Long-term cancer survivorship care: On the radar screen?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20567-e20567
Author(s):  
Rutika Mehta ◽  
Rohit Jain ◽  
Lori Rhodes ◽  
Joseph Abraham ◽  
Kenneth David Miller

e20567 Background: Long-term cancer survivors require comprehensive care. The purpose of this study was to describe how survivorship care fits into oncologists’ clinical time, and characterize long-term cancer survivors’ problems and oncology follow-up care. Methods: We abstracted 18,882 medical records of unique cancer patient visits during 2010 at a major NCI-designated cancer center and then evaluated survivor care for one week in April, 2010 to characterize how oncologists spend their clinical time. Finally, we selected three subgroups from the survivor population (n≈100 each) of survivors at 1-5 years, 6-10 years, and >10 years after diagnosis. We collected demographic data, purpose of visit, cancer-specific information, late and long-term effects, and type of care delivered, including surveillance for recurrence, intervention, prevention, and coordination of care. Results: In the larger group of 18,882, only 14% of survivors were more than 10 years post-diagnosis. Approximately two-thirds of the survivors were women. Breast cancer survivors comprised 38%, and survivors of hematologic malignancies accounted for 21% of the population. During the one week studied, the majority of oncologists' patients (74%) were actively receiving treatment; only 5% of their patients were 5 or more years post-diagnosis. Second or secondary malignancies were noted in 8% of patients. Late and long-term effects were uncommon. Approximately 25% of survivors beyond five years were observed to have late effects due to cancer treatment, most common being fatigue, neurological endocrine, and cardiac. Of the 300 selected survivors, sixty-two percent received only surveillance care during their visit. Only 3% of these patients received an entire array of survivorship care that included surveillance, intervention, co-ordination and prevention. Conclusions: A small proportion of oncologists’ visits were with long-term cancer survivors (5-14%) of whom only 25% had late or long-term effects of cancer treatment so overall very few of office visits were with long-term survivors who had late and long-term complications. All visits involved surveillance for cancer recurrence but there was little focus on prevention, intervention, and coordination of care for cancer survivors.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9045-9045
Author(s):  
P. K. H. Morrow ◽  
A. C. Broxson ◽  
M. Munsell ◽  
K. Basen-Engquist ◽  
C. K. Rosenblum ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19625-e19625
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Fran Zandstra ◽  
Ludivine Russell ◽  
Jacklyn J Flores ◽  
Yvette DeJesus ◽  
...  

e19625 Background: Clinical practice algorithms provide a framework to guide providers’ practice in delivering care to long-term cancer survivors. Here we describe how algorithms were developed in a comprehensive cancer center and types of metrics used to evaluate their feasibility. Methods: Survivorship practice algorithms were based on a multidisciplinary care approach successfully used to build screening and treatment algorithms. This model consisted of four phases: development, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of algorithms. Phase 1, expert clinicians and researchers identified and agreed upon a specific cancer site. Group-consensus and literature reviews/syntheses were used to determine eligibility criteria to transition patients to survivorship care. Phase 2, reviews and approval processes were conducted by credentialing and regulatory committees to ensure adoption of the algorithms into clinical practice. Phase 3, pilot programs were conducted to implement the algorithm(s) in disease-specific survivorship clinics. Phase 4, metrics to evaluate progress included the number of algorithms and providers’ use of and adherence to the algorithms. Results: Between 09/2008 – 12/2011, nine multidisciplinary disease-specific survivorship clinics were operationalized. Thirty-seven practice algorithms were developed to provide survivorship care based on each survivor’s specific needs. The algorithms’ framework included: 1) surveillance for recurrent or new primary malignancies; 2) primary and secondary cancer prevention recommendations; 3) management of toxicities and latent treatment effects; and 4) assessment of psychosocial functioning. Conclusions: Practice algorithms provide an organized plan to deliver comprehensive and holistic care to long-term survivors. Given the projected increase in cancer survivors, further research is needed to determine how practice algorithms impact providers’ practice and survivors’ outcomes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9608-9608
Author(s):  
Ruth Rechis ◽  
Carla Bann ◽  
Stephanie Nutt ◽  
Linda Squiers ◽  
Naveen Rao

