Colon cancer is associated with an increased risk of physical and psychosocial morbidity, even after treatment. General practitioner (GP) care could be beneficial to help to reduce this morbidity. We ...aimed to assess quality of life (QOL) in patients who received GP-led survivorship care after treatment for colon cancer compared with those who received surgeon-led care. Furthermore, the effect of an eHealth app (Oncokompas) on QOL was assessed in both patient groups.
We did a pragmatic two-by-two factorial, open-label, randomised, controlled trial at eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were receiving primary surgical treatment for stage I–III colon cancer or rectosigmoid carcinoma and qualified for routine follow-up according to Dutch national guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1)—via computer-generated variable block randomisation stratified by age and tumour stage—to survivorship care overseen by a surgeon, survivorship care overseen by a surgeon with access to Oncokompas, survivorship care overseen by a GP, or survivorship care overseen by a GP with access to Oncokompas. Blinding of the trial was not possible. The primary endpoint of the trial was QOL at 5 years, as measured by the change from baseline in the European Organistion for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. Here, we report an unplanned interim analysis of QOL at the 12-month follow-up. Grouped comparisons were done (ie, both GP-led care groups were compared with both surgeon-led groups, and both Oncokompas groups were compared with both no Oncokompas groups). Differences in change of QOL between trial groups were estimated with linear mixed-effects models. A change of ten units was considered clinically meaningful. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4860.
Between March 26, 2015, and Nov 21, 2018, 353 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. There were 50 early withdrawals (27 patient decisions and 23 GP withdrawals). Of the remaining 303 participants, 79 were assigned to surgeon-led care, 83 to surgeon-led care with Oncokompas, 73 to GP-led care, and 68 to GP-led care with Oncokompas. Median follow-up was 12·2 months (IQR 12·0–13·0) in all groups. At baseline, QOL was high in all trial groups. At 12 months, there was no clinically meaningful difference in change from baseline in QOL between the GP-led care groups and the surgeon-led care groups (difference in summary score –2·3 95% CI –5·0 to 0·4) or between the Oncokompas and no Oncokompas groups (−0·1 –2·8 to 2·6).
In terms of QOL, GP-led survivorship care can be considered as an alternative to surgeon-led care within the first year after colon cancer treatment. Other outcomes, including patient and physician preferences, will be important for decisions about the type of survivorship care.
Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
Background
To describe general practitioners (GPs) experiences with the impact COVID‐19 on the duration of cancer detection.
Methods
Cross‐sectional survey study among Dutch GPs.
Results
Fifty‐eight ...GPs participated. During the first wave, COVID‐19‐related delays were experienced by 88%, 52%, and 67% of GPs in the contact‐seeking, primary care, and referral phases, respectively. GPs reported delays due to telehealth consultations, longer waiting times and patient's concerns of COVID infections and overburdening GPs.
Conclusions
The majority of GPs experienced delays in cancer diagnostic processes during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which was most prominent in the timeliness in which patients sought GP care.
A cross‐sectional study of Dutch general practitioners (GPs) was conducted to describe their experiences of the impact COVID‐19 on the duration of cancer detection in primary care. It demonstrated that the majority of GPs experienced delays in cancer diagnostic processes during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which was most evident in the contact‐seeking phase.
Abstract Purpose Follow-up after colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent aims to detect recurrences and metachronous tumors in a timely manner. The objective of this study is to assess how ...recurrent disease presents and is diagnosed within scheduled follow-up according to the national guideline for the Netherlands. Methods In a retrospective study of consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who were treated in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands, we identified patients with colon cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent between January 2007 and December 2012. Patients who developed recurrent disease were included for further analyses. Results From a total of 446 patients who were been treated for colon carcinoma with curative intent, 74 developed recurrent disease (17%). In 43 of those patients (58%), recurrent disease was detected during a scheduled follow-up visit, with 41 (95%) being asymptomatic. Tumor marker testing, imaging, and colonoscopy identified all of these recurrences. In the remaining 31 patients with recurrent disease (42%), recurrence was found during non-scheduled interval visits; 26 (84%) of these patients were symptomatic. The most prevalent symptoms were abdominal pain, altered defecation, and weight loss. Patients with asymptomatic recurrences had a significantly higher overall survival compared with patients with symptomatic recurrences. Conclusions In this cohort, 42% of the recurrences after initial curative treatment for colon cancer were found during non-scheduled interval visits, mainly based on symptoms. Primary care physicians who take care of patients whose colon cancer might recur should be aware of the relatively high rate of symptomatic recurrences and of typical presenting symptoms.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose
To understand the role of routine follow-up visits in addressing prostate cancer survivors’ supportive care and information needs.
