scholarly journals Survivorship Care Planning for Young Adults After Cancer Treatment: Understanding Care Patterns and Patient-Reported Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dava Szalda ◽  
Marilyn M. Schapira ◽  
Linda A. Jacobs ◽  
Steven C. Palmer ◽  
Carolyn Vachani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Care Patterns ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning

scholarly journals Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment - Summary of a 2017 National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop

2018 ◽  
Vol 110 (12) ◽  
pp. 1300-1310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M Kline ◽  
Neeraj K Arora ◽  
Cathy J Bradley ◽  
Eden R Brauer ◽  
Darci L Graves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning ◽  
Policy Forum

Abstract 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.

Implementing the Survivorship Care Plan

2021 ◽  
pp. 760-766
Author(s):  
Erin E. Hahn ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
American Society ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning

There are many challenges associated with ensuring quality care for cancer survivors. Cancer patients often require treatment by multiple specialists (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists) due to the use of multimodal therapies. After treatment has ended, cancer patients may be at risk for serious long-term and late effects of their disease and treatment. Unfortunately, the oncology care system often fails to provide education and guidance to patients at the end of active cancer treatment, in contrast to the more standardized communication at the time of diagnosis and initial treatment planning. Delivering high-quality, coordinated care during the posttreatment phase is critical to ensure the best possible patient outcomes. One of the proposed first steps in accomplishing this is the widespread implementation of cancer treatment summaries and survivorship care planning, a key recommendation of the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition. This has been embraced by a number of leading organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Commission on Cancer. Survivorship care has also become an international priority, with organizations such as the U.K. National Cancer Survivorship Initiative and Organization of European Cancer Institutes championing the importance of survivorship care. This chapter provides an overview of the development and use of treatment summaries and survivorship care planning and briefly reviews research on care plans and the health policy impact of survivorship care plans as they relate to quality improvement activities that are underway.

scholarly journals Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment: A New Emphasis on the Role of Rehabilitation Services

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole L Stout ◽  
Julie K Silver ◽  
Catherine M Alfano ◽  
Kirsten K Ness ◽  
Laura S Gilchrist
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Rehabilitation Services ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
After Cancer

The Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Elisabeth Hillebrand ◽  
Ulrike Söling ◽  
Norbert Marschner
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Breast cancer is still the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Once metastasized, breast cancer treatment primarily aims at reducing symptom burden, thereby trying to maintain and improve a patient´s quality of life (QoL), delaying disease progression, and prolonging survival. Curing the disease is not possible in the palliative setting. To better understand metastatic breast cancer patients, their symptoms and wishes, which are important for treatment-decision making and outcome, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of great importance, giving an impression of what really matters to and concerns a patient. Summary: Many advances have been made to implicate PROs in clinical trials, non-interventional studies, registries, and clinical routine care of metastatic breast cancer. For example, large phase III trials like PALOMA-3 (NCT01942135), MONALEESA-7 (NCT02278120), HER2CLIMB (NCT02614794), and KEYNOTE-119 (NCT02555657) trials implemented PROs in their trial design to assess the QoL of their trial patients. Also, non-interventional studies on metastatic breast cancer, like e.g., the NABUCCO study (IOM-02240), and prospective non-interventional, multicenter registries e.g., the tumor registry breast cancer (NCT01351584) or the breast cancer registry platform OPAL (NCT03417115), have implemented PROs to assess QoL during the anti-cancer treatment periods of the patients. Key Message: Using PROs in metastatic breast cancer can support shared treatment-decision making and management of symptoms, eventually leading to an improvement in QoL. Progressively, regulatory authorities take PROs into consideration for the approval of new drugs. Hence, the implication of PROs in cancer treatment, and especially in MBC, is of significant value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document