9608 Background: There are more than 14 million cancer survivors in the US – a number that is on the rise. Care coordination resources will be essential to provide support to this growing population. Key stakeholders, including the Commission on Cancer (CoC) and the Institute of Medicine, have proposed survivorship care plans (SCPs) as a way to extend support. However, limited research has been conducted to date on SCPs. Methods: In 2012, the LIVESTRONG Foundation (LIVESTRONG) administered a survey to understand the role of a treatment summary (TS) and SCPs and how they fit into survivors’ care. Logistic regression models were conducted to identify factors associated with receiving SCPs or TS. Results: 5,303 survivors responded to these questions (Table). While 92% of these respondents received information about where to return to for cancer check-ups, only 51% reported receiving a TS and 17% reported receiving a SCP. Survivors who were more likely to receive SCPs if they had a navigator (p<.001) and if they were male, Black, had finished treatment within the past year, or received care at a university-based medical center or community cancer center (p < 0.05). Also, those receiving a SCP were significantly more likely to have had a detailed discussion with a provider regarding long-term side effects, emotional needs, and lifestyle recommendations. Specifically, 60% of those with a SCP discussed long-term effects compared to 39% who did not. Conclusions: Results here indicate that few survivors receive SCPs but survivors reported benefits from receiving them. Currently many workflow barriers impede delivering SCPs, and LIVESTRONG is working with key stakeholders including the CoC to automate the LIVESTRONG Care Plan powered by Penn Medicine’s OncoLink through a registry and EMR system to understand how to address this issue. [Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Eden R. Brauer ◽  
Elisa F. Long ◽  
Laura Petersen ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz

Abstract Purpose Breast cancer-specific survivorship care guidelines for the more than 3.8 million survivors in the U.S. are available, but implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. We examined current practice patterns and factors associated with guideline-concordant survivorship care among oncologists. Methods A national sample of medical oncologists, recruited using two databases, participated in a survey focused on practice patterns for breast cancer survivorship care. A “survivorship care composite score” was calculated for each respondent based on provision of services recommended in the survivorship guidelines. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between physician and practice characteristics and composite scores. Results The survey was completed by 217 medical oncologists, with an overall response rate of 17.9% and eligibility rate of 56.9% for those who responded. Oncologists reported high engagement in evaluation of disease recurrence (78%). Performed less frequently were the provision of survivorship care plans (46%), assessment of psychosocial long-term and late effects (34%), and screening for subsequent cancers (34%). Lack of survivorship care training (p = 0.038) and not routinely informing patients about potential late effects (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with poorer survivorship care composite scores. Conclusions Despite the availability of disease-specific survivorship care guidelines, adherence to their recommendations in clinical practice is suboptimal. Survey results identified key gaps in survivorship care for breast cancer survivors, particularly related to subsequent primary cancers and psychosocial long-term and late effects. Implications for Cancer Survivors Improving the delivery of comprehensive survivorship care for the growing population of breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Disease-specific clinical guidelines for cancer survivorship provide valuable recommendations, but innovative strategies are needed to integrate them into the care of long-term breast cancer survivors.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Gretchen Dawson ◽  
Stacy Wentworth

