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

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.

Transition to Survivorship Care for Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with Acute Leukemia: Provider Perspectives

Purpose: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of acute lymphoblastic or myeloid leukemia diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 39 years are at risk for adverse late health effects following cancer treatment and require ongoing survivorship care. This study aims to understand the landscape of transitioning AYAs with leukemia from active treatment to survivorship care. Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was sent out via listserv/email. Descriptive analyses were used to identify the proportion of providers whose institutions have AYA and/or survivorship programs, current practices in transitioning care, perspective on barriers and facilitators to transition, and preferred models of survivorship care. Differences by provider (i.e., adult medical oncologist vs. pediatric) were analyzed using chi-square or analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses. Results: A total of 75 provider responses were analyzed; 51.4% of providers reported their institutions had an AYA program and over 80% had a survivorship program. Providers preferred the primary oncology team or survivorship specialist to address most survivorship care needs, except for the treatment of other comorbid conditions (primary care provider [PCP] preferred). Disease-related risks, lack of a PCP, and insurance concerns were commonly endorsed barriers to transition of care. Medical oncologists were more likely than pediatric providers to transition surveillance of new malignancies to PCPs. Conclusions: Providers preferred survivorship specialists to oversee AYA survivorship care, yet several barriers and concerns remain to implement the transition. Results indicate variability in transition care practices and preferences, particularly between medical and pediatric oncologists. Future work is needed to optimize transition practices to improve care for AYA survivors.

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.

CONCLUSION

Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.