Julia R Berian1,2, Amanda Cuddy3, Amanda B Francescatti1, Linda O'Dwyer4, Y Nancy You3, Robert J Volk5, George J Chang6,7. 1. Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, 633 N. St Clair St., 22nd Floor, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230, USA. 4. Galter Health Sciences Library, Northwestern University, 303 E. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 5. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77230, USA. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230, USA. gchang@mdanderson.org. 7. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77230, USA. gchang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance? METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design. RESULTS: Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.
PURPOSE: Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance? METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design. RESULTS: Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer surveillance; Follow-up care; Patient-centered care; Survivorship
Authors: Daisy Le; Cheryl L Holt; Maria Pisu; Aquila Brown-Galvan; Temeika L Fairley; Judith Lee Smith; Arica White; Ingrid J Hall; Robert A Oster; Michelle Y Martin Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2014
Authors: Carey A Gall; David Weller; Adrian Esterman; Louis Pilotto; Kelly McGorm; Zoe Hammett; David Wattchow Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: George J Chang; Chung-Yuan Hu; Cathy Eng; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A M Stiggelbout; J C de Haes; R Vree; C J van de Velde; C M Bruijninckx; K van Groningen; J Kievit Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tamar B Nobel; Jennifer Livschitz; Xin Xin Xing; Arianna Barbetta; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Smita Sihag; David R Jones; Daniela Molena Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Janeth I Sanchez; Veena Shankaran; Joseph M Unger; Margaret M Madeleine; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Laura A M Duineveld; Hanneke Molthof; Thijs Wieldraaijer; Anthony W H van de Ven; Wim B Busschers; Henk C P M van Weert; Jan Wind Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: T Wieldraaijer; L A M Duineveld; S C Donkervoort; W B Busschers; H C P M van Weert; J Wind Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Robert B Hines; Md Jibanul Haque Jiban; Adrian V Specogna; Priya Vishnubhotla; Eunkyung Lee; Shunpu Zhang Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 4.430