BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.
BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Sarah Raskin; Yuqing Zhang; Gema Lane; Alexandra Zizzi; Mandi Pratt-Chapman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Mette Moustgaard Jeppesen; Nicole P M Ezendam; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; M Caroline Vos; Dorry Boll; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Pernille Tine Jensen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Heather Greenlee; Danielle Awad; Kevin Kalinsky; Matthew Maurer; Grace Kranwinkel; Lois Brafman; Ramona Jayasena; Wei-Yann Tsai; Alfred I Neugut; Katherine D Crew Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Carrie Tompkins Stricker; Linda A Jacobs; Betsy Risendal; Alison Jones; Sarahlena Panzer; Patricia A Ganz; Karen L Syrjala; Mary S McCabe; K Scott Baker; Kenneth Miller; Jacqueline Casillas; Donald L Rosenstein; Marci Campbell; Steven C Palmer Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Jim A Julian; Gregory Pond; Elizabeth Maunsell; Douglas Coyle; Amy Folkes; Anil A Joy; Louise Provencher; Daniel Rayson; Dorianne E Rheaume; Geoffrey A Porter; Lawrence F Paszat; Kathleen I Pritchard; André Robidoux; Sally Smith; Jonathan Sussman; Susan Dent; Jeffrey Sisler; Jennifer Wiernikowski; Mark N Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kim A H Nicolaije; Nicole P M Ezendam; M Caroline Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Erik A Boss; Ralph H M Hermans; Karin C M Engelhart; Joke E Haartsen; Brenda M Pijlman; Ingrid E A M van Loon-Baelemans; Helena J M M Mertens; Willem E Nolting; Johannes J van Beek; Jan A Roukema; Wobbe P Zijlstra; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Youngjee Choi; Katherine C Smith; Aishwarya Shukla; Amanda L Blackford; Antonio C Wolff; Elissa Thorner; Kimberly S Peairs; Walid El Ayass; Patricia Njoku; Katie Papathakis; Carol D Riley; Nelli Zafman; Fariba Asrari; Melissa Camp; Jean L Wright; Nancy J Mayonado; Sharon M White; Claire F Snyder Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Annelies H Boekhout; Elizabeth Maunsell; Gregory R Pond; Jim A Julian; Doug Coyle; Mark N Levine; Eva Grunfeld Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 4.442