Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. RESULTS: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences.

PURPOSE: To characterize cannabis use among cancer patients, we aimed to describe 1) patterns of cannabis use across multiple cancer sites; 2) perceived goals, benefits, harms of cannabis; and 3) communication about cannabis. METHODS: Patients with 9 different cancers treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March and August 2021 completed an online or phone survey eliciting cannabis use, attitudes, and communication about cannabis. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of cancer type and cannabis use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prior cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 1258 respondents, 31% used cannabis after diagnosis, ranging from 25% for lung cancer to 59% for testicular cancer. Characteristics associated with cannabis use included younger age, lower education level, and cancer type. In multivariable analysis, compared to lung cancer patients, gastrointestinal cancer patients were more likely to use cannabis (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.43). Cannabis use in the year prior to diagnosis was strongly associated with cannabis use after diagnosis (OR 19.13, 95% CI 11.92-30.72). Among users, reasons for use included difficulty sleeping (48%); stress, anxiety, or depression (46%); and pain (42%). Among respondents who used cannabis to improve symptoms, 70-90% reported improvement; < 5% reported that any symptom worsened. Only 25% discussed cannabis with healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of cancer patients use cannabis, largely for symptom management. Oncologists may not know about their patients' cannabis use. To improve decision making about cannabis use during cancer care, research is needed to determine benefits and harms of cannabis use.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. METHODS: Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. RESULTS: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Cardiovascular risk factors, radiation therapy, and myocardial infarction among lymphoma survivors.

BACKGROUND: Mediastinal radiation is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) among non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how preexisting cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) modify the association of mediastinal radiation and MI among a national population of NHL survivors with a range of CVRFs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using Danish registries, we identified adults diagnosed with lymphoma 2000-2010. We assessed MI from one year after diagnosis through 2016. We ascertained CVRFs (hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes), vascular disease, and intrinsic heart disease prevalent at lymphoma diagnosis. We used multivariable Cox regression to test the interaction between preexisting CVRFs and receipt of mediastinal radiation on subsequent MI. RESULTS: Among 3151 NHL survivors (median age 63, median follow-up 6.5 years), 96 were diagnosed with MI. Before lymphoma, 32% of survivors had ≥1 CVRF. 8.5% of survivors received mediastinal radiation. In multivariable analysis, we found that mediastinal radiation (HR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.09-3.52), and presence of ≥1 CVRF (HR = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.77-4.15) were associated with an increased risk of MI. Although there was no interaction on the relative scale (p = 0.14), we saw a clinically relevant absolute increase in risk for patients with CVRF from 10-year of MI of 10.5% without radiation to 29.5% for those undergoing radiation. CONCLUSION: Patients with CVRFs have an importantly higher risk of subsequent MI if they have mediastinal radiation. Routine evaluation of CVRFs and optimal treatment of preexisting cardiovascular disease should continue after receiving cancer therapy. In patients with CVRFs, mediastinal radiation should only be given if oncologic benefit clearly outweighs cardiovascular harm.

Survivorship care plans in research and practice.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \

Does colorectal cancer risk perception predict screening behavior? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although health behavior theories postulate that risk perception should motivate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, this relationship is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to examine the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior, while considering potential moderators and study quality. A search of six databases yielded 58 studies (63 effect sizes) that quantitatively assessed the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. Most included effect sizes (75 %) reported a positive association between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. A random effects meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of z = 0.13 (95 % CI 0.10-0.16), which was heterogeneous (I (2) = 99 %, τ(2) = 0.01). Effect sizes from high-quality studies were significantly lower than those from lower quality studies (z = 0.02 vs. 0.16). We found a small, positive relationship between CRC risk perception and reported screening behavior, with important identified heterogeneity across moderators. Future studies should focus on high quality study design.

Survivorship care plans: is there buy-in from community oncology providers?

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommended that survivors of cancer and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited. METHODS: Oncology providers at 14 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals completed a survey regarding their perceptions of SCPs, including barriers to implementation, strategies for implementation, the role of oncology providers, and the importance of topics in SCPs (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, and the aspects of ongoing care that the oncology practice will provide). RESULTS: Among 245 providers (response rate of 70%), 52% reported ever providing any component of an SCP to patients. The most widely reported barriers were lack of personnel and time to create SCPs (69% and 64% of respondents, respectively). The most widely endorsed strategy among those using SCPs was the use of a template with prespecified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, although 87% to 89% of oncology providers believed it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58% to 65% of respondents believed it was very important for patients to receive the information. Furthermore, 33% to 38% of respondents reported mixed feelings regarding whether it was the responsibility of oncology providers to provide SCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Practices need additional resources to overcome barriers to implementing SCPs. We found resistance toward SCPs, particularly the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP dissemination.

Pain management for post-treatment survivors of complex cancers: a qualitative study of opioids and cannabis.

Aim: We aimed to understand experiences with opioids and cannabis for post-treatment cancer survivors. Patients & methods: We conducted seven focus groups among head and neck and lung cancer survivors, using standard qualitative methodology to explore themes around 1) post-treatment pain and 2) utilization, perceived benefits and perceived harms of cannabis and opioids. Results & conclusion: Survivors (N = 25) experienced addiction fears, stigma and access challenges for both products. Opioids were often perceived as critical for severe pain. Cannabis reduced pain and anxiety for many survivors, suggesting that anxiety screening, as recommended in guidelines, would improve traditional pain assessment. Opioids and cannabis present complex harms and benefits for post-treatment survivors who must balance pain management and minimizing side effects.

Patient out-of-pocket costs for cannabis use during cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: We assessed patient costs associated with cannabis use during cancer treatment. METHODS: Adults treated for cancer at a large, comprehensive center completed an anonymous survey regarding their thoughts and experiences with cannabis and cancer. Bivariate and weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with patient-reported out-of-pocket costs for cannabis products. RESULTS: Overall, 248 cannabis users provided data on cost and were analyzed. Median monthly out-of-pocket cost for cannabis was $80 (interquartile range = $25-$150). On regression analysis, male gender (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.2 to 5.5, P = .026) and being 45 years of age or older (odds ratio = 7.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 30.0, P = .0042) were associated with spending $100 a month or more on cannabis. Of the 166 patients who stopped using cannabis early or used less than preferred, 28% attributed it to cost and 26% to lack of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Cannabis use during cancer treatment may contribute to significant out-of-pocket costs, with men and younger patients more likely to pay higher costs.

Implementation Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Bone Metastases.

Importance: For patients with nonspine bone metastases, short-course radiotherapy (RT) can reduce patient burden without sacrificing clinical benefit. However, there is great variation in uptake of short-course RT across practice settings. Objective: To evaluate whether a set of 3 implementation strategies facilitates increased adoption of a consensus recommendation to treat nonspine bone metastases with short-course RT (ie, ≤5 fractions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized quality improvement study was conducted at 3 community-based cancer centers within an existing academic-community partnership. Rollout was initiated in 3-month increments between October 2021 and May 2022. Participants included treating physicians and patients receiving RT for nonspine bone metastases. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Three implementation strategies-(1) dissemination of published consensus guidelines, (2) personalized audit-and-feedback reports, and (3) an email-based electronic consultation platform (eConsult)-were rolled out to physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the consensus recommendation of short-course RT for nonspine bone metastases. Mixed-effects logistic regression at the bone metastasis level was used to model associations between the exposure of physicians to the set of strategies (preimplementation vs postimplementation) and short-course RT, while accounting for patient and physician characteristics and calendar time, with a random effect for physician. Physician surveys were administered before implementation and after implementation to assess feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy. Results: Forty-five physicians treated 714 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment start, 67 [59-75] years; 343 women [48%]) with 838 unique nonspine bone metastases during the study period. Implementing the set of strategies was not associated with use of short-course RT (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.34; P = .40), with unadjusted adherence rates of 53% (444 lesions) preimplementation vs 56% (469 lesions) postimplementation; however, the adjusted odds of adherence increased with calendar time (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36; P = .003). All 3 implementation strategies were perceived as being feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; only the perception of audit-and-feedback appropriateness changed before vs after implementation (19 of 29 physicians [66%] vs 27 of 30 physicians [90%]; P = .03, Fisher exact test), with 20 physicians (67%) preferring reports quarterly. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a multicomponent set of implementation strategies was not associated with increased use of short-course RT within an academic-community partnership. However, practice improved with time, perhaps owing to secular trends or physician awareness of the study. Audit-and-feedback was more appropriate than anticipated. Findings support the need to investigate optimal approaches for promoting evidence-based radiation practice across settings.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Exercise and nutrition to improve cancer Treatment-Related outcomes (ENICTO).

