Breast cancer survivorship care plans: what are they covering and how well do they align with national guidelines?

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) provide key information about cancer treatment history and follow-up recommendations. We describe the completeness of breast cancer SCPs and evaluate guideline concordance of follow-up recommendations. METHODS: We analyzed 149 breast cancer SCPs from two sites, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, surveillance plans, and health promotion advice. SCP recommendations and provided information were compared to American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in > 90% of the plans included patient age; relevant providers; cancer stage; treatment details; and physical exam, mammogram, and health promotion recommendations. SCP components completed less frequently included post-treatment symptoms/side effects (67%). All SCPs at the community site were uniform but had the potential for oversurveillance if visits occurred every 3 months in years 1-2 or every 6 months in years 3-5 with multiple cancer providers. The academic site recommended three predominant patterns of follow-up: (1) primary care provider every 6-12 months; (2) cancer team every 3-6 months (year 1), every 6-12 months (years 4-5); and (3) alternating oncology providers every 3-6 months (years 1-2) then every 6 months. Compared to guidelines, these patterns recommend under- and oversurveillance at various times. Mammography recommendations showed guideline concordance (annual) for 84%, oversurveillance for 10%, and were incomplete for 6%. SCPs of only 12/79 (15%) women on aromatase inhibitors recommended guideline-concordant bone density testing. CONCLUSIONS: SCP content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information but has follow-up recommendation gaps. Efforts to improve follow-up recommendations are needed.

Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to study how patients and their clinicians evaluated the usability of PatientViewpoint, a webtool designed to allow patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to be used in clinical practice. METHODS: As part of a two-round quality improvement study, breast and prostate cancer patients and their medical and radiation oncology clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about their use of PatientViewpoint. The patient interview addressed different phases of the PRO completion workflow: reminders, completing the survey, and viewing the results. The clinician interviews asked about use of PatientViewpoint, integration with the clinical workflow, barriers to use, and helpful and desired features. Responses were recorded, categorized, and reviewed. After both rounds of interviews, modifications were made to PatientViewpoint. RESULTS: Across the two rounds, 42 unique patients (n = 19 in round 1, n = 23 in round 2) and 12 clinicians (all in both rounds) completed interviews. For patients, median age was 65, 81 % were white, 69 % were college graduates, 80 % had performance status of 0, 69 % had loco-regional disease, and 81 % were regular computer users. In the quality improvement interviews, patients identified numerous strengths of the system, including its ability to flag issues for discussion with their provider. Comments included confusion about how scores were presented and that the value of the system was diminished if the doctor did not look at the results. Requests included tailoring questions to be applicable to the individual and providing more explanation about the score meaning, including having higher scores consistently indicating either better or worse status. Clinicians also provided primarily positive feedback about the system, finding it helpful in some cases, and confirmatory in others. Their primary concern was with impact on their workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically collected feedback from patients and clinicians was useful to identify ways to improve a system to incorporate PRO measures into oncology practice. The findings and evaluation methods should be useful to others in efforts to integrate PRO assessments into ambulatory care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Systems to routinely collect patient-reported information can be incorporated into oncology practices and provide useful information that promote patient and clinician partnership to improve the quality of care.

When using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice, the measure matters: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly being used in clinical practice to inform individual patient management, but evidence is needed on which PROs are best suited for clinical use. METHODS: This controlled trial randomly assigned patients with breast and prostate cancer undergoing treatment to complete one of three PRO measures: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF34), or six domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Patients completed the PRO measures before clinic visits, and the results were provided to both the patient and clinician. At treatment completion, patients and clinicians completed brief feedback forms on the intervention's usefulness and value. Exit interviews were conducted with patients (at end of treatment) and clinicians (at end of study). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each arm who either strongly agreed or agreed to all feedback form items. RESULTS: Of 294 eligible patients invited to participate, 224 (76%) enrolled (median age 66 years, 78% white, 72% prostate). Of the 181 patients (81%) who completed at least one feedback form item, participants in the QLQ-C30 study arm were most likely to strongly agree/agree to all items (74%) followed by PROMIS (61%) and SCNS-SF34 (52%; P = .03). Of the 116 participants (52%) who completed all feedback form items, the results were similar: 82% for the QLQ-C30, 62% for PROMIS, and 56% for SCNS-SF34 (P = .05). Clinicians did not prefer one questionnaire over the others. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, when using PROs in clinical practice for patient management, the measure matters in terms of usefulness to patients.