Dataset Information

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine healthcare utilisation and adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up guidelines.

Methods

A total of 2450 out of 3025 stage I-III CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-12, EORTC QLQ-CR38 and Fatigue Assessment Score questionnaires, in December 2010. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for increased follow-up care (>1 visit than recommended by guidelines).

Results

In the first follow-up year, the average number of cancer-related visits to the general practitioner and medical specialist was 1.7 and 4.2, respectively. More than 80% of the CRC survivors was comfortable with their follow-up schedule, and 49-72% of them received follow-up according to the guidelines. Around 29-47% was followed more than recommended. Simultaneously, around 4-14% of the CRC survivors received less follow-up care than recommended. Survivors of stage III disease treated with chemotherapy received the most follow-up care. In addition, lower socio-economic status stoma and fatigue were associated with increased follow-up care.

Conclusion

CRC survivors were predominantly followed according to national guidelines. Increased follow-up care is driven by advanced disease stage, chemotherapy, SES, stoma and fatigue. Future studies should investigate how increased follow-up care use can be reduced, while still addressing patients' needs.

SUBMITTER: Qaderi SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8518769 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors.

Qaderi Seyed M SM Ezendam Nicole P M NPM Verhoeven Rob H A RHA Custers Jose A E JAE de Wilt Johannes H W JHW Mols Floortje F

European journal of cancer care 20210603 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine healthcare utilisation and adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up guidelines.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 2450 out of 3025 stage I-III CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-12, EORTC QLQ-CR38 and Fatigue Assessment Score questionnaires, in December 2010. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for increased follow-up care (>1 visit than recommended by guidelines).<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 34081367

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed.MethodsThe MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.ResultsSix randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not.ConclusionFollow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Project description:BackgroundSCORE 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.MethodsThe 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.Findings150 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.InterpretationSC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.FundingVictorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Dataset Information

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets