Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To examine healthcare utilisation and adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up guidelines. METHODS: A total of 2450 out of 3025 stage I-III CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-12, EORTC QLQ-CR38 and Fatigue Assessment Score questionnaires, in December 2010. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for increased follow-up care (>1 visit than recommended by guidelines). RESULTS: In the first follow-up year, the average number of cancer-related visits to the general practitioner and medical specialist was 1.7 and 4.2, respectively. More than 80% of the CRC survivors was comfortable with their follow-up schedule, and 49-72% of them received follow-up according to the guidelines. Around 29-47% was followed more than recommended. Simultaneously, around 4-14% of the CRC survivors received less follow-up care than recommended. Survivors of stage III disease treated with chemotherapy received the most follow-up care. In addition, lower socio-economic status stoma and fatigue were associated with increased follow-up care. CONCLUSION: CRC survivors were predominantly followed according to national guidelines. Increased follow-up care is driven by advanced disease stage, chemotherapy, SES, stoma and fatigue. Future studies should investigate how increased follow-up care use can be reduced, while still addressing patients' needs

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted

Conditional Survival and Cure of Patients With Colon or Rectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study

Contains fulltext : 225975.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: The increasing number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors need survival estimates that account for the time already survived. The aim of this population-based study was to determine conditional survival, cure proportions, and time-to-cure (TTC) of patients with colon or rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with pathologic stage I-III CRC treated with endoscopy or surgery, diagnosed and registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry between 1995 and 2016, and aged 18 to 99 years were included. Conditional survival was calculated for those diagnosed before and after 2007. Cure proportions were calculated using flexible parametric models. RESULTS: A total of 175,384 patients with pathologic stage I (25%), II (38%), or III disease (37%) were included. Conditional 5-year survival of patients with stage I, II, and III colon cancer having survived 5 years was 98%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. For patients with stage I-III rectal cancer, this was 96%, 89%, and 85%, respectively. Statistical cure in patients with colon cancer was reached directly after diagnosis (stage I) to 6 years (stage III) after diagnosis depending on age, sex, and disease stage. Patients with rectal cancer reached cure 0.5 years after diagnosis (stage I) to 9 years after diagnosis (stage III). In 1995, approximately 42% to 46% of patients with stage III colon or rectal cancer, respectively, were considered cured, whereas in 2016 this percentage increased to 73% to 78%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with CRC reaching cure has increased substantially over the years. This study's results provide valuable insights into trends of CRC patient survival and are important for patients, clinicians, and policymakers

Development and implementation of a remote follow-up plan for colorectal cancer patients

Contains fulltext : 218556.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors

Objective To examine healthcare utilisation and adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up guidelines. Methods A total of 2450 out of 3025 stage I-III CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-12, EORTC QLQ-CR38 and Fatigue Assessment Score questionnaires, in December 2010. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for increased follow-up care (>1 visit than recommended by guidelines). Results In the first follow-up year, the average number of cancer-related visits to the general practitioner and medical specialist was 1.7 and 4.2, respectively. More than 80% of the CRC survivors was comfortable with their follow-up schedule, and 49-72% of them received follow-up according to the guidelines. Around 29-47% was followed more than recommended. Simultaneously, around 4-14% of the CRC survivors received less follow-up care than recommended. Survivors of stage III disease treated with chemotherapy received the most follow-up care. In addition, lower socio-economic status stoma and fatigue were associated with increased follow-up care. Conclusion CRC survivors were predominantly followed according to national guidelines. Increased follow-up care is driven by advanced disease stage, chemotherapy, SES, stoma and fatigue. Future studies should investigate how increased follow-up care use can be reduced, while still addressing patients' needs