Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Patterns of follow up and survivorship care for people with colorectal cancer in new South Wales, Australia: a population-based survey

Authors: Jane M. Young, Ivana Durcinoska, Katie DeLoyde, Michael J. Solomon

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The incidence and survival rates for colorectal cancer in Australia are among the highest in the world. With population growth and ageing there are increasing numbers of colorectal cancer survivors in the community, yet little is known of their ongoing follow up and survivorship care experiences. This study investigated patterns and predictors of follow up and survivorship care received and recommended for adults with colorectal cancer in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

Methods

Cross-sectional analysis within the NSW Bowel Cancer Care Survey, a population-based cohort of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer between April 2012 and May 2013 in NSW. One year after diagnosis, participants completed a study specific questionnaire about their follow up and survivorship care experience and plans. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of guideline-recommended care.

Results

Of 1007 eligible people, 560 (56%) participated in the NSW Bowel Cancer Care Survey with 483 (86% of study participants, 48% of invited sample) completing the survivorship survey. Among these 483 participants, only 110 (23%, 95% Confidence Interval CI 19–27%) had received a written follow up plan, with this more common among migrants, non-urban dwellers and those with little experience of the health system. Of 379 (78%) people treated with curative intent, most were receiving ongoing colorectal cancer follow up from multiple providers with 28% (23–32%) attending three or more different doctors. However, less than half had received guideline-recommended follow-up colonoscopy (46%, CI 41–51%) or carcino-embryonic antigen assay (35%, CI 30–40%). Socio-economic advantage was associated with receipt of guideline-recommended care. While participants reported high interest in improving general health and lifestyle since their cancer diagnosis, few had received advice about screening for other cancers (24%, CI 19–28%) or assistance with lifestyle modification (30%, CI 26–34%). Less than half (47%, CI 43–52%) had discussed their family’s risk of cancer with a doctor since their diagnosis.

Conclusions

Survivorship care was highly variable, with evident socioeconomic disparities and missed opportunities for health promotion.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed on 12 Oct 2016. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://​globocan.​iarc.​fr. Accessed on 12 Oct 2016.
3.
go back to reference Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2006. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2006.
4.
go back to reference Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Optimal delivery of colorectal cancer follow-up care: improving patient outcomes. Patient Relat Outcome Measures. 2015;6:127–38. Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Optimal delivery of colorectal cancer follow-up care: improving patient outcomes. Patient Relat Outcome Measures. 2015;6:127–38.
5.
go back to reference Cancer Council Australia Colonoscopy Surveillance Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy – in adenoma follow-up; following curative resection of colorectal cancer; and for cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; 2011. Cancer Council Australia Colonoscopy Surveillance Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy – in adenoma follow-up; following curative resection of colorectal cancer; and for cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; 2011.
7.
go back to reference Bell J, Fagan M, editors. Living well after cancer: a guide for cancer survivors, their family and friends. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; 2015. Bell J, Fagan M, editors. Living well after cancer: a guide for cancer survivors, their family and friends. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; 2015.
9.
go back to reference Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Dobbins TA, Solomon MJ. Predictors of variation in cancer care and outcomes in new South Wales: a population-based health data linkage study. Med J Aust. 2014;200:403–7.CrossRefPubMed Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Dobbins TA, Solomon MJ. Predictors of variation in cancer care and outcomes in new South Wales: a population-based health data linkage study. Med J Aust. 2014;200:403–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ireland MJ, March S, Crawford-Williams F, et al. A systematic review of geographical differences in management and outcomes for colorectal cancer in Australia. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:94.CrossRef Ireland MJ, March S, Crawford-Williams F, et al. A systematic review of geographical differences in management and outcomes for colorectal cancer in Australia. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:94.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Young JM, Walsh J, Butow P, Solomon MJ. Measuring cancer care coordination: development and validation of a questionnaire for patients. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Young JM, Walsh J, Butow P, Solomon MJ. Measuring cancer care coordination: development and validation of a questionnaire for patients. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley; 1989. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley; 1989.
15.
go back to reference Salz T, Weinberger, Ayanian JZ, et al. Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Salz T, Weinberger, Ayanian JZ, et al. Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Salloum RG, Hornbrook MC, Fishman PA, Ritzwoller DP, O’Keefe Rosetti MC, Elston Lafata J. Adherence to surveillance care guidelines after breast and colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent. Cancer. 2012;118:5644–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Salloum RG, Hornbrook MC, Fishman PA, Ritzwoller DP, O’Keefe Rosetti MC, Elston Lafata J. Adherence to surveillance care guidelines after breast and colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent. Cancer. 2012;118:5644–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Singh SM, Paszat LF, Li C, He J, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Association of socioeconomic status and receipt of colorectal cancer investigations: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ. 2004;171:461–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Singh SM, Paszat LF, Li C, He J, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Association of socioeconomic status and receipt of colorectal cancer investigations: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ. 2004;171:461–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Carpentier MY, Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, Murphy CC, Bluethmann SM. Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7:464–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Carpentier MY, Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, Murphy CC, Bluethmann SM. Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7:464–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Kahi CJ, Boland R, Dominitz JA, et al. Colonscopy surveillance after cancer resection: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:337–46.CrossRefPubMed Kahi CJ, Boland R, Dominitz JA, et al. Colonscopy surveillance after cancer resection: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:337–46.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Saurman E. Improving access: modifying Penchansky and Thomas’s theory of access. J. Health Serv Res. 2016;2:36–9.CrossRef Saurman E. Improving access: modifying Penchansky and Thomas’s theory of access. J. Health Serv Res. 2016;2:36–9.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fox P, Boyce A. Cancer health inequality persists in regional and remote Australia. MJA. 2014;201:445–6.PubMed Fox P, Boyce A. Cancer health inequality persists in regional and remote Australia. MJA. 2014;201:445–6.PubMed
22.
go back to reference Launoy G, Le Coutour X, Gignoux M, Pottier D, Dugleux G. Influence of rural environment on diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46:365–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Launoy G, Le Coutour X, Gignoux M, Pottier D, Dugleux G. Influence of rural environment on diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46:365–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Patterns of follow up and survivorship care for people with colorectal cancer in new South Wales, Australia: a population-based survey
Authors
Jane M. Young
Ivana Durcinoska
Katie DeLoyde
Michael J. Solomon
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4297-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine