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

Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system-level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patterns of Survivorship Follow-Up Care Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada, Between 2006 and 2016

PURPOSE

Many cancer survivors have ongoing follow-up with their oncologist(s), despite evidence that this care can be competently managed by primary care and transitioning well survivors could relieve growing pressure on cancer care systems. We analyzed population-based administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to examine rates of transition to primary care-led follow-up care during the survivorship phase, including clinical and demographic predictors associated with being transitioned.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe the patterns of survivorship follow-up care among all patients with breast cancer in Ontario from 2006 to 2016. Data were derived from the Ontario Cancer Registry and other linked data sets. We defined the survivorship phase of care beginning at 2 years after initial diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to explore factors potentially prognostic of no oncology visits in each of the years after survivorship.

RESULTS

Our survivorship cohort was composed of 71,719 patients with breast cancer, 42% of whom were considered to have transitioned from oncology to primary care 2 years after diagnosis. Although the number of patients having oncology visits diminished over time, a quarter of the cohort continued being seen in year 5 of survivorship. Regression analysis found older age, early cancer stage, living farther from a cancer center, not receiving radiation or chemotherapy, and high well-being to be associated with transitioning to primary care.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to the development of low-risk profiles among survivors to inform optimal transition from oncology to primary care. Further research examining qualitative perspectives from oncologists, cancer survivors, and primary care is also required to illuminate other sentinel factors to be considered when transitioning during follow-up.

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs.

CONCLUSION

Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.

A pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a survivorship care planning intervention for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers face significant challenges after treatment. This study's objective was to evaluate the effects of a dyadic survivorship care planning (SCP) intervention on survivor and caregiver outcomes.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial enrolled HNC survivors and caregivers within 18 months post-treatment, randomized dyads to SCP (one-session with written SCP and follow-up telephone call) or usual care and administered baseline and 6-month surveys. Multivariable linear regression examined intervention effects on depression and unmet needs in dyads and burden on caregiverss and a set of secondary outcomes. Rating scales and open-ended questions assessed acceptability.

RESULTS

We randomized 89 survivor-caregiver dyads (42 usual care, 47 SCP dyads). Fidelity to SCP was high for most survivorship domains except discussing care barriers (13%). The most commonly discussed referrals included nutrition (83%) and behavioral medicine (38%), but referral uptake was low. The SCP intervention did not improve depression or unmet needs among dyads or burden among caregivers at 6 months relative to usual care (p's > .05). Nurses and dyads rated SCP favorably with > 80% positive ratings for session length and care plan content. Qualitative findings highlighted that SCP helped consolidate complex clinical information and strengthened survivor-caregiver-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

An HNC SCP intervention was acceptable but ineffective in improving dyads' outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Post-treatment SCP in HNC dyads was ineffective in improving outcomes in survivors and caregivers as delivered in this study. More research is needed to understand how to capitalize on the acceptability of the SCP approach and enhance its effectiveness to support dyads.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms: Consensus on a patient care pathway

People with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) face a multitude of challenges, including delayed diagnosis, low awareness of the cancer among healthcare professionals and limited access to multidisciplinary care and expert centres. We have developed the first patient care pathway for people living with NENs in England to guide disease management and help overcome these barriers. The pathway was developed in two phases. First, a pragmatic review of the literature was conducted, which was used to develop a draft patient care pathway. Second, the draft pathway was then updated following semi-structured interviews with carefully selected expert stakeholders. After each phase, the pathway was discussed among a multidisciplinary, expert advisory group (which comprised the authors and the Deputy Chief Operating Officer, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust), who reached a consensus on the ideal care pathway. This article presents the outputs of this research. The pathway identified key barriers to care and highlighted how these may be addressed, with many of the findings relevant to the rest of the UK and international audiences. NENs are increasing in incidence and prevalence in England, compounding pre-existing inequities in diagnosis and disease management. Effective integration of this pathway within NHS England will help achieve optimal, equitable care provision for all people with NENs, and should be feasible within the existing expert multidisciplinary teams across the country.

Unmet Needs and Care Delivery Gaps Among Rural Cancer Survivors

Community-based healthcare delivery systems frequently lack cancer-specific survivorship support services. This leads to a burden of unmet needs that is magnified in rural areas. Using sequential mixed methods we assessed unmet needs among rural cancer survivors diagnosed between 2015 and 2021. The Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) assessed 5 domains; Physical and Daily Living, Psychological, Support and Supportive Services, Sexual, and Health Information. Needs were analyzed across domains by cancer type. Survey respondents were recruited for qualitative interviews to identify care gaps. Three hundred and sixty two surveys were analyzed. Participants were 85% White (n = 349) 65% (n = 234) female and averaged 2.03 years beyond cancer diagnosis. Nearly half (49.5%) of respondents reported unmet needs, predominantly in physical, psychological, and health information domains. Needs differed by stage of disease. Eleven interviews identified care gap themes regarding; Finding Support and Supportive Services and Health Information regarding Care Delivery and Continuity of Care. Patients experience persistent unmet needs after a cancer diagnosis across multiple functional domains. Access to community-based support services and health information is lacking. Community based resources are needed to improve access to care for long-term cancer survivors.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Cancer center-based follow-up among pediatric and adolescent/young adult cancer survivors: the role of a community-based organization and the social determinants of health

PURPOSE

Adherence to survivorship care is suboptimal among pediatric and adolescent/young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. We evaluated predictors of cancer center-based follow-up among pediatric/AYA cancer survivors, with an emphasis on social determinants of health (SDOH).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data at an academic medical center to identify patients aged 0-29 years at last cancer treatment who completed treatment 2010-2019. Cancer center-based follow-up was defined by oncology or survivorship clinic visits through 12/31/2022. Multivariate logistic regression models (overall, ages 0-19 [pediatric], 20-29 [YA]) evaluated the association of demographics, clinical/treatment characteristics, and SDOH (insurance type, distance to cancer center, area deprivation index) with clinic attendance. Further modeling accounted for the service area of a community-based organization (CBO) that supports families of children with cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 2210 survivors were included (56% pediatric, 44% YA; 66% non-White). Cancer center-based follow-up decreased from 94% 1-year post-treatment to 35% at > 5-7 years. In adjusted analysis, AYAs had the lowest follow-up (5-7 years post-treatment: OR 0.25 [0.15-0.41] for age 25-29; OR 0.25 [0.16-0.41] for age 20-24; OR 0.32 [0.20-0.52] for age 15-19). Survivors residing within the CBO service area were twice as likely to follow-up (OR 2.10 [1.34-3.29]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a diverse population, AYA survivors were vulnerable to loss to follow-up. Other SDOH were not consistently associated with follow-up. Support from a CBO may partly explain these findings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

CBOs may strengthen survivorship follow-up within medically underserved communities. More research is needed to understand community support in survivorship.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort.

METHODS

We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Cancer survivorship care: challenges and opportunities in Japan

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

A mixed-method systematic review of unmet care and support needs among Japanese cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To synthesize published studies regarding Japanese cancer survivors' needs/unmet needs of care/support, change of unmet needs over time, and preferred care/support providers.

METHODS

A mixed-method systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Ichu-shi were searched from inception to May 2022. Quantitative and qualitative studies were separately analyzed using narrative synthesis and meta-ethnography. Each finding was synthesized using a line of argument.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (13 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies) were included. Six quantitative studies reported unmet needs in survivors of adolescent and young adult (n=1) and adulthood (n=5) cancer. No longitudinal studies regarding changes in unmet needs were identified. One study reported that adults preferred care/support providers. The quantitative studies identified more help in physical (48.2-51.0%, n=2) and psychological issues (17.4-78.8%, n=5), information (27.9-58.0%, n=3), and healthcare services (25.3-67.1%, n=2) among adults. The qualitative studies emphasized more tailor-made information about life events for young cancer survivors. More empathic and trustworthy interactions with surrounding people, including healthcare professionals, were demanded, regardless of age. A line of argument illustrated that cancer survivors had insufficient resources for activities and empowerment to face life with cancer at all phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese cancer survivors' unmet needs are diverse. More information and resources for psychological care/support and local healthcare services post-treatment are needed, which may hinder the optimal transition to survivorship.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The synthesized evidence should be utilized to implement a comprehensive care/support system in practice and educate people surrounding cancer survivors, regardless of age.

Improving quality of life and symptom experience in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review of supportive care interventions

OBJECTIVE

The prognosis for individuals with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has improved in recent decades. This expanding cohort has unique psychological and psychosocial needs, yet targeted supportive care interventions are underdeveloped. This systematic review seeks to summarise the available evidence on the effectiveness of supportive care interventions in improving quality of life and symptom experience of individuals living with MBC so that services can be developed to address the unmet needs of this cohort in future.

METHODS

Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, Medline and SocINDEX were searched for publications investigating the effect of supportive care interventions specifically targeted at addressing the quality of life or symptom experience of individuals living with MBC. Three reviewers independently screened and selected studies. Quality appraisal and assessed risk of bias were carried out.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1972 citations. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included psychological (n = 3), end of life discussion and preparation (n = 2), physical activity (n = 4), lifestyle (n = 2), and medication self-management support (n = 2). Three studies reported significant improvement in quality of life, two of which reported improved symptom experience in at least one symptom. Three further physical activity interventions showed improvement in at least one of the symptoms investigated.

