Gynecological cancer patients' attitudes toward follow-up care after cancer treatment: Do preferences reflect patients' experience? A cross-sectional questionnaire study

Survey of Danish Head and Neck Cancer Patients' Positions on Personalized Medicine, Gene Tests, and Personalized Follow-Up

The field of personalized medicine (PM) has grown rapidly because of the "omics revolution", but PM may be difficult for patients to comprehend. This study sought to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' positions and knowledge of PM, gene tests, and follow-up and to compare HNC patients' positions to a sample from a national Danish questionnaire. To do this, patients with prior HNC were invited to participate in a questionnaire. Initial interviews revealed a heterogenic understanding of PM between patients. A total of 226 patients were included in the survey and 177 patients with complete data were included for analysis. Most patients were more positive than negative towards gene tests and gene research (83% and 93%, respectively), but 72% had little or no knowledge of the subject. Almost all patients, 98%, were satisfied with their follow-up. Significantly more patients with HNC were positive towards gene research compared to a sample from a national Danish questionnaire (p < 0.001). Patients with HNC were positive towards gene tests and PM, but patients may not understand or comprehend the information given, and it is important to inform and educate patients and health professionals to establish common ground in PM.

Evaluation of follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a previous Cochrane Review, last updated in 2014. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer and seventh most common cause of death due to cancer in women worldwide. Traditionally, most women who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or relieving anxiety. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the potential effects of different strategies of follow-up in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, following completion of primary treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL 2022, Issue 11, MEDLINE, and Embase from August 2013 to November 2022. We also searched review articles and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They compared results, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the outcomes of interest: overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological effects, and cost analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we included one new RCT, including 112 women with ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, who had completed primary treatment by surgery, with or without chemotherapy. This study reported the effect of individualised, i.e. individually tailored, nurse-led follow-up versus conventional medical follow-up on HRQOL, psychological outcomes, and cost-analysis. Individualised follow-up improved HRQOL in one of the two scales, with a decrease in mean difference (MD) in the QLQ-C30 discomfort scale following 12 months of individualised treatment compared to 12 months of conventional treatment (MD -5.76 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.92 to -0.60; 1 study, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; minimal important difference 4 to 10 points). There may be little or no difference in the other HRQOL scale (QLQ-Ov28, MD -0.97 points, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.63; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence); psychological outcome, measured with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS; MD 0.10 point, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence), or cost analysis (MD -GBP 695.00, 95% CI -1467.23 to 77.23; 1 study, 112 participants: moderate-certainty evidence). Our previous review included one RCT, with 529 women in a confirmed remission, with normal CA125 concentration and no radiological evidence of disease, after surgery and first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. This study evaluated immediate treatment of ovarian cancer relapse following a rise of serum CA125 levels versus delaying treatment until symptoms developed for OS, and HRQOL. There was little or no difference in OS between the immediate and delayed arms after a median follow-up of 56.9 months (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; 1 study, 529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Time from randomisation to first deterioration in global health score or death was shorter in the immediate treatment group than in the delayed treatment group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from one trial suggests that routine surveillance with CA125 in asymptomatic women and treatment at CA125-defined relapse does not seem to offer survival advantage when compared to treatment at symptomatic relapse. However, this study pre-dates the use of PARPi maintenance treatment and the increased use of secondary cytoreductive surgery, so the results may be limited in their applicability to current practice. Limited evidence from one trial suggests that individualised nurse-led follow-up may improve HRQOL in women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. Large RCTs are needed to compare different types of follow-up, looking at survival, HRQOL, psychological effects, and cost as outcomes.

The needs of gynecological cancer survivors at the end of primary treatment: A scoping review and proposed model to guide clinical discussions

OBJECTIVE

Gynecological cancer (GC) survivors have unmet needs when they complete primary cancer treatment. Despite this, no known research has summarized these needs and survivors' suggestions to address them. We conducted a scoping review to fill these gaps and develop a model useful to guide clinical discussions and/or interventions.

METHODS

English, full length, and accessible primary studies describing the needs of GC survivors were included. No restrictions on date nor country of publication were applied. Two reviewers screened and extracted data, which was verified by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Results were thematically grouped into seven dimensions: physical needs, sexuality-related concerns, altered self-image, psychological wellbeing, social support needs, supporting the return to work, and healthcare challenges and preferences. After consulting with a stakeholder group (a GC survivor, clinicians, and researchers), the dimensions were summarized into a proposed model to guide clinical assessments and/or interventions.

CONCLUSION

Results illuminate the diverse needs of GC survivors as they complete primary cancer treatment and their recommendations for care to meet these needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The resulting model can be used to guide assessments, discussions and/or interventions to optimally prepare GC survivors for transition out of primary cancer treatment.

Symptomatic or asymptomatic recurrence of ovarian cancer: does it influence survival?

OBJECTIVE

The survival benefit of monitoring CA125 in ovarian cancer patients after primary treatment is debated due to findings varying from insignificant survival differences to prolonged median overall survival in favor of asymptomatic patients. Hence we aimed to compare ovarian cancer patients with and without symptoms at the time of the first diagnosed recurrence in terms of post-recurrence survival and overall survival, and to explore time to recurrence and common symptoms at recurrence.

