Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hoeg BL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6870787 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors.
Høeg Beverley L BL Bidstrup Pernille E PE Karlsen Randi V RV Friberg Anne Sofie AS Albieri Vanna V Dalton Susanne O SO Saltbæk Lena L Andersen Klaus Kaae KK Horsboel Trine Allerslev TA Johansen Christoffer C
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20191121 11
<h4>Background</h4>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 u ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Since the launch of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, there has been a surge of interest surrounding the value and organisation of long-term follow-up care after cancer treatment. We report the views of 309 adult cancer survivors (aged 18-45 years) on provision of follow-up and preferences for care. METHODS: A total of 207 survivors completed questionnaires before and after routine consultant-led follow-up appointments and 102 were recruited by post. Measures of health status (including late effects, perceived vulnerability to late effects and quality of life), reasons for attending follow-up (clinical and supportive), issues to be discussed at follow-up and preferences for different models of care were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 59% of the survivors reported experiencing one or more cancer-related health problems. Survivors rated clinical reasons for attending follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001), although nutritional advice and counselling were considered useful (60 and 47%, respectively). Those still receiving scheduled follow-up appointments did not discuss the range of issues intended with 'late effects' and 'fertility', which were particularly under-discussed. Hospital rather than GP follow-up was more highly rated. CONCLUSION: Survivors value the clinical reassurance currently provided by consultant-led care. However, supportive needs are not systematically addressed. Multi-disciplinary services are recommended to meet supportive needs in addition to clinical care.
| S-EPMC2736810 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThough the need for risk-based follow-up care for survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer has been documented, survivors often report forgoing recommended care due to cost. We sought to understand whether additional barriers to follow-up care exist for AYA survivors.MethodsWe recruited survivors who were diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 15 and 39 using the Utah Cancer Registry (UCR). Overall, 28 survivors participated in 6 focus groups held between March and May 2015 in Salt Lake City and St. George, UT. Focus group discussions focused on the reasons survivors may or may not attend recommended medical visits after completing therapy.ResultsSurvivors reported myriad barriers to follow-up medical visits, including lack of clear provider recommendation, fear of recurrent cancer diagnosis, wishing to move on with life, competing life responsibilities due to work and children, and not perceiving the need for a visit due to lack of symptoms.ConclusionsThough cost likely plays a major part in follow-up care adherence for survivors of AYA cancer, in our focus groups, participants indicated there were many other psychosocial and logistic barriers to care. Such factors play an important role in the day-to-day lives of survivors and are critical in medical decision-making.Implications for cancer survivorsSeveral factors impede follow-up care adherence for survivors of AYA cancer that are amenable to interventions, including clearer provider recommendations, flexible appointment times, and childcare availability in clinics.
| S-EPMC5526603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined correlates of low engagement in the healthcare system, experiences with survivorship care, barriers to follow-up care, and potential resources for promoting follow-up care among young adult survivors of childhood cancers. We conducted a mixed-method study involving surveys of 106 survivors of childhood cancer aged 18-34 recruited from a university-affiliated children's hospital and an NCI-designated cancer center in the Southeastern USA. Phone-based semistructured interviews were then conducted in a subset of 26. Assessments included health factors, psychosocial factors, healthcare system interaction, and interest in resources to promote engagement in healthcare. Survey participants were on average 22.14 (SD = 3.16) years old, 50.0 % female, and 77.4 % White. Overall, 46.0 % had attended survivorship clinic, 47.2 % reported receiving a treatment summary, 68.9 % had a primary care provider, and 17.0 % reported no interaction with healthcare in the past 2 years. Correlates of less than annual healthcare provider visits included being older (p = 0.003), being male (p < 0.001), lack of insurance (p = 0.002), and having had chemotherapy (p = 0.05). Participants reported varied experiences in terms of how health and treatment information was presented, from none or too little to overwhelming or anxiety-provoking amounts. Barriers to engaging in survivorship care included no/limited insurance, time, or transportation; major life changes; anxiety; and difficulty transitioning from pediatrics to adult care. Participants highlighted the need for educational and psychosocial resources, particularly technology-based resources. Multilevel interventions are needed to increase engagement in survivorship care among young adult cancer survivors. Technology-based resources addressing social support and mental well-being are intervention possibilities.