CONCLUSION

Studies reporting a statistically significant effect on quality of life and improved symptom experience were extremely heterogenous. We can tentatively suggest that multimodal and frequently administered interventions are effective, with physical activity interventions positively impacting on symptom experience, however further research is required.

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

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

Promoting physical activity within breast cancer survivors using behavior change techniques: N-of-1 randomized controlled trials

Survivors of breast cancer are an important target for health promotion interventions, and physical activity (PA) is recommended with benefits being well established. More and more behavior theory guided interventions are planned and tailored to the individuals, targeting specifics needs and personal characteristics. We aimed to test the effectiveness of two behavior change techniques [coping planning (CP) and self-monitoring (SM)] for promoting PA in survivors of breast cancer, using a single-case design. In a powerful multiple sample N-of-1 RCT, 10 women post-breast cancer (M = 52.8 years) were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions (CP and/or SM, control) for 60 days and their daily step count was observed. The overall effects were analyzed using multilevel time-series with random intercepts. Time-series regression models and supplementary pairwise analyses were conducted for individuals. Multilevel analyses showed significant effects of CP and SM. Single-case analyses showed that six participants walked significantly more on the intervention days, that combined interventions were effective for five participants, but two participants had better results with the other two conditions. Combined self-regulatory techniques were more effective in promoting PA however, individual variability should be considered in future studies with survivors of breast cancer. Retrospectively registered: https://osf.io/eakjy/?view_only=81bf3dc084a0410a8ea28265e0f3c360, 31-01-2023.(raise query).

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study

PURPOSE

The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention.

RESULTS

There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Implementation of a referral pathway for cancer survivors to access allied health services in the community

BACKGROUND

The growing demands for multidisciplinary cancer survivorship care require new approaches to address the needs of people living after a cancer diagnosis. Good Life-Cancer Survivorship is a self-management support survivorship program delivered by community allied health (AH) services for people diagnosed with cancer. A pilot study established the benefits of Good Life-Cancer Survivorship to help survivors manage their health and wellbeing in the community health setting. This study expanded the program to four community health services and evaluated the implementation outcomes of the referral pathway to the survivorship program.

METHODS

Eligible cancer survivors attending hospital oncology services were referred to the survivorship program. Data was collected between 19/02/2021-22/02/2022 and included allied health service utilisation, consumer surveys, and interviews to understand consumer experience with the referral pathway. Interviews and focus groups with hospital and community health professionals explored factors influencing the referral uptake. Implementation outcomes included Adoption, Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability.

RESULTS

Of 35 eligible survivors (mean age 65.5 years, SD = 11.0; 56% women), 31 (89%) accepted the referral. Most survivors had two (n = 14/31; 45%) or more (n = 11/31; 35%) allied health needs. Of 162 AH appointments (median appointment per survivor = 4; range = 1-15; IQR:5), 142/162 (88%) were scheduled within the study period and 126/142 (89%) were attended. Consumers' interviews (n = 5) discussed the referral pathway; continuation of survivorship care in community health settings; opportunities for improvement of the survivorship program. Interviews with community health professionals (n = 5) highlighted the impact of the survivorship program; cancer survivorship care in community health; sustainability of the survivorship program. Interviews (n = 3) and focus groups (n = 7) with hospital health professionals emphasised the importance of a trusted referral process; a holistic and complementary model of care; a person-driven process; the need for promoting the survivorship program. All evaluations favourably upheld the five implementation outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The referral pathway provided access to a survivorship program that supported survivors in self-management strategies through tailored community allied health services. The referral pathway was well adopted and demonstrated acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. This innovative care model supports cancer survivorship care delivery in community health settings, with clinicians recommending sustaining the referral pathway.

Primary care providers' comfort in caring for cancer survivors: Implications for risk-stratified care

Personalized, risk-stratified care aims to "right size" the involvement of primary care providers (PCPs), oncology and specialized practitioners in caring for cancer survivors. Our survey found limited comfort among PCPs in cancer surveillance and management of treatment-related effects. In hypothetical case scenarios, PCPs reported least comfort in caring for a survivor of childhood cancer, followed by young adult-onset cancer, and greater comfort in caring for a survivor of adult-onset breast cancer. While education and training of PCPs is essential, risk-stratification strategies need to identify patients who may transition to primary care and those who may require ongoing survivorship-focused follow-up.

Regularly scheduled physical examinations and the detection of breast cancer recurrences

PURPOSE

Follow-up care of early breast cancer (EBC) patients usually includes routinely scheduled physical examinations. While ASCO guidelines recommend a physical exam every three to six months for the first three years, little evidence supports this schedule. We evaluated recurrence detection of patients transferred into a single centre survivorship program that follows ASCO recommendations.