Methods
We audio-recorded follow-up visits of 32 prostate ...cancer survivors. Follow-up visits were analyzed according to the Verona Network of Sequence Analysis. We categorized survivors’ cues, concerns, and questions into five supportive care domains and divided the responses by the healthcare professionals into providing versus reducing space that is to determine whether or not the response invites the patient to talk more about the expressed cue or concern.
Results
Prostate cancer survivors mostly expressed cues, concerns, and questions (in the health system and information domain) about test results, potential impotence treatment, follow-up appointments, and (their) cancer treatment during follow-up visits. Survivors also expressed urinary complaints (physical and daily living domain) and worry about the recurrence of prostate cancer (psychological domain). Healthcare professionals were two times more likely to provide space on cues and concerns related to the physical and daily living domain than to psychological related issues.
Conclusion
Follow-up visits can serve to address prostate cancer survivors’ supportive care and information needs, especially on the health system, information, and physical and daily living domain. Survivors also expressed problems in the psychological domain, although healthcare professionals scarcely provided space to these issues. We would like to encourage clinicians to use these results to personalize follow-up care. Also, these data can be used to develop tailored (eHealth) interventions to address supportive care and information needs and to develop new models of survivorship care delivery.
Background
Digital interventions are increasingly used to support smoking cessation. Ex-smokers iCoach was a widely available app for smoking cessation used by 404,551 European smokers between June ...15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. This provides a unique opportunity to investigate the uptake of a freely available digital smoking cessation intervention and its effects on smoking-related outcomes.
Objective
We aimed to investigate whether there were distinct trajectories of iCoach use, examine which baseline characteristics were associated with user groups (based on the intensity of use), and assess if and how these groups were associated with smoking-related outcomes.
Methods
Analyses were performed using data from iCoach users registered between June 15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. Smoking-related data were collected at baseline and every 3 months thereafter, with a maximum of 8 follow-ups. First, group-based modeling was applied to detect distinct trajectories of app use. This was performed in a subset of steady users who had completed at least 1 follow-up measurement. Second, ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the baseline characteristics that were associated with user group membership. Finally, generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between the user groups and smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time.
Results
Of the 311,567 iCoach users, a subset of 26,785 (8.6%) steady iCoach users were identified and categorized into 4 distinct user groups: low (n=17,422, 65.04%), mild (n=4088, 15.26%), moderate (n=4415, 16.48%), and intensive (n=860, 3.21%) users. Older users and users who found it important to quit smoking had higher odds of more intensive app use, whereas men, employed users, heavy smokers, and users with higher self-efficacy scores had lower odds of more intensive app use. User groups were significantly associated with subsequent smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time. For all groups, over time, the probability of being a smoker decreased, whereas the probability of being in an improved quitting stage increased, as did the self-efficacy to quit smoking. For all outcomes, the greatest change was observed between baseline and the first follow-up at 3 months. In the intensive user group, the greatest change was seen between baseline and the 9-month follow-up, with the observed change declining gradually in moderate, mild, and low users.
Conclusions
In the subset of steady iCoach users, more intensive app use was associated with higher smoking cessation rates, increased quitting stage, and higher self-efficacy to quit smoking over time. These users seemed to benefit most from the app in the first 3 months of use. Women and older users were more likely to use the app more intensively. Additionally, users who found quitting difficult used the iCoach app more intensively and grew more confident in their ability to quit over time.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Objective
Patients treated for colon cancer report many symptoms that affect quality of life (QoL). Survivorship care aims at QoL improvement. In this study, we assess associations between symptoms ...and seeking supportive care and lower QoL and QoL changes overtime during survivorship care.
Methods
A prospective cohort of colon cancer survivors. Questionnaires are administered at inclusion and 6 months later to evaluate symptoms, functioning and seeking supportive care including associations with QoL, using the EORTC QLQ‐C30.
Results
The mean QoL score at the first questionnaire was 82 (scale 1–100), which improved over time. Pain, bowel symptoms and problems in physical, role, cognitive or social functioning are associated with lower QoL at inclusion but are not associated with QoL changes over time. Seeking support for lower bowel symptoms, physical functioning or fatigue is associated with lower QoL. After 6 months, seeking support for upper bowel symptoms or physical functioning is associated with a tendency towards less QoL improvement.