| S-EPMC4712118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer survivorship guidelines recommend at least annual follow-up visits, yet the degree to which this occurs in clinical practice is uncertain. Claims data from a US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) were used to identify women treated with curative intent surgery for newly diagnosed breast cancer between 2006 and 2014. In 25 035 women, median follow-up was 3 years. In the second year after surgery, 9.6% of the patients did not visit a primary care provider, an oncologist, or a surgeon (guideline-nonadherent). The guideline-nonadherent proportion increased from 7.8% in women diagnosed in 2006 to 12.2% in those diagnosed in 2014 (two-sided Wald P < .001). During years 2-6, guideline-nonadherence was also associated with older age, nonwhite race, no radiation, no chemotherapy, no endocrine therapy, and increasing time after surgery. There is a substantial and increasing rate of inadequate follow-up among breast cancer survivors. This has the potential to impair outcomes.
| S-EPMC7849972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAddressing psychosocial needs, including key components of psychologic distress, physical symptoms, and health promotion, is vital to cancer follow-up care. Yet little is known about who provides psychosocial care. This study examined physician-reported practices regarding care of post-treatment cancer survivors. We sought to characterize physicians who reported broad involvement in (ie, across key components of care) and shared responsibility for psychosocial care.MethodsA nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1,130) and primary care physicians (PCPs; n = 1,021) were surveyed regarding follow-up care of breast and colon cancer survivors.ResultsApproximately half of oncologists and PCPs (52%) reported broad involvement in psychosocial care. Oncologist and PCP confidence, beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and preferences for shared responsibility for care predicted broad involvement. However, oncologists' and PCPs' perceptions of who provides specific aspects of psychosocial care differed (P < .001); both groups saw themselves as the main providers. Oncologists' confidence, PCPs' beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and oncologist and PCP preference for models other than shared care were inversely associated with a shared approach to care.ConclusionFindings that some providers are not broadly involved in psychosocial care and that oncologists and PCPs differ in their beliefs regarding who provides specific aspects of care underscore the need for better care coordination, informed by the respective skills and desires of physicians, to ensure needs are met. Interventions targeting physician confidence, beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and preferred models for survivorship care may improve psychosocial care delivery.
| S-EPMC3410404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence for the efficacy of late effects surveillance in adult cancer survivors is lacking and there is little agreement among clinicians on appropriate follow-up care. METHODS: We report the views of both cancer experts and general practitioners (GPs) on long-term follow-up provision for cancer survivors, focussing on the 18-45 years age group. A total of 421 cancer experts (36% haematologists, 33% oncologists, 18% surgeons, 10% nurses, 2% other) and 54 GPs responded to a structured online survey. Reasons for follow-up care (clinical or supportive); advantages and disadvantages of follow-up in primary care; current practice; and resources required for a quality follow-up service were assessed. RESULTS: Clinicians valued clinical reasons for follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001). Learning more about late effects and checking for cancer recurrence were rated as the most important reasons for follow-up by cancer experts and GPs. A total of 85% of cancer specialists hold follow-up consultations alongside patients on active treatment. Cancer experts agreed that primary care follow-up would increase their availability for acute oncological care, but reduce information on late effects. The most important resource to provide a quality follow-up service was specialist nursing support (91%). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up guidelines that include late effects surveillance are needed. Where and who should deliver this care requires further debate.
| S-EPMC2736807 | biostudies-other
Project description:Prostate cancer is a common and life-altering condition among Canadian men, yet little is known about how follow-up care is provided to those who have completed treatment. Despite improving survival rates, survivors experience ongoing needs and are often not provided with support to manage them. This study sought to investigate the post-treatment experiences and needs of prostate cancer survivors and to determine if and how these needs are being met. Using a qualitative description design, prostate cancer survivors who had completed treatment took part in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded and analyzed thematically. The participants experienced varying levels of satisfaction with their follow-up care. While primary care providers played significant roles, continuity of care and specialist involvement varied. Most participants felt unprepared to manage the long-term effects of their cancer due to a lack of information and resources from their healthcare providers. Instead, participants turned to their peers for support. Ongoing physical and psychosocial needs went unmet and had significant impacts on their daily lives. Participants felt that support for these issues should be automatically integrated into their follow-up care. In summary, this study revealed the importance of integrated, patient-centered follow-up care for prostate cancer in Atlantic Canada.