METHODS

Patients with EBC referred to the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (WBCP) who had breast cancer recurrence between February 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019 were reviewed. Descriptive analyses were used to present patient and disease characteristics stratified by type of recurrence and mode of cancer detection.

RESULTS

Of 206 recurrences, 135 were distant recurrences (65.5%), 41 were ipsilateral breast recurrences (19.9%), and 30 were contralateral breast primaries (14.6%). Distant recurrences were primarily detected via patient-reported symptoms (125/135, 92.6%). 53.7% (22/41) of ipsilateral breast recurrences were detected by patients and 41.5% (17/41) by routine imaging. Contralateral breast primaries were primarily detected by imaging 83.3% (25/30) and patient-reported symptoms 16.7% (5/30). Only 2/206 (1.14%) recurrences/new primaries were detected by healthcare providers at routinely scheduled follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite following ASCO guidelines, healthcare providers rarely detect recurrences at routinely scheduled follow-up appointments. Our data suggests that approximately 35, 000 follow-up visits were required for healthcare providers to detect these 2 recurrences. While reduced in-person visits may affect other aspects of follow-up care (e.g. toxicity management), it appears unlikely, provided patients attend regular screening tests, that less frequent in-person follow-up is associated with worse breast cancer-related outcomes.

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

PURPOSE

To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

The impacts of unmet supportive care needs of cancer survivors in Australia: A qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer incidence and survivorship are increasing worldwide. With more people living through and beyond cancer, there is a subsequent increase in their supportive care needs. This systematic review of qualitative studies aimed to describe the impacts of unmet supportive care needs on cancer survivors in Australia.

METHODS

Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched, and after screening and applying eligibility criteria, 27 qualitative studies were included. Findings were synthesised according to the Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care, including informational, physical, practical, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual need domains.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified impacts of unmet informational, physical, practical, emotional and psychological needs. Frequently identified impacts of unmet informational needs were feelings of abandonment and isolation, distress, confusion and regret. Common impacts of unmet physical and practical needs were financial burden and return-to-work difficulties. Over half of all unmet supportive care needs caused emotional and psychological impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings identify the detrimental emotional and psychological impacts resulting from a range of unmet supportive care needs. The review highlights the interconnections between supportive care need domains thereby enhancing the understanding of the impacts of unmet SCNs. Findings may inform policy and practice change to improve supportive cancer care.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The critical need to implement and utilize patient-reported measures of function in cancer care delivery

The study by Smith et al. on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile shows that it can be used to measure how an individual functions and how his or her function changes during cancer treatments. This is important because most patients will experience a decline in function during cancer treatment and will struggle to fully participate in their life roles. Strong evidence demonstrates that rehabilitation improves function for individuals with cancer; rehabilitation is relatively underutilized. We suggest that using the PROMIS tool as a repeated measure throughout cancer treatment will help to identify those with functional decline who will benefit most from rehabilitation.

Barriers and enablers of weight management after breast cancer: a thematic analysis of free text survey responses using the COM-B model

Background

Weight gain is common after breast cancer. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the barriers to and enablers of successful weight management for women with breast cancer.

Methods

This was a combined inductive and deductive framework analysis of free text responses to an anonymous cross-sectional survey on weight after breast cancer. Women were recruited mainly through the Breast Cancer Network Australia Review and Survey Group. We applied deductive thematic analysis to free text responses to questions on barriers, enablers, research priorities, and one open-ended question at the end of the survey using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model as a framework. Subthemes that arose from the inductive analysis were mapped onto the COM-B model framework. Findings were used to identify behaviour change intervention functions.

Results

One hundred thirty-three women provided free text responses. Most women were of Caucasian origin and had been diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer, with a mean age of 59.1 years. Women's physical capability to adopt and sustain healthy lifestyle habits was significantly affected by treatment effects and physical illness, and some lacked psychological capability to self-regulate the face of stress and other triggers. Limited time and finances, and the social impact of undergoing cancer treatment affected the ability to control their diet. Frustration and futility around weight management were prominent. However, some women were confident in their abilities to self-regulate and self-monitor lifestyle behaviours, described support from friends and health professionals as enablers, and welcomed the physical and psychological benefits of being active in the context of embracing transformation and self-care after cancer.

Conclusion

Women need specific advice and support from peers, friends and families and health professionals. There is a substantial gap in provision of supportive care to enable women to adopt and sustain healthy lifestyles. Environmental restructuring (including financial support), incentivization (creating an expectation of looking and feeling better), persuasion and coercion (aiming to prevent recurrence), and equipping women with specific knowledge and skills, would also facilitate optimal lifestyle behaviours and weight management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13980-6.

