Cancer-related cognitive impairment as a key contributor to psychopathology in cancer survivors: implications for prevention, treatment and supportive care.

A significant proportion of cancer survivors will experience some form of mental health compromise across domains including mood, anxiety, psychosis, eating disorders, and substance use. This psychopathology within cancer survivors is related to a range of negative outcomes and can also have a substantial negative impact on quality of life. Along with psychopathology, cognitive impairments are also commonly experienced, resulting in deficits in memory, reasoning, decision-making, speed of processing, and concentration, collectively referred to as cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). Within the non-oncology literature, cognitive deficits are consistently demonstrated to be a key transdiagnostic aetiological feature of psychopathology, functionally contributing to the development and perpetuation of symptoms. Whilst there is an acknowledgement of the role mental health concerns might play in the development of and perception of CRCI, there has been limited acknowledgement and research exploring the potential for CRCI to functionally contribute toward the development of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors beyond simply psychosocial distress. Given the theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting cognitive deficits to be an aetiological factor in psychopathology, we provide a rationale for the potential for CRCI to be a factor in the development and perpetuation of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors. This potential functional association has significant implications for risk identification, prevention, treatment, and supportive cancer care approaches regarding psychopathology in cancer survivorship. We conclude by providing directions for future research in this area.

Developing national cancer survivorship standards to inform quality of care in the United States using a consensus approach.

PURPOSE: To develop United States (US) standards for survivorship care that informs (1) essential health system policy and process components and (2) evaluation of the quality of survivorship care. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs led a review to identify indicators of quality cancer survivorship care in the domains of health system policy, process, and evaluation/assessment. A series of three virtual consensus meetings with survivorship care and research experts and advocates was conducted to rate the importance of the indicators and refine the top indicators. The final set of standards was developed, including ten indicators in each domain. RESULTS: Prioritized items were survivor-focused, including processes to both assess and manage physical, psychological, and social issues, and evaluation of patient outcomes and experiences. Specific indicators focused on developing a business model for sustaining survivorship care and collecting relevant business metrics (e.g., healthcare utilization, downstream revenue) to show value of survivorship care to health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The National Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care can be used by health systems to guide development of new survivorship care programs or services or to assess alignment and enhance services in existing survivorship programs. Given the variety of settings providing care to survivors, it is necessary for health systems to adapt these standards based on factors including age-specific needs, cancer types, treatments received, and health system resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States, many of whom experience varied symptoms and unmet needs, it is essential for health systems to have a comprehensive strategy to provide ongoing care. The US National Standards for Survivorship Care should serve as a blueprint for what survivors and their families can anticipate after a cancer diagnosis to address their needs.

Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions.

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system-level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability.

International Survey of Psychosocial Care for Cancer Survivors in Low-/Middle- and High-Income Countries: Current Practices, Barriers, and Facilitators to Care.

PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors living with and beyond cancer treatment is rising globally. It is fundamental to understand the extent and type of psychosocial care services offered worldwide. We evaluated models of cancer survivorship care, psychosocial care practices in the post-treatment survivorship phase, and barriers/facilitators to delivery of psychosocial care services, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) Survivorship Special Interest Group led a cross-sectional online survey between March and November 2022. Health care professionals and researchers in psycho-oncology were invited through the IPOS global membership, social media, and snowballing. The survey was administered to individuals but included questions related to practices in their country at a national level. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-three respondents from 37 countries participated (40% from LMICs), with a median of 12 years of experience (IQR, 6-20) in the psycho-oncology field. Participants reported that the most common elements of routine survivorship care were related to the prevention/management of recurrences/new cancers (74%), physical late effects (59%), and chronic medical conditions (53%), whereas surveillance/management of psychosocial late effects (27%) and psychosocial/supportive care (25%) were least common. Service availability was more commonly reported in high-income countries (HICs) than LMICs related to reproductive health (29% v 17%), genetic counseling/support (40% v 20%), and identifying/managing distress (39% v 26%) and pain (66% v 48%). Key barriers included providers focusing on treatment not survivorship (57%), medical not psychosocial care (60%), and a lack of allied health providers to deliver psychosocial care (59%). CONCLUSION: The psychosocial needs of people living with cancer are not adequately available and/or provided in post-treatment survivorship even in HICs, because of barriers at patient, provider, and system levels.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) is funded by Cancer Australia to support the development of new cancer in primary care research. We undertook a research prioritisation exercise to identify cancer research priorities in Australian general practice. METHOD: We adapted the nominal group technique, including a literature search and stakeholder survey. An expert group from the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group consolidated and ranked priorities. A second stakeholder survey reviewing the top 50 priorities informed a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Overall, 311 priorities were identified across the cancer continuum. Nearly one-third of priorities were related to cancer survivorship and included strategies to detect recurrence, behavioural interventions and tools to assess physical and psychosocial aspects of survivorship. Prevention/early detection comprised 43.4% of priorities. Palliative care produced the least priorities (9.6%). Cross cutting research priorities (15.1%) included quality and models of care. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to identify cancer research priorities for general practice in Australia. It could be used to inform the development of targeted research and funding to improve the care and outcomes for Australians affected by cancer.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Development of Web-Based Education Modules to Improve Carer Engagement in Cancer Care: Design and User Experience Evaluation of the e-Triadic Oncology (eTRIO) Modules for Clinicians, Patients, and Carers.