| S-EPMC10742932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Institute of Medicine has identified patients as a key source of information for assessing the quality of care.To evaluate the association of physician specialty with the content and quality of follow-up cancer care.Three hundred three colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Northern California were surveyed 2-5 years post-diagnosis.Specialty of physician seen most often [primary care physician (PCP), oncologist, surgeon, or gastroenterologist]; other physician specialties seen; patient characteristics; content of visits; patient-centered quality of follow-up care (communication, coordination, nursing, and staff interactions).A minority (16%) of CRC survivors reported that the doctor they most often saw for follow-up cancer care was a PCP, while 60% saw an oncologist. Many CRC survivors (40%) saw >1 physician for follow-up cancer care. Survivors most often seen by PCPs were more likely to have three or more medical comorbidities (70% vs. 51%, p = 0.012) than survivors seen by subspecialty physicians. Survivors seen by PCPs were less likely to report seeing a doctor for medical tests and more likely to report discussing disease prevention (82% vs. 64%, p = 0.012) or diet (70% vs. 48%, p = 0.005) with their doctor. There were no significant specialty differences in patient-centered quality of follow-up cancer care.Cancer survivors' assessment of the quality of care was similar across specialties, while the content of follow-up cancer care varied by physician specialty. These findings provide important information about the potential value of primary care and the need for coordination when delivering care to CRC survivors.
| S-EPMC2763150 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundEwing sarcoma survivors (ESSs) are at increased risk for treatment-related complications. The incidence of treatment-related morbidity and late mortality with aging is unknown.MethodsThis study reports survival probabilities, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the cumulative incidence of cause-specific mortality and chronic conditions among ESSs in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were treated between 1970 and 1986. Piecewise exponential models were used to estimate relative rates (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for these outcomes. Chronic conditions were graded with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03).ResultsAmong 404 5-year ESSs (median age at last follow-up, 34.8 years; range, 9.1-54.8 years), the 35-year survival rate was 70% (95% CI, 66%-74%). Late recurrence (cumulative incidence at 35 years, 15.1%) was the most common cause of death, and it was followed by treatment-related causes (11.2%). There were 53 patients with subsequent neoplasms (SNs; cumulative incidence at 35 years, 24.0%), and 38 were malignant (14.3% at 35 years). The standardized incidence ratios were 377.1 (95% CI, 172.1-715.9) for osteosarcoma, 28.9 (95% CI, 3.2-104.2) for acute myeloid leukemia, 14.9 (95% CI, 7.9-25.5) for breast cancer, and 13.1 (95% CI, 4.8-28.5) for thyroid cancer. Rates of chronic conditions were highest for musculoskeletal (RR, 18.1; 95% CI, 12.8-25.7) and cardiac complications (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3). Thirty-five years after the diagnosis, the cumulative incidences of any chronic conditions and 2 or more chronic conditions were 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%) and 73.8% (95% CI, 67.8%-79.9%), respectively.ConclusionsWith extended follow-up, ESSs' risk for late mortality and SNs does not plateau. Treatment-related chronic conditions develop years after therapy, and this supports the need for lifelong follow-up. Cancer 2017;123:2551-60. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5474122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCognitive symptoms are reported to affect cancer survivors' functioning at work. However, little is known about the type of cancer treatment and cognitive symptoms in working cancer survivors. We examined the longitudinal association between type of cancer treatment and cognitive symptoms in cancer survivors post return to work, and whether the course of cognitive symptoms over 18 months differed per type of cancer treatment.MethodsData from the Dutch longitudinal "Work-Life after Cancer" study were used. The study population consisted of 330 working cancer survivors who completed questionnaires at baseline, and 6, 12, and 18 months follow-up. Cognitive symptoms were assessed with the cognitive symptom checklist-work and linked with cancer treatment data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.ResultsCancer survivors who received chemotherapy reported comparable memory symptom levels (b: - 2.3; 95% CI = - 7.1, 2.5) to those receiving locoregional treatment. Executive function symptom levels (b: - 4.1; 95% CI = - 7.8, - 0.4) were significantly lower for cancer survivors who received chemotherapy, compared with those receiving locoregional treatment. In cancer survivors who received other systemic therapy, memory (b: 0.4; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.7) and executive function symptom levels (b: 0.4; 95% CI = 0.0, 0.7) increased over time. In cancer survivors who received chemotherapy and locoregional treatment, memory and executive function symptom scores were persistent during the first 18 months after return to work.ConclusionsThe contradictory finding that cancer patients receiving chemotherapy report fewer cognitive symptoms warrants further research.Implications for cancer survivorsWorking cancer survivors may have cognitive symptom management needs irrespective of the type of cancer treatment they received.
| S-EPMC7182617 | biostudies-literature