Search

BackgroundGathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross-sectional studies.MethodsUsing publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross-sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self-reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis.ResultsThe authors identified 14 national cross-sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?" Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included.ConclusionsThere is no standard method for assessing self-reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross-sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

This commentary provides a concise overview of the epidemiology of cancer survivorship and work, common functional limitations experienced by cancer survivors, and evidence‐based recommendations for interventions available to improve function. It also describes the US Social Security Administration's disability claims process, its eligibility requirements, and barriers for long‐term survivors in securing approval for disability claims, and offers insights for practicing clinicians in holistically addressing functional limitations in practice.

BackgroundNational patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge.ObjectiveTo describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.DesignLongitudinal study using cross-sectional data.SettingBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging facilities.Participants19,955 women diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with AJCC stage 0-III incident breast cancer who had 69,386 mammograms and 3,553 breast MRI examinations from January 2005 to September 2013; median follow-up of 37.6 months (interquartile range, 22.1-60.7).Main measuresBreast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type.Key resultsAmong women with a PHBC who received breast imaging, 89.4% underwent mammography alone, 0.8% MRI alone, and 10.3% had both mammography and MRI. About half of mammograms and MRIs were indicated for surveillance vs. diagnostic, with an increase in the proportion of surveillance exams as time from diagnosis increased (mammograms, 45.7% at 1 year to 72.2% after 5 years; MRIs, 54.8% at 1 year to 78.6% after 5 years). In the first post-diagnosis period, 32.8% of women had > 2 breast imaging examinations and of these, 65.8% were less than 6 months apart. During the first 5-year post-diagnosis, the frequency of examinations per year decreased and the interval between examinations shifted towards annual examinations.ConclusionIn women with a PHBC who received post-diagnosis imaging, a third underwent multiple breast imaging examinations per year during the first 2-year post-diagnosis despite recommendations for annual exams. As time since diagnosis increases, imaging indication shifts from diagnostic to surveillance.

Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.

PurposeSurvivorship care plans (SCPs) have been suggested to reduce fragmentation of care experienced by cancer survivors. Acceptance of SCPs is high, but trials in the United States are few. This pilot study used a quasiexperimental design to examine the outcomes achieved by breast cancer survivors receiving a standardized SCP visit at one of seven comprehensive cancer centers.Materials and methodsOutcomes were assessed before and again 3 months after delivery of an SCP and included survivors' use of and satisfaction with SCPs, perceived knowledge about survivorship, and assessment of the quality and coordination of survivorship care.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine survivors of breast cancer completed baseline and follow-up measures and received a standardized SCP visit. Participants most commonly used SCP materials to make decisions about exercise (64%), which tests to receive and when (62%), and dietary changes (62%). Only 21% shared the SCP with their primary care provider during that time. Satisfaction with the SCP was high, with 90% of participants reporting being at least satisfied with the SCP. Perceived knowledge about survivorship improved after SCP delivery, as did perceived care coordination and the provider's knowledge of the effects of cancer on survivors (all P < .001). Individuals closer to the time of diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of SCPs.ConclusionThis study demonstrates improvements in perceived knowledge and quality of survivorship care after receipt of a comprehensive SCP. Survivors were satisfied with their SCP, and those closer to diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of the materials.

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that cancer care in the United States is in crisis. Patients and their families are not receiving the information that they need to make informed decisions about their cancer care. Many patients do not have access to palliative care and too few are referred to hospice at the appropriate point in their disease trajectory. Simultaneously, there is a growing demand for cancer care with increases in new cancer diagnoses and the number of patients surviving cancer. Furthermore, there is a workforce shortage to care for this growing and elderly population. The IOM's report, Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis, outlined recommendations to improve the quality of cancer care. This article provides an overview of the IOM report and highlights the recommendations that are most relevant to practicing clinicians who care for patients with cancer across the continuum. The implementation of the recommendations in clinical practice will require better patient-clinician communication, improved care coordination, targeted clinician training, effective dissemination of evidence-based guidelines and strategies for eliminating waste, and continuous quality assessment and improvement efforts.

PURPOSE: Survivorship care planning should involve discussions between providers and cancer survivors to address survivors needs and optimize adherence. We examined the frequency and factors associated with oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) reports of provision of written survivorship care plans (SCPs) and discussion of survivorship care recommendations with survivors. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1,130 oncologists and 1,020 PCPs was surveyed about survivorship care practices with survivors. Logistic regression models predicted multilevel factors associated with providing SCPs or discussing recommendations with survivors. RESULTS: Although a majority of oncologists (64%) reported always/almost always discussing survivorship care recommendations with survivors, fewer also discussed who survivors should see for cancer-related and other follow-up care (32%); fewer still also provided a written SCP to the survivor (< 5%). Survivorship care recommendations and provider responsibility were not regularly discussed by PCPs and survivors (12%). Oncologists who reported detailed training about late and long-term effects of cancer were more likely to provide written SCPs (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.44) and discuss survivorship care planning with survivors (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.70). PCPs who received SCPs from oncologists were 9× more likely (95% CI, 5.74 to 14.82) to report survivorship discussions with survivors. CONCLUSION: A minority of both PCPs and oncologists reported consistently discussing and providing SCPs to cancer survivors. Training and knowledge specific to survivorship care and coordinated care between PCPs and oncologists were associated with increased survivorship discussions with survivors. These nationally representative data provide a useful benchmark to assess implementation of new efforts to improve the follow-up care of survivors.