METHODS

We included 421 women with ovarian cancer from a prospective multi-institutional Norwegian study of first recurrence of gynecological cancer over the period from March 2012 to April 2016. Patients were interviewed by clinicians at participating hospitals, and patient reported and clinical variables were recorded in a standardized questionnaire. The Kaplan-Meier method and the multivariate Cox model were used to evaluate post-recurrence survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 406 patients included, 183 (45%) patients were diagnosed with asymptomatic recurrence, and 223 (55%) patients had symptoms at recurrence. Asymptomatic patients had their recurrence detected 2 months later than symptomatic patients (14 vs 12 months, respectively, p=0.17). Median post-recurrence survival was significantly longer in asymptomatic patients compared with patients with symptoms at recurrence (33.9 vs 26.2 months, respectively, p=0.002). The post-recurrence survival rate remained higher for symptomatic patients in the adjusted analysis (hazard ratio (HR)=1.42, p=0.001). Median overall survival was 47.8 months for asymptomatic patients versus 44.0 months for symptomatic patients in the unadjusted analyses (p=0.056). Asymptomatic patients had a significantly longer survival in the adjusted analysis (HR=1.24, p=0.046). Pain was the most common symptom at recurrence (54%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with asymptomatic recurrence had a better prognosis based on post-recurrence data and the multivariate Cox regression analysis of overall survival. However, a closer exploration of differences in development of recurrence is needed as these results may give rise to more individualized follow-up for ovarian cancer patients.

Preferences for follow up in long-term survivors after cervical cancer

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of cervical cancer survivors combined with lack of data on the efficacy of long-term surveillance, challenges existing follow-up models. However, before introducing new follow-up models, cervical cancer survivors' own views on follow up are important. We aimed to explore preferences for follow up in long-term cervical cancer survivors and their associations with self-reported late-effects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 2013, we mailed 974 Norwegian long-term cervical cancer survivors treated during 2000-2007 a questionnaire with items covering preferences for follow up after treatment, clinical variables and validated questionnaires covering anxiety, neuroticism and depression.

RESULTS

We included 471 cervical cancer survivors (response rate 57%) with a median follow up of 11 years. In all, 77% had FIGO stage I disease, and 35% were attending a follow-up program at the time of survey. Of the patients, 55% preferred more than 5 years of follow up. This was also preferred by 57% of cervical cancer survivors who were treated with conization only. In multivariable analyses, chemo-radiotherapy or surgery with radiation and/or chemotherapy (heavy treatment) and younger age were significantly associated with a preference for more than 5 years' follow up. Late effects were reported by more than 70% of the cervical cancer survivors who had undergone heavy treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals the need for targeted patient education about the benefits and limitations of follow up. To meet increasing costs of cancer care, individualized follow-up procedures adjusted to risk of recurrence and late-effects in cervical cancer survivors are warranted.

Endometrial cancer patients' preferences for follow-up after treatment: A cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

Alternatives to hospital follow-up (HFU) following treatment for cancer have been advocated. Telephone follow-up (TFU) and patient-initiated follow-up are being implemented but it is unclear if these approaches will meet the preferences and needs of patients. This study aimed to explore the preferences of endometrial cancer patients and their levels of satisfaction with HFU and nurse-led TFU.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey design was utilised and a questionnaire was administered to 236 patients who had participated in a randomised controlled trial comparing HFU with TFU for women diagnosed with Stage I endometrial cancer (ENDCAT trial).

RESULTS

211 (89.4%) patients returned the questionnaire; 105 in the TFU group and 106 in the HFU group. The TFU group were more likely to indicate that appointments were on time (p < 0.001) and were more likely to report that their appointments were thorough (p = 0.011). Participants tended to prefer what was familiar to them. Those in the HFU group tended to prefer hospital-based appointments while the TFU group tended to prefer appointments with a clinical nurse specialist, regardless of locality.

CONCLUSIONS

To provide patient centred follow-up services we need to ensure that patient preferences are taken into account and understand that patients may come to prefer what they have experienced. Patient initiated approaches may become standard and preferred practice but TFU remains a high-quality alternative to HFU and may provide an effective transition between HFU and patient-initiated approaches.

Exploring why patients with cancer consult GPs: a 1-year data extraction

BACKGROUND

Survival rates of patients with cancer are increasing owing to improvements in diagnostics and therapies. The traditional hospital-based follow-up model faces challenges because of the consequent increasing workload, and it has been suggested that selected patients with cancer could be followed up by GPs.The hypothesis of the study was that, regardless of the hospital-based follow-up care, GPs see their patients with cancer both for cancer-related problems as well as for other reasons. Thus, a formalised follow-up by GPs would not mean too large a change in GPs' workloads.

AIM

To explore to what extent patients with cancer consult their GPs, and for what reasons.

DESIGN & SETTING

A 1-year explorative study was undertaken, based on data from 91 Norwegian GPs from 2016-2017.

METHOD

The data were electronically extracted from GPs' electronic medical records (EMR).

RESULTS

Data were collected from 91 GPs. There were 11 074 consultations in total, generated by 1932 patients with cancer. The mean consultation rate was higher among the patients with cancer compared with Norwegian patients in general. In one-third of the consultations, cancer was the main diagnosis. Apart from cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diagnoses were common. Patients with cancer who had multiple diagnoses or psychological diagnoses did not consult their GP significantly more often than patients with cancer without such comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that patients with cancer consult their GP more often than other patients, both for cancer-related reasons and for various comorbidities. A formalised follow-up by GPs would probably be feasible, and GPs should prepare for this responsibility.