BACKGROUND: Carers often assume key roles in cancer care. However, many carers report feeling disempowered and ill-equipped to support patients. Our group published evidence-based guidelines (the Triadic Oncology [TRIO] Guidelines) to improve oncology clinician engagement with carers and the management of challenging situations involving carers. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate implementation of the TRIO Guidelines in clinical practice, we aimed to develop, iteratively refine, and conduct user testing of a suite of evidence-based and interactive web-based education modules for oncology clinicians (e-Triadic Oncology [eTRIO]), patients with cancer, and carers (eTRIO for Patients and Carers [eTRIO-pc]). These were designed to improve carer involvement, communication, and shared decision-making in the cancer management setting. METHODS: The eTRIO education modules were based on extensive research, including systematic reviews, qualitative interviews, and consultation analyses. Guided by the person-based approach, module content and design were reviewed by an expert advisory group comprising academic and clinical experts (n=13) and consumers (n=5); content and design were continuously and iteratively refined. User experience testing (including "think-aloud" interviews and administration of the System Usability Scale [SUS]) of the modules was completed by additional clinicians (n=5), patients (n=3), and carers (n=3). RESULTS: The final clinician module comprises 14 sections, requires approximately 1.5 to 2 hours to complete, and covers topics such as carer-inclusive communication and practices; supporting carer needs; and managing carer dominance, anger, and conflicting patient-carer wishes. The usability of the module was rated by 5 clinicians, with a mean SUS score of 75 (SD 5.3), which is interpreted as good. Clinicians often desired information in a concise format, divided into small "snackable" sections that could be easily recommenced if they were interrupted. The carer module features 11 sections; requires approximately 1.5 hours to complete; and includes topics such as the importance of carers, carer roles during consultations, and advocating for the patient. The patient module is an adaptation of the relevant carer module sections, comprising 7 sections and requiring 1 hour to complete. The average SUS score as rated by 6 patients and carers was 78 (SD 16.2), which is interpreted as good. Interactive activities, clinical vignette videos, and reflective learning exercises are incorporated into all modules. Patient and carer consumer advisers advocated for empathetic content and tone throughout their modules, with an easy-to-read and navigable module interface. CONCLUSIONS: The eTRIO suite of modules were rigorously developed using a person-based design methodology to meet the unique information needs and learning requirements of clinicians, patients, and carers, with the goal of improving effective and supportive carer involvement in cancer consultations and cancer care.

The paradox of platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome.

Platypnoea-orthodeoxia is a rare clinical syndrome characterised by dyspnoea and oxygen desaturation in the upright position which improves when supine. It requires two components: a sufficiently sized anatomical vascular defect (typically intra-cardiac or intra-pulmonary) combined with a functional component that promotes positional right-to-left shunting. We describe the rare occurrence of a patient with platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) because of a paradoxical shunt through a patent foramen ovale caused by a large right atrial line-associated thrombus in a male with metastatic oesophageal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. This case is a timely reminder to consider POS amongst differentials for hypoxia as it is often treatable if recognised.

An online intervention to improve oncology health professional self-efficacy in communicating with carers: Hybrid effectiveness-implementation evaluation of the eTRIO program.