Black boxes and information pathways: An actor-network theory approach to breast cancer survivorship care

Many women diagnosed with breast cancer today can expect to live long after completing their treatment. This growing population of survivors encounters distinct post-treatment health and information needs. Existing survivorship care models take information as a given, black boxing it. I use Actor-Network Theory to examine how information actually works for women after they complete breast cancer treatment, and how it shapes their understanding of survivorship. I draw on in-depth interviews with breast cancer survivors (n = 82) and a wide range of providers (n = 84) in a medically underserved region of Southern California. Black boxes and information pathways convey experiential dimensions of cancer care; they are also metaphoric constructs. The black box metaphor refers to the cancer experience as a container; the pathways metaphor refers to a journey. Each of these metaphors expresses salient dimensions of the cancer experience and has implications for post-treatment survivorship. When healthcare information flows smoothly and invisibly, its pathways become black boxed. Black boxes can be helpful when they function effectively. But since black boxes conceal their inner workings, it is challenging to intervene when difficulties arise. I provide three examples of difficulties that complicate women's transition to post-treatment survivorship: (1) when survivors fail to recognize treatment-related late effects, (2) do not understand they have a terminal diagnosis, or (3) worry that their treatment accomplished nothing. Contextualized within survivorship scholarship, this study recommends opening black boxes to examine how information pathways could connect women differently to improve survivorship care.

The application of eHealth in cancer survivorship care: A review of web-based dyadic interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors and caregivers

Objective

Both cancer survivors and caregivers often experience a range of problems and unmet needs during the post-treatment survivorship. Web-based dyadic interventions may be critical for cancer survivors and their caregivers. This article aims to systematically explore existing web-based dyadic interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors and caregivers in terms of intervention focus, content, delivery, and outcomes and to provide valuable recommendations for future research.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify articles published in English or Chinese in the English databases PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, and the Chinese databases CNKI and Wanfang Data, from database inception to March 2022. The literature references were also manually searched for additional eligible articles.

Results

Thirteen studies were included for analysis in this review. Cancer couple dyads were the main target of the interventions that were included. Information support, psychotherapy, self-management skills training, dyadic coping, and social support were the main intervention treatment elements. The combined results in this review support the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of eHealth interventions and showed trends in positive intervention effects for cancer survivors and caregivers in terms of self-efficacy, quality of life, physical health, mental health, and dyadic relationship.

Conclusions

This review identifies the positive outcomes of web-based dyadic interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors and caregivers. Further development and refinement of post-treatment cancer survivor-caregiver dyadic web-based interventions, with personalized online platforms and multiple components for supportive care needs, should be promoted.

Usability, acceptability, and implementation strategies for the Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm: a Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Oncology guidelines recommend participation in cancer rehabilitation or exercise services (CR/ES) to optimize survivorship. Yet, connecting the right survivor, with the right CR/ES, at the right time remains a challenge. The Exercise in Cancer Evaluation and Decision Support (EXCEEDS) algorithm was developed to enhance CR/ES clinical decision-making and facilitate access to CR/ES. We used Delphi methodology to evaluate usability, acceptability, and determine pragmatic implementation priorities.

METHODS

Participants completed three online questionnaires including (1) simulated case vignettes, (2) 4-item acceptability questionnaire (0-5 pts), and (3) series of items to rank algorithm implementation priorities (potential users, platforms, strategies). To evaluate usability, we used Chi-squared test to compare frequency of accurate pre-exercise medical clearance and CR/ES triage recommendations for case vignettes when using EXCEEDS vs. without. We calculated mean acceptability and inter-rater agreement overall and in 4 domains. We used the Eisenhower Prioritization Method to evaluate implementation priorities.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 133) mostly represented the fields of rehabilitation (69%), oncology (25%), or exercise science (17%). When using EXCEEDS (vs. without), their recommendations were more likely to be guideline concordant for medical clearance (83.4% vs. 66.5%, X² = 26.61, p < .0001) and CR/ES triage (60.9% vs. 51.1%, X² = 73.79, p < .0001). Mean acceptability was M = 3.90 ± 0.47; inter-rater agreement was high for 3 of 4 domains. Implementation priorities include 1 potential user group, 2 platform types, and 9 implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the EXCEEDS algorithm can be a pragmatic and acceptable clinical decision support tool for CR/ES recommendations. Future research is needed to evaluate algorithm usability and acceptability in real-world clinical pathways.

