Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 254–259

Trends in Follow-up and Preventive Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors

  • Claire F. Snyder
  • Craig C. Earle
  • Robert J. Herbert
  • Bridget A. Neville
  • Amanda L. Blackford
  • Kevin D. Frick
Original Article

Abstract

Background

As cancer patients transition from treatment to survivorship, the responsibility of primary care providers (PCPs) versus oncology specialists is unclear.

Objectives

To explore (1) physician types (PCPs versus oncology specialists) survivors visit during survivorship year 1, (2) preventive care received, (3) how preventive care receipt relates to physician types visited, and (4) trends in physician types visited and preventive care received over time.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional study of 5 cohorts of cancer survivors in survivorship year 1.

Subjects

Twenty thousand sixty-eight survivors diagnosed with stage 1–3 colorectal cancer between 1997 and 2001.

Measurements

Using the SEER-Medicare database, we assessed the mean number of visits to different physician types, the percentage of survivors receiving preventive services, how receipt of preventive services related to physician types visited, and trends over time in physician visits and preventive care.

Results

There was a trend over time of increased visits to all physician types, which was statistically significant for oncology specialists and other physicians (p < .001) but not PCPs. The percentage of survivors receiving preventive services remained relatively stable across the 5 cohorts, except for an increase in bone densitometry (p < .05). Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive each preventive care service (p < .05).

Conclusions

Oncology specialist follow-up in survivorship year 1 is intensifying over time. Survivors not being followed-up by both PCPs and oncology specialists were less likely to receive preventive care. Clarifying the roles of PCPs and oncology specialists during follow-up can improve the quality of care for survivors.

KEY WORDS

preventive care cancer survivors coordination of care 

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenblatt RA, Hart LG, Baldwin L-M, Chen L, Schneeweiss R. The generalist role of specialty physicians: is there a hidden system of primary care. JAMA. 1998;279:1364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer stat fact sheets: cancer of the colon and rectum. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html. Accessed January 22, 2007.
  4. 4.
    Earle CC, Neville BA. Under use of necessary care among cancer survivors. Cancer. 2004;101:1712–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desch CE, Benson AB III, Smith TJ, et al. Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1312–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desch CE, Benson AB III, Somerfield M, et al. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8512–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colon cancer. V.2.2006. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/colon.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2006.
  8. 8.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer. V.2.2006. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/rectal.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2006.
  9. 9.
    Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:848–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Society for Clinical Oncology. Status of the medical oncology workforce. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2612–21.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare: brief description of the SEER-Medicare database. Available at: http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/brief.html. Accessed December 6, 2006.
  12. 12.
    National Cancer Institute. Number of persons by race and Hispanic ethnicity for SEER participants. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/registries/data.html. Accessed December 6, 2006.
  13. 13.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1258–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Institute of Medicine. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire F. Snyder
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Craig C. Earle
    • 4
  • Robert J. Herbert
    • 2
  • Bridget A. Neville
    • 4
  • Amanda L. Blackford
    • 3
  • Kevin D. Frick
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineJohns Hopkins School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Policy and ManagementJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of OncologyJohns Hopkins School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Division of Population Sciences, Department of Medical OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations