Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34128353›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2021

Impact of the model of long-term follow-up care on adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance among survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers.

Dalia Kagramanov, Rinku Sutradhar, Cindy Lau, Zhan Yao, Jason D Pole, Nancy N Baxter, Sumit Gupta, Paul C Nathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Longitudinal adherence to surveillance for late effects of cancer treatment: a population-based study of adult survivors of childhood cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dalia KagramanovUniversity of Toronto, Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1965-9417
Rinku SutradharUniversity of Toronto, Institue of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0320-6042
Cindy LauCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Zhan YaoCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jason D PoleDivision of Hematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Nancy N BaxterUniversity of Toronto, Institue of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4793-4620
Sumit GuptaUniversity of Toronto, Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1334-3670
Paul C NathanUniversity of Toronto, Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Cancer Society Quality of Life Research GrantCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes for Health Information MOP-133618Cancer Care OntarioCIHR FDN 148470Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdolescent and young adult cancer survivors require lifelong healthcare to address the late effects of therapy. We examined the impact of different provider models of long-term follow-up (LTFU) care on adherence to recommended surveillance.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Five-year survivors were identified from IMPACT, a database of patients aged 15-20.9 years at diagnosis of six cancers between 1992 and 2010. We defined three models of LTFU care hierarchically: specialized survivor clinics (SCCs), general cancer clinics (GCCs), and family physician (FP). We assessed adherence to the Children's Oncology Group surveillance guidelines for cardiomyopathy and breast cancer. Multistate models assessed adherence transitions and impacts of LTFU attendance.

resultsA total of 1574 survivors were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (range 4.3-13.9 years) from index (5-year survival). The highest level of LTFU attended in the first 2-years post-index was a GCC (47%); only 16.7% attended a SCC. By the end of study, 72% no longer attended any of the models of care and only 2% still attended an SCC. Among 188 survivors requiring breast cancer surveillance, 6.9% were adherent to their first required surveillance testing. Attendance at a SCC in the previous year and higher cumulative FP or GCC visits increased the rate of subsequently becoming adherent. Among 857 survivors requiring cardiomyopathy surveillance, 11% were adherent at study entry. Each subsequent SCC visit led to an 11.3% (95% CI: 1.05-1.18) increase in the rate of becoming adherent.

conclusionLTFU attendance and surveillance adherence are sub-optimal. SCC follow-up is associated with greater adherence, but few survivors receive such care, and this proportion diminished over time. Interventions are needed to improve LTFU attendance and promote surveillance adherence.

Indexed as

AdolescentAftercareBreast NeoplasmsCancer Care FacilitiesCancer SurvivorsCardiomyopathiesDatabases, FactualFamily PracticeFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMammographyNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedOntarioPopulation Surveillanceadolescent and young adultcancer survivorfollow-up caresurveillancesurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID34128353
PMCPMC8335842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.