Colorectal cancer survivorship care plans: Variations in documentation and posttreatment surveillance recommendations. Issue 4 (11th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chodoff, Alaina; Smith, Katherine C.; Shukla, Aishwarya; Blackford, Amanda L.; Ahuja, Nita; Johnston, Fabian M.; Peairs, Kimberly S.; Ngaiza, Justinian R.; Warczynski, Tam; Nettles, Brenda; Stotsky‐Himelfarb, Eden; Murphy, Adrian G.; Mayonado, Nancy; DeSanto, Jennifer; Snyder, Claire F.; Choi, Youngjee
• Is Part Of: Journal of surgical oncology. Volume 125:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 678
• Page End: 691
• Publication Date: 2021-12-11
• Subjects: cancer surveillance -- cancer survivorship -- colorectal cancer -- survivorship care plans; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jso.26767
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-4790

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Survivorship care plans (SCP) should outline pertinent information about cancer treatment and follow‐up. Methods: We descriptively analyzed the content of 74 colorectal cancer SCPs completed as part of a randomized, controlled trial of SCPs at an academic and community cancer center. Surveillance recommendations were compared with American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Results: SCP information provided in >80% of the plans included participant age, cancer diagnosis, details, and side‐effects of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) and health promotion recommendations. SCP content documented less frequently included predisposing conditions, genetic counseling/testing information and staging. Posttreatment surveillance recommendations were documented in >90% SCPs. For stage 2–3 cancer, rates of guideline concordant recommendations were 100% for colonoscopy surveillance (Year 1 only), 87% for imaging surveillance, 65% for carcinoembryonic antigen surveillance, and 33% for follow‐up visits. Excluding colonoscopy, >15 unique recommendations were listed for each modality across stages and sites, with more variation at the academic site. Conclusions: SCPs consistently recorded information about cancer diagnosis and treatment but omitted critical information about cancer‐specific details denoting risk. Surveillance recommendations varied considerably between cancer centers. Future work to improve the consistency of surveillance recommendations documented in SCPs may be needed.