Chemotherapy treatment-related side-effects are common and increase the risk of suboptimal outcomes. Exercise interventions during cancer treatment improve self-reported physical functioning, fatigue, anxiety, and depression, but it is unclear whether these interventions improve important clinical outcomes, such as chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI). The National Cancer Institute funded the Exercise and Nutrition to Improve Cancer Treatment-Related Outcomes (ENICTO) Consortium, to address this knowledge gap. This paper describes the mechanisms hypothesized to underpin intervention effects on clinically-relevant treatment outcomes, briefly outlines each project's distinct research aims, summarizes the scope and organizational structure of ENICTO, and provides an overview of the integrated common data elements used to pursue research questions collectively. In addition, the paper includes a description of consortium-wide activities and broader research community opportunities for collaborative research. Findings from the ENICTO Consortium have the potential to accelerate a paradigm shift in oncology care such that cancer patients could receive exercise and nutrition programming as the standard of care in tandem with chemotherapy to improve RDI for a curative outcome.

The PhenX Toolkit: standard measurement resources for cancer outcomes and survivorship research.

This brief report introduces the Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship domain in the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), which includes 15 validated measurement protocols for cancer survivorship research that were recommended for inclusion in this publicly available resource. Developed with input from the scientific community, the domain provides researchers with well-established measurement protocols for evaluating physical and psychological effects, financial toxicity, and patient experiences with cancer care. The PhenX Toolkit, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute since 2007, is an online resource that provides high-quality standard measurement protocols for a wide range of research areas (eg, smoking cessation, harm reduction and biomarkers, and social determinants of health). Use of the PhenX Cancer Survivorship Outcomes and Survivorship domain can simplify the selection of measurement protocols, data sharing, and comparisons across studies investigating the cancer survivorship experience.

Interventions for head and neck cancer survivors: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions for head/neck cancer (HNC) survivors may not address their cancer-related and general health needs. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guided this systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2021 of interventions targeting cancer survivors treated with curative-intent, using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Interventions were categorized into domains of the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework to characterize the scope and quality of interventions. RESULTS: We identified 28 studies for inclusion: 13 randomized and 15 non-randomized. Most targeted surveillance/management of physical effects (n = 24) including 13 that also targeted psychosocial effects. Four studies addressed prevention/surveillance for recurrence/new cancers, one addressed health promotion/disease prevention, and one addressed chronic medical conditions. Most studies (n = 27) had medium-high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There are few high-quality studies addressing HNC survivorship. Future rigorously designed studies should address broader areas of care, including chronic disease management and health promotion/disease prevention.

Has Declining Opioid Dispensing to Cancer Patients Been Tailored to Risk of Opioid Harms?

CONTEXT: Opioid prescribing to cancer patients is declining, but it is unknown whether reductions have been tailored to those at highest risk of opioid-related harms. OBJECTIVES: Examine whether declines in opioid dispensing to patients receiving active cancer treatment are sharper in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) or mental health diagnoses. METHODS: We used 2008-2018 national, commercial healthcare claims data to examine adjusted and unadjusted trends in opioid dispensing (receipt of ≥1 fill; average daily dosage; receipt of high-dose opioids; receipt of concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines) to patients ages ≥18 receiving treatment for one of four cancer types (breast; colorectal; head and neck; sarcoma; N = 324,789 patients). To compare declines across subgroups with varying risk of opioid-related harms, we stratified by SUD and mental health diagnosis. To address potential confounding, we estimated subgroup-specific trends using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Across groups, rate of ≥1 opioid fill per quarter fell 32.5% (95% CI: 31.8%-33.2%) from 2008 to 2018; daily dose among those receiving opioids fell 37.6% (95% CI: 36.7%-38.6%). In most cases, these declines were not sharper in subgroups at greater risk of opioid-related harms. For example, patients with opioid use disorder experienced the smallest declines in dispensing frequency, and there was no evidence that declines were sharper in patients with mental health diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Sharp declines in opioid prescribing during the drug overdose crisis have affected a wide range of patients undergoing cancer treatment and may not have been sufficiently tailored to patient characteristics. Research on implications for opioid-related harms and pain management is needed.

Trends in chronic opioid therapy among survivors of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) have increased risk of opioid misuse. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results-Medicare data, we matched adults ≥66 years diagnosed with HNC 2008-2015 with cancer-free controls. We computed odds ratios (OR) for receipt of chronic opioid therapy (COT, claims for ≥90 consecutive days) for HNC survivors compared to controls each year after matching through 2016. RESULTS: The cohort of HNC survivors declined from 5107 in the first year after diagnosis to 604 in the sixth year after diagnosis. For 5 years, rates of COT among HNC survivors exceeded that of controls. Differences between survivors and controls declined each year (ORs: year 1, 4.36; year 2, 2.60; year 3, 2.18; year 4, 1.85; and year 5, 1.35; all P-values <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among older HNC survivors, cancer-associated opioid use in the first years after diagnosis suggests that the benefit of opioids must balance the risk of opioid misuse.

The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors.

Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) can have multiple health concerns. To facilitate their care, we developed and pilot-tested a clinical informatics intervention, HN-STAR. HN-STAR elicits concerns online from HNC survivors prior to a routine oncology clinic visit. HN-STAR then presents tailored evidence-based clinical recommendations as a clinical decision support tool to be used during the visit where the oncology clinician and survivor select symptom management strategies and other actions. This generates a survivorship care plan (SCP). Online elicitation of health concerns occurs 3, 6, and 9 months after the clinic visit, generating an updated SCP each time. HN-STAR encompasses important methods of improving survivorship care (e.g., needs assessment, tailored interventions, dissemination of guidelines) and will be evaluated in a pragmatic trial to maximize external validity. This hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial tests HN-STAR effectiveness while studying barriers and facilitators to implementation in community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Effectiveness will be measured as differences in key survivorship outcomes between HNC participants who do and do not use HN-STAR over one year after the clinic visit. The primary endpoint is HNC-specific quality of life; other outcomes include patient-centered measures and receipt of guideline-concordant care. Implementation outcomes will be assessed of survivors, providers, and clinic stakeholders. The hybrid design will provide insight into a dose-response relationship between the extent of implementation fidelity and effectiveness outcomes, as well as how to incorporate HN-STAR into standard practice outside the research setting.

Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: While a previous meta-analysis found that false-positive mammography results affect women's likelihood of returning for screening, effects on well being have yet to be meta-analyzed. We investigated whether the effects of false-positive mammograms on women's well-being are limited to outcomes specific to breast cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for studies of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results of routine screening mammography. We pooled effect sizes using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Across 17 studies (n=20781), receiving a false-positive mammogram the result was associated with differences in all eight breast-cancer-specific outcomes that we examined. These included greater anxiety and distress about breast cancer as well as more frequent breast self-exams and higher perceived effectiveness of screening mammography. False positives were associated with only one of six generic outcomes (i.e. generalized anxiety), and this effect size was small. CONCLUSIONS: False-positive mammograms influenced women's well-being, but the effects were limited to breast-cancer-specific outcomes. Researchers should include disease-specific measures in future studies of the consequences of false-positive mammograms.

Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend colonoscopies at regular intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Using data from a large, multi-regional, population-based cohort, we describe the rate of surveillance colonoscopy and its association with geographic, sociodemographic, clinical, and health services characteristics. METHODS: We studied CRC survivors enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Eligible survivors were diagnosed between 2003 and 2005, had curative surgery for CRC, and were alive without recurrences 14 months after surgery with curative intent. Data came from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. We used a multivariate logit model to identify predictors of colonoscopy use. RESULTS: Despite guidelines recommending surveillance, only 49% of the 1423 eligible survivors received a colonoscopy within 14 months after surgery. We observed large regional differences (38% to 57%) across regions. Survivors who received screening colonoscopy were more likely to: have colon cancer than rectal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90); have visited a primary care physician (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82); and received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.27-2.41). Compared to survivors with no comorbidities, survivors with moderate or severe comorbidities were less likely to receive surveillance colonoscopy (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49-0.98 and OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite guidelines, more than half of CRC survivors did not receive surveillance colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery, with substantial variation by site of care. The association of primary care visits and adjuvant chemotherapy use suggests that access to care following surgery affects cancer surveillance.

Electronic patient self-assessment and management (SAM): a novel framework for cancer survivorship.

BACKGROUND: We propose a novel framework for management of cancer survivorship: electronic patient Self-Assessment and Management (SAM). SAM is a framework for transfer of information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice. METHODS: Patients who participate in the SAM system are contacted by email at regular intervals and asked to complete validated questionnaires online. Patient responses on these questionnaires are then analyzed in order to provide patients with real-time, online information about their progress and to provide them with tailored and standardized medical advice. Patient-level data from the questionnaires are ported in real time to the patient's health care provider to be uploaded to clinic notes. An initial version of SAM has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) for aiding the clinical management of patients after surgery for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Pilot testing at MSKCC and UCSF suggests that implementation of SAM systems are feasible, with no major problems with compliance (> 70% response rate) or security. CONCLUSION: SAM is a conceptually simple framework for passing information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.