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

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

Biomarkers of Response and Resistance to Immunotherapy in Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer: Toward a New Personalized Medicine

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) are well recognized as a major immune treatment modality for multiple types of solid cancers. However, for colorectal cancer (CRC), ICIs are only approved for the treatment of Mismatch-Repair-Deficient and Microsatellite Instability-High (dMMR/MSI-H) tumors. For the vast majority of CRC, that are not dMMR/MSI-H, ICIs alone provide limited to no clinical benefit. This discrepancy of response between CRC and other solid cancers suggests that CRC may be inherently resistant to ICIs alone. In translational research, efforts are underway to thoroughly characterize the immune microenvironment of CRC to better understand the mechanisms behind this resistance and to find new biomarkers of response. In the clinic, trials are being set up to study biomarkers along with treatments targeting newly discovered immune checkpoint molecules or treatments combining ICIs with other existing therapies to improve response in MSS CRC. In this review, we will focus on the characteristics of response and resistance to ICIs in CRC, and discuss promising biomarkers studied in recent clinical trials combining ICIs with other therapies.

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.

The Practice of Physical Activity After Breast Cancer Treatments: A Qualitative Study Among Portuguese Women

Background

Women survivors of breast cancer treatments face significant challenges around initiation or maintenance of physical activity (PA) as they transit to recovery. Embracing their needs and preferences is important to increase adherence. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of Portuguese women survivors of breast cancer regarding regular performance of PA and individual choices and strategies that should be considered in designing effective interventions.

Methods

The individual semi-structured interviews (N = 20) were analyzed through thematic analysis, following an inductive process, seeking to identify the barriers, facilitators, and particular influencing circumstances associated with regular PA.

Results

Four themes and several contextual, emotional, physical, and social factors were identified as determinants of regular PA. Guilt, women’s duties, and altruism to help close relatives were identified as emotional and cultural factors that are less-found in the existing literature. PA showed influence both from health professionals’ counseling and from knowledge and beliefs held by these women.

Conclusion

While confirming the already-known impact of breast cancer diagnosis and treatments on PA, which redefine participants’ availability to be active, the findings highlight beliefs and specific emotional factors that should be considered when planning culturally sensitive interventions.

Socio-economic burden of disease: Survivorship costs for renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to assess the risk-stratified 10-year socio-economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) follow-up costs after initial treatment in Germany from 2000 to 2020.

METHODS

A micro-costing method considering direct and indirect medical expenditure associated with follow-up procedures was employed to calculate survivorship costs per patient. The frequencies of physician-patient visits, examinations and diagnostic tests were extracted from guidelines, whilst expenses were sourced from literature and official scales of tariffs. Societal costs were calculated based on three perspectives: patients, providers and insurers.

RESULTS

Mean societal 10-year follow-up costs per patient amounted to EUR 3,377 (95%CI: 2,969-3,791) for low-risk, EUR 3,367 (95%CI: 3,003-3,692) for medium-risk and EUR 4,299 (95%CI: 3,807-4,755) for high-risk RCC in 2020. Spending increased by +32% from 2000 to 2020 for low-risk RCC, whilst medium-and high-risk RCC expenditure was cut by -39% and -22%, respectively. Patients shouldered 27%, providers 43% and insurers 35% of costs in 2020. Resources were consumed by medical imaging (52%), physician-patient consultations (31%), travel expenses (17%) and blood tests (1%).

CONCLUSION

Results highlight the economic burden cancer survivorship poses for society. Cancer survivors require individualised, evidence-based and insurance-covered follow-up schedules to permit the early detection of side-effects, metastasis and secondary malignancies.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

Purpose:

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

Methods:

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders’ perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

Results:

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

Conclusion:

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

PURPOSE

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

METHODS

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders' perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to conduct a systematic review to explore the functions utilized by electronic cancer survivorship care planning interventions and assess their effects on patient and provider outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, studies published from January 2000 to January 2020 were identified in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and the ACM Digital Library . The search combined terms for cancer, survivorship, care planning, and health information technology (HIT). Eligible studies evaluated the effects of a HIT intervention on usability, knowledge, process, or health-related outcomes. A total of 578 abstracts were reviewed, resulting in 60 manuscripts describing 40 studies. Thematic analyses were used to define meta-themes of system functions, and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine associations between functions and outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients were the target end users for 18 interventions, while 12 targeted providers and 10 targeted both groups. Interventions used patient-reported outcomes collection (60%), automated content generation (58%), electronic sharing (40%), persistent engagement (28%), and communication features (20%). Overall, interventions decreased the time to create survivorship care plans (SCPs) and supported care planning knowledge and abilities, but results were mixed for effects on healthcare utilization, SCP sharing, and provoking anxiety. Persistent engagement features were associated with improvements in health or quality-of-life outcomes (17 studies, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Features that engaged users persistently over time were associated with better health and quality-of-life outcomes. Most systems have not capitalized on the potential of HIT to share SCPs across a care team and support care coordination.