OBJECTIVES: Many oncology health professionals (HPs) report communicating with carers as complex; and receive limited carer-relevant training. We developed an online HP education program for supporting and managing carer involvement (eTRIO). We aimed to assess whether HPs' self-efficacy in carer communication, knowledge, and decision-making preferences improve following eTRIO. Satisfaction and implementation potential were assessed. METHODS: This type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study used a pre-post single arm intervention design. HPs completed baseline measures, the eTRIO online module, and measures at 1- and 12-weeks post-intervention. Measures included: self-efficacy in carer communication (13-items), applied knowledge (7-items), preference for carer involvement in decisions (1-item). Fifteen of participants completed feedback interviews which underwent thematic analysis. User analytics were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-six HPs completed baseline measures, 42 completed post- and follow-up measures. At baseline mean self-efficacy score was 88. HPs showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy post-intervention (mean = 105.8, CI [12.99, 20.47]), maintained at 12-weeks (mean = 101.1, CI [8.00, 15.72]). There were no changes in knowledge or decision-making preferences. Program engagement and satisfaction were high, 86.7% participants rated eTRIO as very/extremely helpful. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: eTRIO provided HPs with confidence to effectively engage with carers and manage complex situations such as family dominance. These gains are noteworthy, as conflict with families/carers contributes to HP burnout.

Evaluating the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Psychosexual Intervention for Couples Post-allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can have a long-term impact on patients' sexual functioning and consequently, their relationship satisfaction. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a 5-session psychosexual intervention for HSCT survivors and their partners. METHODS: To be eligible patients were required to be more than 3 months post-allogeneic HSCT. The intervention comprised 2 components: (1) A psychosexual education session exploring medical/behavioral treatment options for sexual dysfunction, delivered by a specialist nurse; (2) A 4-session Emotionally-Focused Therapy-based relationship education program for couples delivered by a clinical psychologist. Measures assessing relationship quality, sexual functioning, anxiety, and depression were administered pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility was measured via participation rate, adherence and compliance with completing main measures. Acceptability of the intervention was assessed via patient/partner satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: Eight of 85 (9.4%) eligible patients and their partners participated in the study. Reasons for declining participation included: feeling uncomfortable due to sensitive nature of intervention; did not have any relationship/sexual function issues; and experiencing ongoing medical issues. Six of 8 couples (75%) attended at least 4 intervention sessions and 5 of 8 (62.5%) completed the main study measures post-intervention. Four couples reported that sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction was somewhat or much better post-intervention; 1 reported no change. CONCLUSION: Feasibility criteria were not met, with low enrolment rate, however the intervention was deemed acceptable. Couples who participated adhered to the intervention and considered it beneficial. Further strategies to identify and manage sexual concerns are required.

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

iCare - a self-directed, interactive online program to improve health and wellbeing for people living with upper gastrointestinal or hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and their informal carers: the study protocol for a Phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. DISCUSSION: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS: Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

Factors beyond diagnosis and treatment that are associated with return to work in Australian cancer survivors-A systematic review.

Return to work (RTW) is a marker of functional recovery for working-age cancer survivors. Identifying factors that impact on RTW in cancer survivors is an essential step to guide further research and interventions to support RTW. This systematic review aimed to identify nontreatment, non-cancer-related variables impacting RTW in Australian cancer survivors. A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible if they included: (1) adults living post diagnosis of malignancy; (2) quantitative data for nontreatment, non-cancer-related variables impacting RTW; (3) only Australian participants. Included studies were critically appraised, and relevant data extracted and synthesized narratively. Six studies were included in the review, published between 2008 and 2020. Studies were of variable quality and mixed methodologies. One study included malignancies of any type with the remainder focusing on survivors of colorectal cancer (n = 3), oropharyngeal cancer (n = 1), and glioblastoma multiforme (n = 1). Multiple factors were related to RTW in individual studies, including older age, presence of three or more comorbidities, fewer work hours pre-morbidly, lower body mass index, longer than recommended sleep duration, and not having private health insurance; however, there was limited consistency in findings between studies. Other variables examined included: occupation type, household income, healthy lifestyle behaviors, flexibility, and duration of employment with workplace; however, no significant associations with RTW were reported. Further research is required to gather compelling evidence on factors that influence RTW in Australian cancer survivors.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.