Conclusion
QoL of colon cancer survivors improves over 6 months, but seeking support for specific symptoms barely contribute to this improvement.
Implications
This study confirms the importance of addressing symptoms, problems related to functioning and seeking supportive care during survivorship care.
In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer ...survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative.
This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment.
This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors.
Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction: In the Netherlands, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic saw shifts in primary health service provision away from physical consultations, cancer-screening programs were temporarily ...halted, and government messaging focused on remaining at home. In March and April 2020, weekly cancer diagnoses decreased to 73% of their pre-COVID levels, and 39% for skin cancer. This study aims to explore the effect of the COVID pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care in The Netherlands. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using routine clinical primary care data. Monthly incidences of patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in five clinical databases in The Netherlands were analysed from March 2018 to February 2021. Results: Data demonstrated reductions in the incidence of cancer-related symptom presentations to primary care during the first COVID wave (March-June 2020) of −34% (95% CI: −43 to −23%) for all symptoms combined. In the second wave (October 2020–February 2021) there was no change in incidence observed (−8%, 95% CI −20% to 6%). Alarm-symptoms demonstrated decreases in incidence in the first wave with subsequent incidences that continued to rise in the second wave, such as: first wave: breast lump −17% (95% CI: −27 to −6%) and haematuria −15% (95% CI −24% to −6%); and second wave: rectal bleeding +14% (95% CI: 0 to 30%) and breast lump +14% (95% CI: 2 to 27%). Presentations of common non-alarm symptom such as tiredness and naevus demonstrated decreased in-cidences in the first wave of 45% (95% CI: −55% to −33%) and 37% (95% CI −47% to −25%). In the second wave, tiredness incidence was reduced by 20% (95% CI: −33% to −3%). Subgroup analy-sis did not demonstrate difference in incidence according to sex, age groups, comorbidity status, or previous history of cancer. Conclusions: These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. For those patients who had underlying cancer, this may have had impacted the cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.
IntroductionCervical cancer screening in general practice could be a routine moment to provide female smokers with stop smoking advice and support. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a ...stop smoking strategy delivered by trained practice assistants after the cervical smear, and to evaluate the implementation process.Methods and analysisThe study is a two-arm, pragmatic cluster randomised trial, in Dutch general practice. Randomisation takes place 1:1 at the level of the general practice. Practices either deliver the SUCCESS stop smoking strategy or the usual care condition. The strategy consists of brief stop smoking advice based on the Ask-Advise-Connect method and is conducted by trained practice assistants after routine cervical cancer screening. The primary outcome is the performance of a serious quit attempt in the 6 months after screening. Secondary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence abstinence, reduction in the number of cigarettes per day and transition in motivation to quit smoking. Follow-up for these measurements takes place after 6 months. Analysis on the primary outcome aims to detect a 10% difference between treatment arms (0.80 power, p=0.05, using a one-sided test), and will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. The process evaluation will assess feasibility, acceptability and barriers or enablers to the strategy’s implementation. For this purpose, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via questionnaires and in-depth interviews, respectively, in both individual study participants and involved staff.Ethics and disseminationThe Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport approved of the trial after an advisory report from the Health Council (Nr. 2018/17). A licence was provided to conduct the study under the Population Screening Act. Study results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNL5052 (NTR7451).
The number of cancer patients and survivors of working age is increasing. General Practitioners (GPs) may have a significant role in psychosocial cancer care, including work-related concerns. ...Therefore, we performed a systematic literature review to identify the role of the GP in work-related concerns and integration/reintegration into work of cancer patients and/or survivors.
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library, irrespective of study design. We found 4863 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened 3388 articles by title and abstract and reviewed 66 of these in full text. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included articles. We used narrative synthesis to describe the role of the GP.
We included four qualitative studies from three countries. Two of these studies focused on the health care professionals' perspectives and two studies focused on patients' perspectives regarding the role of the GP. Lack of communication between health care professionals, lack of knowledge about work-related concerns and limited resources were recurring themes in these papers. Fully establishing the role of the GP is difficult given the small number of studies on work-related concerns in cancer patients in primary care.
There is little evidence regarding the role of the general practitioner in cancer care and work guidance. Therefore, further research should focus on the role that is desired for GPs and on interventions to study the feasibility of GP involvement in the return to work of cancer patients and/or survivors.
PDF