26 Background: The number of cancer survivors is expected to reach 20 million by 2026. As patient volumes increase, oncologists are tasked with seeing more patients, often allowing less time for survivorship-related concerns. In an effort to address this issue, nurse practitioners (NPs) are equipped to aid survivors by managing late/long-term side effects of treatment, monitor for recurrence, provide survivorship care plan (SCP), and promote overall health and wellness. Methods: When initiating a survivorship program, our community cancer center utilized survivorship nurse practitioners (SNP) to address increasing patient volumes and patients’ survivorship issues. By beginning with breast cancer survivors, we were able to meet patients prospectively at diagnosis to provide support and introduce survivorship. SNP later saw patients in designated Survivorship Clinic, after completing treatment and in long-term survivorship to address physical/psychosocial concerns, place appropriate referrals, and promote overall wellness. Collaboration with local Primary Care Providers (PCP) was integral for the long-term care of survivors. Results: In 9 months, prospective data collection surveys helped to better understand patients’ needs, allocation of appropriate resources, and measure patient empowerment. Collaboration with EMR team helped address patient volumes and workflow. Future collaboration of survivors’ healthcare needs with PCP was done by routing 162 completed SCPs to patient-designated PCP and mailing over 185 survivorship program introduction letters to community PCPs. Conclusions: Meeting patients prospectively aided in promoting the importance of survivorship helped provide evaluation of our survivorship program’s growth and development. However, patients introduced to survivorship at diagnosis required a formal referral at the completion of treatment, which disrupted workflow. Collaborating with EMR team to develop survivorship referrals, survivorship clinic templates, and SCP reports were important. Continued work with PCPs will be integral to future success. NPs provide survivorship-focused care in the oncology setting, while meeting continued demands of a growing cancer survivorship patient population.


2018 ◽  
Vol 110 (12) ◽  
pp. 1300-1310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M Kline ◽  
Neeraj K Arora ◽  
Cathy J Bradley ◽  
Eden R Brauer ◽  
Darci L Graves ◽  
...  

Abstract The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)’s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer’s (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation’s Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. e98-e109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden R. Brauer ◽  
Elisa F. Long ◽  
Joy Melnikow ◽  
Peter M. Ravdin ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz

PURPOSE: According to the Institute of Medicine, high-quality cancer care should include effective communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits, expected response, and impact on quality of life of a recommended therapy. In the delivery of oncology care, the barriers to and facilitators of communication about potential long-term and late effects, post-treatment expectations, and transition to survivorship care have not been fully defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected qualitative data through semistructured interviews with medical oncologists and focus groups with breast cancer survivors and applied the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically analyze and identify the factors that may influence oncologists’ communication with patients with breast cancer about the long-term and late effects of adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Eight key informant interviews with medical oncologists and two focus groups with breast cancer survivors provided data. Both oncologists and patients perceived information on long-term effects as valuable in terms of improved clinical communication but had concerns about the feasibility of inclusion before treatment. They described the current approaches to communication of therapy risks as a brief laundry list that emphasized acute adverse effects and minimized more long-term issues. We describe the barriers to communication about potential long-term effects from the perspectives of both groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into oncologists’ communication with patients with breast cancer regarding the potential long-term and late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and about setting realistic expectations for life after treatment. Opportunities to improve oncologists’ communication about the potential toxicities of therapy, particularly regarding long-term and late effects, should be examined further.


1993 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 826-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L.M. Olweny ◽  
Christopher A. Juttner ◽  
Peter Rofe ◽  
Graham Barrow ◽  
Adrian Esterman ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 759-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Erin E. Hahn

Breast cancer survivors account for 23% of the more than 10 million cancer survivors in the United States today. The treatments for breast cancer are complex and extend over a long period of time. The post-treatment period is characterized by gradual recovery from many adverse effects from treatment; however, many symptoms and problems persist as late effects (eg, infertility, menopausal symptoms, fatigue), and there may be less frequent long-term effects (eg, second cancers, lymphedema, osteoporosis). There is increasing recognition of the need to summarize the patient's course of treatment into a formal document, called the cancer treatment summary, that also includes recommendations for subsequent cancer surveillance, management of late effects, and strategies for health promotion. This article provides guidance on how oncologists can implement a cancer treatment summary and survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors, with examples and linkage to useful resources. Providing the breast cancer treatment summary and survivorship care plan is being recognized as a key component of coordination of care that will foster the delivery of high-quality cancer care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document