Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Implementing survivorship care planning in two contrasting health systems: lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to promote appropriate follow-up care, but implementation has been limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing three SCP delivery models in two health systems. We utilize mixed methods to compare the feasibility and participants' perceived value of the three models. METHODS: Patients completing treatment for stage I-III breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer from one urban-academic and one rural community cancer center were randomized to (1) mailed SCP, (2) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit, or (3) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit plus 6-month follow-up. Clinics had flexibility in intervention implementation. Quantitative data summarize intervention fidelity and protocol deviations. Qualitative interview data provide patients' perspectives on feasibility and intervention value. RESULTS: Of 475 eligible participants approached, 378 (79%) were randomized. Of 345 SCPs delivered, 265 (76.8%) were by protocol. Protocol deviations were more common at the urban-academic center. In post-study qualitative interviews, participants recalled little about the SCP document or visit(s). SCPs were valued for information and care coordination, although their static nature was limiting, and sometimes SCP information differed from that provided elsewhere. Visits were opportunities for care and reassurance, but time and distance to the clinic were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SCP provision was challenging. Patients were interested in SCP, but not necessarily additional survivorship visits, particularly at the urban-academic hospital. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings suggest that patients value careful consideration of health care needs during the transition out of treatment; SCP documents are one element of this. For many patients, models without additional visits and dynamic SCPs may be preferred.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches.

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.