up care of adult cancer survivors. Insights gained from this survey may ultimately help guide strategies in providing optimal care to these patients.

How do gastroenterologists follow patients with colorectal cancer after curative surgical resection? A three-year population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the contribution of gastroenterologists (GEs) to the surveillance of colorectal cancer after curative surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This registry-based study included 407 patients residing in two French administrative areas diagnosed with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer in 1998 and free of disease six months after curative surgery. All surveillance examinations performed either in the three years after surgery or until death or recurrence were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients (27%) had a regular clinical check-up with a GE at least once a year. Factors independently associated with GE follow-up were young age (P=0.004), use of adjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.013), and surgeon follow-up (P=0.068). GEs ordered 84% of colonoscopies, 44% of abdominal ultrasound examinations and 52% of abdominal CT scans. They detected 35% of recurrences. A significant proportion of patients (20%) had no regular follow-up, irrespective of the physicians involved.

CONCLUSIONS

GEs play a modest role in the routine follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, but are largely involved in ordering surveillance tests. They might play an important role in the surveillance of patients who presently have poor access to health care.