R Urquhart1,2,3, L Lethbridge1, G A Porter1,2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University. 2. qeii Health Sciences Centre, Nova Scotia Health Authority; and. 3. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rising demand on cancer system resources, alongside mounting evidence that demonstrates the safety and acceptability of primary care-led follow-up care, has resulted in some cancer centres discharging patients back to primary care after treatment. At the same time, the ways in which routine cancer follow-up care is provided across Canada continue to vary widely. The objectives of the present study were to investigate patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre for breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer survivors; factors associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre; and changes in follow-up care at a cancer centre over time. METHODS: We identified all people diagnosed in Nova Scotia with an invasive breast, colorectal, gynecologic, or prostate cancer between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. We linked the resulting population-based dataset, at the patient level, to cancer centre or clinic data and to census data. We identified a nonmetastatic survivor cohort (n = 12,267) and developed decision rules to differentiate routine from non-routine visits during the follow-up care period (commencing 1 year after diagnosis). Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. Negative binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with visits made and changes over time. RESULTS: Nearly half the survivors (48.4%) had at least 1 follow-up visit to the cancer centre, with variation by disease site (range: 30.2%-62.4%). Disease site and stage at diagnosis were associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre. For instance, compared with breast cancer survivors, survivors of gynecologic cancer had more visits [incidence rate ratio (irr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.34 to 1.64], and survivors of colorectal cancer had fewer visits (irr: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.40 to 0.51). Year of diagnosis was associated with follow-up at a cancer centre, with each successive calendar year being associated with an 8% increase in visits made (irr: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.07 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that follow-up care can be effectively and safely delivered in primary care, and despite intensifying demands on oncology services, many survivors continue to receive routine follow-up care at a cancer centre.
BACKGROUND: Rising demand on cancer system resources, alongside mounting evidence that demonstrates the safety and acceptability of primary care-led follow-up care, has resulted in some cancer centres discharging patients back to primary care after treatment. At the same time, the ways in which routine cancer follow-up care is provided across Canada continue to vary widely. The objectives of the present study were to investigate patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre for breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer survivors; factors associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre; and changes in follow-up care at a cancer centre over time. METHODS: We identified all people diagnosed in Nova Scotia with an invasive breast, colorectal, gynecologic, or prostate cancer between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. We linked the resulting population-based dataset, at the patient level, to cancer centre or clinic data and to census data. We identified a nonmetastatic survivor cohort (n = 12,267) and developed decision rules to differentiate routine from non-routine visits during the follow-up care period (commencing 1 year after diagnosis). Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. Negative binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with visits made and changes over time. RESULTS: Nearly half the survivors (48.4%) had at least 1 follow-up visit to the cancer centre, with variation by disease site (range: 30.2%-62.4%). Disease site and stage at diagnosis were associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre. For instance, compared with breast cancer survivors, survivors of gynecologic cancer had more visits [incidence rate ratio (irr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.34 to 1.64], and survivors of colorectal cancer had fewer visits (irr: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.40 to 0.51). Year of diagnosis was associated with follow-up at a cancer centre, with each successive calendar year being associated with an 8% increase in visits made (irr: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.07 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that follow-up care can be effectively and safely delivered in primary care, and despite intensifying demands on oncology services, many survivors continue to receive routine follow-up care at a cancer centre.
Entities:
Keywords:
Survivorship; administrative health data; follow-up care
Authors: D Howell; T F Hack; T K Oliver; T Chulak; S Mayo; M Aubin; M Chasen; C C Earle; A J Friedman; E Green; G W Jones; J M Jones; M Parkinson; N Payeur; C M Sabiston; S Sinclair Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Nicole M Steffens; Nora Jacobson; Amye Tevaarwerk; Bethany Anderson; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; David F Schneider; Emily R Winslow; Rebecca A Busch; Jennifer L Tucholka; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aimee Kendall Roundtree; Sharon H Giordano; Andrea Price; Maria E Suarez-Almazor Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Paul K J Han; Julia Rowland; Carrie N Klabunde; Tenbroeck Smith; Noreen Aziz; Craig Earle; John Z Ayanian; Patricia A Ganz; Michael Stefanek Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jennifer M Weiss; Deborah Schrag; Katie Ronk; Jeffrey Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: D A Wattchow; D P Weller; A Esterman; L S Pilotto; K McGorm; Z Hammett; C Platell; C Silagy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anna Jansana; Margarita Posso; Inmaculada Guerrero; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Maria Isabel Del Cura; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: R Vera; J Aparicio; F Carballo; M Esteva; E González-Flores; J Santianes; F Santolaya; J M Fernández-Cebrián Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Shaila M Strayhorn; Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Leslie R Carnahan; Vida A Henderson; Karriem S Watson; Carol E Ferrans; Yamilé Molina Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 3.603