Erin M Barthel1,2, Katherine Spencer3, Darcy Banco3, Elizabeth Kiernan2, Susan Parsons1,2. 1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology Oncology, Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts Medical Center , Boston, Massachusetts. 2. 2 Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center , Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Tufts University School of Medicine , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The adolescent and young adult (AYA) population is a growing group of survivors, exceeding more than 600,000, at high risk for late effects of cancer-directed therapy. While many guidelines exist for cancer survivorship care, choosing which to use for an AYA cancer survivor is challenging, yet vital, to ensure comprehensive follow-up care. METHODS: Survivorship care plans (SCPs), including treatment summaries (TS) and follow-up care plans, were created for three clinical vignettes (acute lymphoblastic leukemia, osteosarcoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma). Four sets of guidelines were used, including the Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines (COG LTFU), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for Age- Related Recommendations: AYA Oncology (NCCN-AYA), NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer by Site (NCCN-Site), and NCCN Guidelines for Supportive Care: Survivorship (NCCN-Survivorship) and NCCN supplemental cancer screening guidelines. The follow-up care plans were compared across guidelines to determine the extent and nature of the similarities and differences concerning AYA cancer survivorship care. RESULTS: The guidelines disagree on the link between treatment exposures and late effects, the population to be screened, the screening test to be used, and the time interval of testing. Specific examples of this include screening for cardiac toxicity, breast cancer, and neurocognitive deficits. CONCLUSIONS: While many guidelines exist for AYA survivorship care, there is discordance among the recommendations. This has significant implications for the long-term follow-up care of an AYA survivor. This study offers solutions to harmonize guidelines in order to ensure comprehensive quality survivorship care for this population.
PURPOSE: The adolescent and young adult (AYA) population is a growing group of survivors, exceeding more than 600,000, at high risk for late effects of cancer-directed therapy. While many guidelines exist for cancer survivorship care, choosing which to use for an AYA cancer survivor is challenging, yet vital, to ensure comprehensive follow-up care. METHODS: Survivorship care plans (SCPs), including treatment summaries (TS) and follow-up care plans, were created for three clinical vignettes (acute lymphoblastic leukemia, osteosarcoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma). Four sets of guidelines were used, including the Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines (COG LTFU), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for Age- Related Recommendations: AYA Oncology (NCCN-AYA), NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer by Site (NCCN-Site), and NCCN Guidelines for Supportive Care: Survivorship (NCCN-Survivorship) and NCCN supplemental cancer screening guidelines. The follow-up care plans were compared across guidelines to determine the extent and nature of the similarities and differences concerning AYA cancer survivorship care. RESULTS: The guidelines disagree on the link between treatment exposures and late effects, the population to be screened, the screening test to be used, and the time interval of testing. Specific examples of this include screening for cardiac toxicity, breast cancer, and neurocognitive deficits. CONCLUSIONS: While many guidelines exist for AYA survivorship care, there is discordance among the recommendations. This has significant implications for the long-term follow-up care of an AYA survivor. This study offers solutions to harmonize guidelines in order to ensure comprehensive quality survivorship care for this population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hodgkin lymphoma; acute lymphoblastic leukemia; late effects; osteosarcoma; survivorship
Authors: Carla J Berg; Robin C Vanderpool; Betelihem Getachew; Jackelyn B Payne; Meghan F Johnson; Yasmeni Sandridge; Jennifer Bierhoff; Lana Le; Rakiyah Johnson; Amber Weber; Akilah Patterson; Sarah Dorvil; Ann Mertens Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Devon J Boyne; Alexis T Mickle; Darren R Brenner; Christine M Friedenreich; Winson Y Cheung; Karen L Tang; Todd A Wilson; Diane L Lorenzetti; Matthew T James; Paul E Ronksley; Doreen M Rabi Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Elizabeth J Siembida; Holli A Loomans-Kropp; Neha Trivedi; Ann O'Mara; Lillian Sung; Irene Tami-Maury; David R Freyer; Michael Roth Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Chun Chao; Smita Bhatia; Lanfang Xu; Kimberly L Cannavale; F Lennie Wong; Po-Yin Samuel Huang; Robert Cooper; Saro H Armenian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 44.544