Innovating the Personalization of Stratified Survivorship Care Pathways: Using a Cancer Data Ecosystem to Improve Care Access, Outcomes, Efficiency, and Costs

New models of survivorship care are needed that improve outcomes for the growing number of cancer survivors, address the increasing complexity of their health needs, and deal with the shortage of clinicians and rising costs of this care. Technology can aid the delivery of personalized, stratified survivorship care pathways where the intensity of care, the care setting, and the providers required for that care vary with survivors' needs. Building a cancer data ecosystem of connected data streams that supports and learns from each patient can be used to streamline care, enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and facilitate research. This manuscript describes the input, analytics, and output components of the cancer data ecosystem that must be built and connected and also provides a real-world use case of how such a system could transform care in a large US comprehensive cancer center.

Psychosocial well-being and supportive care needs of cancer patients and survivors living in rural or regional areas: a systematic review from 2010 to 2021

Purpose

To summarise what is currently known about the psychosocial morbidity, experiences, and needs of people with cancer and their informal caregivers, who live in rural or regional areas of developed countries.

Methods

Eligible studies dating from August 2010 until May 2021 were identified through several online databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and RURAL (Rural and Remote Health Database). Results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020171764).

Results

Sixty-five studies were included in this review, including 20 qualitative studies, 41 quantitative studies, and 4 mixed methods studies. Qualitative research demonstrated that many unique psychosocial needs of rural people remain unmet, particularly relating to finances, travel, and accessing care. However, most (9/19) quantitative studies that compared rural and urban groups reported no significant differences in psychosocial needs, morbidity, or quality of life (QOL). Five quantitative studies reported poorer psychosocial outcomes (social and emotional functioning) in urban cancer survivors, while three highlighted poorer outcomes (physical functioning, role functioning, and self-reported mental health outcomes) in the rural group.

Conclusion

Recent research shows that rural people affected by cancer have unique unmet psychosocial needs relating to rurality. However, there was little evidence that rural cancer survivors report greater unmet needs than their urban counterparts. This contrasts to the findings from a 2011 systematic review that found rural survivors consistently reported worse psychosocial outcomes. More population-based research is needed to establish whether uniquely rural unmet needs are due to general or cancer-specific factors.

The Supportive Care Needs of Regional and Remote Cancer Caregivers

Objective: As cancer survival rates continue to increase, so will the demand for care from family and friends, particularly in more isolated settings. This study aims to examine the needs of cancer caregivers in regional and remote Australia. Methods: A total of 239 informal (i.e., non-professional) cancer caregivers (e.g., family/friends) from regional and remote Queensland, Australia, completed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer Caregivers (CNAT-C). The frequencies of individuals reporting specific needs were calculated. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association between unmet needs and demographic characteristics and cancer type. Results: The most frequently endorsed needs were lodging near hospital (77%), information about the disease (74%), and tests and treatment (74%). The most frequent unmet needs were treatment near home (37%), help with economic burden (32%), and concerns about the person being cared for (32%). Younger and female caregivers were significantly more likely to report unmet needs overall (OR = 2.12; OR = 0.58), and unmet healthcare staff needs (OR = 0.35; OR = 1.99, respectively). Unmet family and social support needs were also significantly more likely among younger caregivers (OR = 0.35). Caregivers of breast cancer patients (OR = 0.43) and older caregivers (OR = 0.53) were significantly less likely to report unmet health and psychology needs. Proportions of participants reporting needs were largely similar across demographic groups and cancer type with some exceptions. Conclusions: Caregiver health, practical issues associated with travel, and emotional strain are all areas where regional and remote caregivers require more support. Caregivers’ age and gender, time since diagnosis and patient cancer type should be considered when determining the most appropriate supportive care.

Follow-Up Care for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Across the Globe: Survey Findings From 27 Countries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe follow-up care for breast and colorectal cancer survivors in countries with varying levels of resources and highlight challenges regarding posttreatment survivorship care.

METHODS

We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.

Pathways of follow-up care in an Italian center: retrospective study on patients with gliomas II and III

INTRODUCTION

Glioma is the most common primary brain cancer in adults. Long-term and progression-free survivals are dependent on the type and grade of glioma, as well as on the extent of resection and postoperative treatments. In Italy, it is unclear how long follow-up care should last and whether the primary care sector is either willing or able to take this on. The aim is to determine pathways of follow-up care and evaluate the professional attitude of doctors to prescribe to patient visits and exams after surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients with glioma II and III who underwent surgery at tertiary care Neurological Institute Besta of Milan (FINCB) from 2012 to 2020. Data were collected through electronic medical records and inserted in an ad hoc developed database.

