Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients’ perspective

  • Research
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment.

Methods

We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care–based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients’ ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality.

Results

Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0–100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients’ lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms.

Conclusion

Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset used and analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author (stored in a data repository at the Netherlands Cancer Institute) on reasonable request.

References

  1. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 79(2):263–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacobs LA, Shulman LN (2017) Follow-up care of cancer survivors: challenges and solutions. Lancet Oncol 18(1):e19–e29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mead KH, Raskin S, Willis A, Arem H, Murtaza S, Charney L et al (2020) Identifying patients’ priorities for quality survivorship: conceptualizing a patient-centered approach to survivorship care. J Cancer Surviv : Res Pract 14(6):939–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nekhlyudov L, Mollica MA, Jacobsen PB, Mayer DK, Shulman LN, Geiger AM (2019) Developing a quality of cancer survivorship care framework: implications for clinical care, research, and policy. J Natl Cancer Inst 111(11):1120–1130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wollersheim BM, Helweg E, Tillier CN, van Muilekom HAM, de Blok W, van der Poel HG et al (2021) The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study. Support Care Cancer 29(11):6449–6457

  6. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E (2006) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  7. King AJ, Evans M, Moore TH, Paterson C, Sharp D, Persad R et al (2015) Prostate cancer and supportive care: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of men’s experiences and unmet needs. Eur J Cancer Care 24(5):618–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacobsen PB, de Moor J, Doria-Rose VP, Geiger AM, Kobrin SC, Sampson A et al (2021) The National Cancer Institute’s role in advancing health-care delivery research. J Nat Cancer Inst 114(1):20–24

  9. O’Brien R, Rose PW, Campbell C, Weller D, Neal RD, Wilkinson C et al (2010) Experiences of follow-up after treatment in patients with prostate cancer: a qualitative study. BJU Int 106(7):998–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Brien R, Rose P, Campbell C, Weller D, Neal RD, Wilkinson C et al (2011) “I wish I’d told them”: a qualitative study examining the unmet psychosexual needs of prostate cancer patients during follow-up after treatment. Patient Educ Couns 84(2):200–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paterson C, Robertson A, Smith A, Nabi G (2015) Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of men living with and beyond prostate cancer: a systematic review. European J Oncol Nurs 19(4):405–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vos JAM, Wieldraaijer T, van Weert H, van Asselt KM (2021) Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv 15(1):66–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Arora NK, Reeve BB, Hays RD, Clauser SB, Oakley-Girvan I (2011) Assessment of quality of cancer-related follow-up care from the cancer survivor’s perspective. J Clin Oncol 29(10):1280–1289

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kent EE, Mitchell SA, Oakley-Girvan I, Arora NK (2014) The importance of symptom surveillance during follow-up care of leukemia, bladder, and colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 22(1):163–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alfano CM, Jefford M, Maher J, Birken SA, Mayer DK (2019) Building personalized cancer follow-up care pathways in the United States: lessons learned from implementation in England, Northern Ireland, and Australia. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 39:625–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wollersheim BM, van Asselt KM, van der Poel HG, van Weert H, Hauptmann M, Retèl VP et al (2020) Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors. BMC Cancer 20(1):635

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN (2003) The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum 49(2):156–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/. Accessed  13-12-2021

  19. van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fossa SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S et al (2008) An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. European J Cancer (Oxford England : 1990) 44(16):2418–2424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ratti MM, Gandaglia G, Alleva E, Leardini L, Sisca ES, Derevianko A et al (2021) Standardising the assessment of patient-reported outcome measures in localised prostate cancer. a systematic review. European Urol Oncol 5(2):153–163

  21. Institute of Medicine Committee (2008) Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial health needs. Adler NE, Page AEK, editors. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)

  22. Warrington L, Absolom K, Velikova G (2015) Integrated care pathways for cancer survivors - a role for patient-reported outcome measures and health informatics. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm Sweden) 54(5):600–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hargraves JL, Wilson IB, Zaslavsky A, James C, Walker JD, Rogers G et al (2001) Adjusting for patient characteristics when analyzing reports from patients about hospital care. Med Care 39(6):635–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Halpern MT, Urato MP, Lines LM, Cohen JB, Arora NK, Kent EE (2018) Healthcare experience among older cancer survivors: analysis of the SEER-CAHPS dataset. J Geriatr Oncol 9(3):194–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Skolarus TA, Wolf AM, Erb NL, Brooks DD, Rivers BM, Underwood W et al (2014) American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA: Cancer J Clin 64(4):225–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jabaaij L, Schellevis F (2011) Zorg en verrichtingen bij patienten met kanker in de eerste lijn: het Landelijk Informatie Netwerk Huisartsen (LINH) [Care and procedures for patients with cancer in primary care: the National Information Network of General Practitioners]. In: Signaleringscommissie KWF Kankerbestrijding, editor. Nazorg bij kanker: de rol van de eerste lijn: NIVEL. p. Appendix C

  27. Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, Coyle D, Szechtman B, Mirsky D et al (2006) Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol 24(6):848–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J et al (1996) Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ (Clin Res ed) 313(7058):665–669

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a andomized controlled trial. BMJ Open 3(4):e002391

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wattchow DA, Weller DP, Esterman A, Pilotto LS, McGorm K, Hammett Z et al (2006) General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: andomized controlled trial. Br J Cancer 94(8):1116–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Vos JAM, Duineveld LAM, Wieldraaijer T, Wind J, Busschers WB, Sert E et al (2021) 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 andomized, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 22(8):1175–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all study participants.

Funding

This work is funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (Delfandlaan 17, 1062 EA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), grant number NKI 2015–7932.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse and Annelies H. Boekhout contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Barbara M. Wollersheim, Emine Akdemir, Neil K. Aaronson, Annelies H. Boekhout & Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

  2. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk G. van der Poel & Corinne N. Tillier

  3. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk G. van der Poel

  4. Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kristel M. van Asselt

  5. Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Floris J. Pos

  6. Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Andre N. Vis

  7. Department of Urology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

    Menuhin I. Lampe

  8. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

    Roderick van den Bergh

  9. Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Diederik M. Somford

  10. Department of Urology, Scheper Hospital, Boemarkeweg 60, 7824 AA, Emmen, The Netherlands

    Ben Knipscheer

  11. Department of Urology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Evelyne C. C. Cauberg

  12. Department of Urology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

    Arjen Noordzij

  13. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

  14. Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

Authors
  1. Barbara M. Wollersheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henk G. van der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristel M. van Asselt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Floris J. Pos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Corinne N. Tillier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emine Akdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andre N. Vis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Menuhin I. Lampe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roderick van den Bergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Diederik M. Somford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ben Knipscheer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Evelyne C. C. Cauberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Arjen Noordzij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Neil K. Aaronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Annelies H. Boekhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis: BW, AH, LP. Interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting of the manuscript: BW. Critical revision of the manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara M. Wollersheim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the medical ethics committee of the Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, a comprehensive cancer center located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (METC18.0033/M17PRO). The trial is registered in the trial registry (NTR 7266).

Consent to participate

All participants signed written informed consent before participating in the study.

Consent to publish

All authors read and approved the final manuscript, and gave consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wollersheim, B.M., van der Poel, H.G., van Asselt, K.M. et al. Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients’ perspective. Support Care Cancer 30, 10077–10087 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07396-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07396-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation