Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 469–474 | Cite as

Comparing Care for Breast Cancer Survivors to Non-Cancer Controls: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study

  • Claire F. SnyderEmail author
  • Kevin D. Frick
  • Kimberly S. Peairs
  • Melinda E. Kantsiper
  • Robert J. Herbert
  • Amanda L. Blackford
  • Antonio C. Wolff
  • Craig C. Earle
Original Article



Deficiencies in care for cancer survivors may result from unclear roles for primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology specialists in follow-up.


To compare cancer survivors’ care to non-cancer controls.


Retrospective, longitudinal, controlled study starting 366 days post-diagnosis.


Stage 1-3 breast cancer survivors age 65+ diagnosed in 1998 (n = 1961) and matched non-cancer controls (n = 1961).


Using the SEER-Medicare database, we examined the number of visits to PCPs, oncology specialists, and other physicians; receipt of influenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, bone densitometry, and mammography; and whether care receipt was associated with physician mix visited.


Survivors were consistently less likely to receive influenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, and bone densitometry but more likely to receive mammograms than controls (all p < 0.05). Over time, colorectal cancer screening and mammography decreased and influenza vaccination increased for both groups (all p < 0.0001). Trends over time in care receipt were similar for survivors and controls. In Year 1, survivors had more visits to PCPs but fewer visits to other physicians than controls (both p < 0.05). Over time, survivors’ visits to PCPs and other physicians increased and to oncology specialists decreased (all p < 0.0001). Controls’ visits to PCPs increased (p < 0.0001) faster than survivors’ (p = 0.003). Controls’ visits to other physicians increased (p < 0.0001) at a rate similar to survivors. Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive each service.


Better coordination between PCPs and oncology specialists may improve care for older breast cancer survivors.


breast cancer preventive care survivorship 



This research was funded through an institutional research grant from the American Cancer Society. Presented in part at the 2007 Society for General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting and in part at the Fourth Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no relationships with for-profit companies relevant to the subject matter addressed in this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5091–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Ganz P, Hahn EE. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Snyder CF, Earle CC, Herbert RJ, Neville BA, Blackford AL, Frick KD. Preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors: a 5-year longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1073–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Earle CC, Neville BA. Under use of necessary care among cancer survivors. Cancer. 2004;101:1712–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Fact Sheets: Cancer of the Breast. Available at: Accessed May 8, 2008.
  10. 10.
    Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1447–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare: Brief description of the SEER-Medicare database. Available at: Accessed May 14, 2008.
  12. 12.
    National Cancer Institute. Number of persons by race and Hispanic ethnicity for SEER participants. Available at: Accessed May 13, 2008.
  13. 13.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron 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.
    Snyder CF, Earle CC, Herbert RJ, Neville BA, Blackford AL, Frick KD. Trends in follow-up and preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:254–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire F. Snyder
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Kevin D. Frick
    • 2
  • Kimberly S. Peairs
    • 1
  • Melinda E. Kantsiper
    • 1
  • Robert J. Herbert
    • 2
  • Amanda L. Blackford
    • 1
  • Antonio C. Wolff
    • 1
  • Craig C. Earle
    • 3
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesTorontoCanada
  4. 4.BaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations