Effect of general practitioner-led versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care, with or without eHealth support, on quality of life (I CARE): an interim analysis of 1-year results of a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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]). INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Smoking cessation strategy in the national cervical cancer screening program (SUCCESS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial and process evaluation in Dutch general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical 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 ANALYSIS: The 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 DISSEMINATION: The 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 NUMBER: NL5052 (NTR7451).