RESULTS

Three pathways have been identified: a common preliminary pathway (from the pre-operative visit to surgery) for all patients undergoing surgery for gliomas II and III and two follow-up pathways (with or without second surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

FINCB has developed care pathways that are sometimes personalized according to the doctor's expertise and attitude to prescribe new examinations. Given the lack of guidelines on this issue, we can cautiously conclude that it is necessary to identify whether, in addition to standard care, personalized supportive care intervention and pathway plan can significantly improve patients' outcome.

Exercise recommendations and referral patterns of oncology professionals

BACKGROUND

Exercise physiologists and physiotherapists can provide exercise interventions for cancer survivors; however, many do not access this support. Our primary aim explored referral habits to exercise professionals and attitudes of oncology professionals. Secondary aims explored fitness levels of oncology professionals and the relationship between fitness and exercise referral habits.

METHODS

Oncology professionals (n = 67) attending a national cancer conference in Australia participated in this cross-sectional study (23% doctors, 11% nurses, 25% allied health, and 41% other). A subgroup (n = 49) completed a fitness assessment measuring aerobic fitness (3-minute step test), muscle strength (handgrip dynamometry), and body composition (waist-to-hip ratio). Oncology professionals in a position to refer patients to exercise professionals were assessed on their history of patient referrals.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven of 750 eligible conference delegates participated (9% recruitment rate), of which 73% completed fitness assessments. Participants displayed above average physical activity and fitness levels with 60% meeting exercise guidelines. The majority (92%) agreed that exercise is important among cancer survivors to attenuate treatment-associated symptoms. Most understand the role of exercise physiologists (61%) and physiotherapists (64%) in cancer care. Seventy-three percent reported that referral to exercise professionals is optimal to increase exercise participation. Most (82%) oncology professionals who are able to refer patients to exercise professionals have self-reported doing so, while 91% recommended exercise themselves. Sixty-two percent were aware of evidence-based exercise guidelines. Fitness levels (p = 0.25), strength (p = 0.88), and physical activity (p = 0.33) did not impact referrals made to exercise professionals.

CONCLUSION

There was high awareness exercise-oncology benefits and evidence-based guidelines existed among sampled participants. Oncology professionals understand the role of exercise professionals, reflected by high self-reported referral rates. Implementing referral pathways to exercise professionals in cancer care may facilitate improved patient outcomes.

How Do We Define and Measure Optimal Care for Cancer Survivors? An Online Modified Reactive Delphi Study

This research sought to answer the question 'what quality criteria do survivorship experts consider to be important in achieving optimal cancer survivorship care?'. An online modified reactive Delphi survey consisting of two rounds was completed with experts including consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and quality and accreditation professionals. Survey items were based on international literature and considered three domains: Policy, process and outcome. In round 1 (R1), experts ranked the importance of 68 criteria on a five-point Likert scale. Criteria were retained if scored 4 (important) or 5 (very important) by >75% participants. In round 2 (R2), experts ranked top 10 criteria per domain. Response rates were 79% (70/89) and 84% (76/91), respectively. After R1, six criteria were removed and six were added. From R2, ten items for each domain were retained. These 30 items formed the Quality Framework. A consensus meeting considered priority items from the Quality Framework and feasibility of data collection. Prioritized items included having a policy on survivorship care; the existence of a multidisciplinary survivorship program (policy); appropriate processes to assess survivors' emotional, psychological and physical needs following treatment and stratification to appropriate models of care (process); and collecting patient-reported outcomes, quality of life and survival rates (outcome).

Management of Cancer and Health After the Clinic Visit: A Call to Action for Self-Management in Cancer Care

Individuals with cancer and their families assume responsibility for management of cancer as an acute and chronic disease. Yet, cancer lags other chronic diseases in its provision of proactive self-management support in routine, everyday care leaving this population vulnerable to worse health status, long-term disability, and poorer survival. Enabling cancer patients to manage the medical and emotional consequences and lifestyle and work changes due to cancer and treatment is essential to optimizing health and recovery across the continuum of cancer. In this paper, the Global Partners on Self-Management in Cancer puts forth six priority areas for action: Action 1: Prepare patients and survivors for active involvement in care; Action 2: Shift the care culture to support patients as partners in cocreating health and embed self-management support in everyday health-care provider practices and in care pathways; Action 3: Prepare the workforce in the knowledge and skills necessary to enable patients in effective self-management and reach consensus on core curricula; Action 4: Establish and reach consensus on a patient-reported outcome system for measuring the effects of self-management support and performance accountability; Action 5: Advance the evidence and stimulate research on self-management and self-management support in cancer populations; Action 6: Expand reach and access to self-management support programs across care sectors and tailored to diversity of need and stimulation of research to advance knowledge. It is time for a revolution to better integrate self-management support as part of high-quality, person-centered support and precision medicine in cancer care to optimize health outcomes, accelerate recovery, and possibly improve survival.