Protocol for the ProCare Trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer

Exploring the experiences of patients, general practitioners and oncologists of prostate cancer follow-up: A qualitative interview study

Purpose

To examine the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals of prostate cancer follow-up in primary care and to identify areas where current policy and practice could be improved.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with patients, GPs and oncologists explored experiences of prostate cancer follow-up. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The three participant groups were analysed as individual datasets but the same key themes were evident across the groups.

Results

14 patients, 6 GPs and 5 oncologists were interviewed. Four main themes were identified: Experience of current practice; Knowledge and understanding of prostate cancer follow up; Disparity of processes and pathways; Unclear roles and responsibilities.

Conclusions

Findings from this study highlight the variation in the approach to prostate specific antigen monitoring and emphasise the lack of clear policies and practices. The lack of clarity around existing follow up and monitoring processes could cause delays in the diagnosis of recurrence. There is a need for a new and improved pathway for prostate cancer follow up. The pathway should include clear and concise guidance for patients, primary care and secondary care and all relevant parties need to understand what their role is within the pathway.

•

There is huge variation in PSA monitoring processes and after care.

•

Patients and professionals are unsure of their role.

•

Lack of clarity means there is a risk that patients may not be monitored routinely.

•

There is a need for a new and improved pathway for prostate cancer follow up.

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care

BACKGROUND

Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme

BACKGROUND

Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management.

METHODS

This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients.

CONCLUSION

The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

Feasibility and acceptability of follow-up for prostate cancer in primary care: a pilot study

Background

The number of patients with prostate cancer is increasing, which puts additional pressure on health care. GP-led follow up may help reduce costs, travel time for patients, and workload for urologists and improve continuity of care.

Aim

To test the feasibility and acceptability of a new clinical pathway for GP-led prostate cancer follow-up.

Design & setting

A feasibility pilot study was performed in cooperation with six GP practices in the Dutch region of Amersfoort.

Method

The study included 20 patients with prostate cancer in a stable phase, who were aged ≥65 years and with comorbidity. Follow-up for prostate cancer was transferred to the GP for one year. Participating GPs and urologists jointly developed a protocol. Patient satisfaction was measured at 0 and 12 months with the ‘personalised care’ subscale of the Consumer Quality (CQ) index 'general practice care'. Next, patients, GPs, and urologists were interviewed about their experiences. The clinical pathway was considered successful if no patients were referred back to the urologist, except for an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and if the majority of patients and participating urologists and GPs were satisfied.

Results

Of the 20 patients included in the study, three were referred back to the urologist because of increasing PSA levels and one died (unrelated to prostate cancer). Most patients (73%) were satisfied with the transfer of care, indicated by a score of ≥3 on the ‘personalised care’ subscale. GPs and urologists had confidence in the ability of GPs to provide follow-up care and preferred to continue this.

Conclusion

The new clinical pathway was successful, warranting a larger study to provide evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of GP-led prostate cancer follow-up.

SCORE: Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient’s primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency.

Methods/design

SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs.

Discussion

The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p. Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2245-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme

BACKGROUND

As more men survive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, alternative models of follow-up care that address men's enduring unmet needs and are economical to deliver are needed. This paper describes the protocol for an ongoing evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme implemented within the secondary care setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

The evaluation is taking place within a real clinical setting, comparing the outcomes of men enrolled in the Programme with the outcomes of a pre-service change cohort of men, using a repeated measures design. Men are followed up at four and 8 months post recruitment on a number of outcomes, including quality of life, unmet need, psychological wellbeing and activation for self-management. An embedded health economic analysis and qualitative evaluation of implementation processes are being undertaken.

DISCUSSION

The evaluation will provide important information regarding the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and implementation of an integrated supported self-management follow-up care pathway within secondary care.

Integrated care for resected early stage lung cancer: innovations and exploring patient needs

There is no consensus as to the duration and nature of follow-up following surgical resection with curative intent of lung cancer. The integration of cancer follow-up into primary care is likely to be a key future area for quality and cost-effective cancer care. Evidence from other solid cancer types demonstrates that such follow-up has no adverse outcomes, similar health-related quality of life, high patient satisfaction rates at a lower cost to the healthcare system. Core elements for successful models of shared cancer care are required: clear roles and responsibilities, timely effective communication, guidance on follow-up protocols and common treatments and rapid routes to (re)access specialist care. There is thus a need for improved communication between hospital specialists and primary care. Unmet needs for patients with early stage lung cancer are likely to include psychological symptoms and carer stress; the importance of smoking cessation may frequently be overlooked or underappreciated in the current hospital-based follow-up system. There is therefore a need for quality randomised controlled trials of patients with resected early stage lung cancer to establish optimal protocols for primary care-based follow-up and to more adequately address patients' and carers' unmet psychosocial needs, including the crucial role of smoking cessation.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

ProCare Trial: a phase II randomized controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To test the feasibility and efficacy of a multifaceted model of shared care for men after completion of treatment for prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men who had completed treatment for low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer within the previous 8 weeks were eligible. Participants were randomized to usual care or shared care. Shared care entailed substituting two hospital visits with three visits in primary care, a survivorship care plan, recall and reminders, and screening for distress and unmet needs. Outcome measures included psychological distress, prostate cancer-specific quality of life, satisfaction and preferences for care and healthcare resource use.

RESULTS

A total of 88 men were randomized (shared care n = 45; usual care n = 43). There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences between groups with regard to distress, prostate cancer-specific quality of life or satisfaction with care. At the end of the trial, men in the intervention group were significantly more likely to prefer a shared care model to hospital follow-up than those in the control group (intervention 63% vs control 24%; P<0.001). There was high compliance with prostate-specific antigen monitoring in both groups. The shared care model was cheaper than usual care (shared care AUS$1411; usual care AUS$1728; difference AUS$323 [plausible range AUS$91-554]).

CONCLUSION

Well-structured shared care for men with low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer is feasible and appears to produce clinically similar outcomes to those of standard care, at a lower cost.

Shared care in prostate cancer: a three-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate 3 year follow-up in patients with stable prostate cancer (PCa) managed in a shared care program by general practitioners (GPs) in collaboration with urological departments. PCa patients who have undergone curative treatment or endocrine therapy require long-term follow-up. Until recently, follow-up has primarily been managed by urologists at hospital-based outpatient clinics. However, new organizational strategies are needed to meet the needs of the growing number of elderly, comorbid cancer patients. These new organizational strategies target patients, GPs and specialists as joint stakeholders in the care and management of PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 3 year follow-up to a Danish shared care PCa trial, 530 patients, out of a total of 2585 patients, were outsourced to the GPs. Strict evaluation criteria were selected to assess compliance according to individually agreed follow-up and re-referral plans for patients and GPs, respectively.

RESULTS

This study included 426 (80.4%) out of the 530 PCa patients. Among these, 196 patients had initially undergone curative-intended treatment, whereas 230 patients underwent non-curative treatment. Ninety-one deaths occurred during the study period. Among the 425 patients who were alive, 335 (78.8%) gave consent for their medical records to be accessed. Overall, patient compliance was successfully met in 390 (91.5%) of the cases, while GP compliance was successfully met in 393 (92.3%) of the cases.

CONCLUSION

The shared care regimen for patient follow-up between the departments of urology and the local GPs had a high rate of patient and GP compliance.