Eila Watson

Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) may be achieved by the introduction of population-based screening programs. The aim of the systematic review was to update previous research to determine whether screening for CRC using the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) reduces CRC mortality and to consider the benefits, harms, and potential consequences of screening.METHODS:We searched eight electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AMED, SIGLE, and HMIC). We identified nine articles describing four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving over 320,000 participants with follow-up ranging from 8 to 18 yr. The primary analyses used intention to screen and a secondary analysis adjusted for nonattendance. We calculated the relative risks and risk differences for each trial, and then overall, using fixed and random effects models.RESULTS:Combined results from the four eligible RCTs indicated that screening had a 16% reduction in the relative risk (RR) of CRC mortality (RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78–0.90). There was a 15% RR reduction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78–0.92) in CRC mortality for studies that used biennial screening. When adjusted for screening attendance in the individual studies, there was a 25% RR reduction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.84) for those attending at least one round of screening using the FOBT. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99–1.02) or all-cause mortality excluding CRC (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.03).CONCLUSIONS:The present review includes seven new publications and unpublished data concerning CRC screening using FOBT. This review confirms previous research demonstrating that FOBT screening reduces the risk of CRC mortality. The results also indicate that there is no difference in all-cause mortality between the screened and nonscreened populations.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: a national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice and attitudes

Background:Around 1 in 10 of all cancer cases occur in adults of reproductive age. Cancer and its treatments can cause long-term effects, such as loss of fertility, which can lead to poor emotional adjustment. Unmet information needs are associated with higher levels of anxiety. US research suggests that many oncologists do not discuss fertility. Very little research exists about fertility information provision in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to explore current knowledge, practice and attitudes among oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding fertility preservation in patients of child-bearing age.Methods:A national online survey of 100 oncologists conducted online via medeconnect, a company which has exclusive access to the doctors.net.uk membership of GMC registered doctors.Results:Oncologists saw fertility preservation (FP) as mainly a women’s issue, and yet only felt knowledgeable about sperm storage, not other methods of FP; 87% expressed a need for more information. Most reported discussing the impact of treatment on fertility with patients, but only 38% reported routinely providing patients with written information, and 1/3 reported they did not usually refer patients who had questions about fertility to a specialist fertility service. Twenty-three per cent had never consulted any FP guidelines. The main barriers to initiating discussions about FP were lack of time, lack of knowledge, perceived poor success rates of FP options, poor patient prognosis and, to a lesser extent, if the patient already had children, was single, or could not afford FP treatment.Conclusion:The findings from this study suggest a deficiency in UK oncologist’s knowledge about FP options and highlights that the provision of information to patients about FP may be sub-optimal. Oncologists may benefit from further education, and further research is required to establish if patients perceive a need for further information about FP options.

The experiences, needs and concerns of younger women with breast cancer: a meta-ethnography

Objective: This meta‐ethnography synthesises the evidence on the experiences, needs and concerns of younger women with breast cancer.

Personalised cancer follow-up: risk stratification, needs assessment or both?

There are approximately 2 million people now living with or beyond cancer in the UK (Maddams et al, 2009) and this number is increasing. Cancer survivors can experience physical, psychological and social consequences as a result of the disease and the treatments received (Jefford et al, 2008; Foster et al, 2009). The effects may be immediate, some of which will resolve and others may persist and become long-term. Late effects can also occur and the interval between the end of treatment and onset can range from a few weeks (e.g. lymphoedema after axillary node removal) to several years (e.g. heart disease following radiotherapy to the chest area). Problems will be individual to each patient due to a unique combination of circumstances including the site and stage of the cancer, the type of treatment(s) given, the age of the patient, genetic factors, concomitant co-morbidities, family and social circumstances, and personality traits.

Partners and close family members of long-term cancer survivors: Health status, psychosocial well-being and unmet supportive care needs

A cancer diagnosis can have a profound impact on partners and close family members of patients. Little is currently known about the long‐term impact.

Experiences of follow‐up after treatment in patients with prostate cancer: a qualitative study

To develop an understanding of experiences of follow‐up in patients with prostate cancer, to seek explanations as to why men’s needs might not be well met, and explore views on the possible role of primary care in follow‐up. The experiences of these patients, and views on the delivery of follow‐up care, have been relatively neglected compared to those diagnosed with other cancers.

Primary care consultation behaviours of long-term, adult survivors of cancer in the UK

The population of cancer survivors is growing, and GPs have an increasing role in their care. The General Practice Research Database was used to compare consultation rates between cancer survivors and controls. Breast and colorectal cancer survivors had one more consultation per year compared with controls up to 5 years after diagnosis; rates then converged at 10 years post-diagnosis. Prostate cancer survivors consistently consulted up to three more times per year than controls. These increased consultation rates are leading to an impact on service capacity.

Cancer screening and preventative care among long-term cancer survivors in the United Kingdom.

Background:Long-term cancer survivors in the United Kingdom are mostly followed up in a primary care setting by their general practitioner; however, there is little research on the use of services. This study examines whether cancer survivors receive adequate screening and preventative care in UK primary care.Patients and methods:We identified a cohort of long-term survivors of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer with at least a 5-year survival using the General Practice Research Database, with controls matched for age, gender and practice. We compared adherence with cancer screening and the use of preventative care between cancer survivors and controls.Results:The cancer survivors’ cohort consisted of 18 612 breast, 5764 colorectal and 4868 prostate cancer survivors. Most cancer survivors receive cancer screening at the same levels as controls, except for breast cancer survivors who were less likely to receive a mammogram than controls (OR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92). Long-term cancer survivors received comparable levels of influenza vaccinations and cholesterol tests, but breast (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.87) and prostate cancer survivors (OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.57–0.87) were less likely to receive a blood pressure test. All survivors were more likely to receive bone densitometry.Conclusion:The provision and uptake of preventive care in a primary care setting in the United Kingdom is comparable between the survivors of three common cancers and those who have not had cancer. However, long-term breast cancer survivors in this cohort were less likely to receive a mammogram.

The Effects of Pelvic Radiotherapy on Cancer Survivors: Symptom Profile, Psychological Morbidity and Quality of Life

AIMS As cancer survival rates continue to increase, it is important to maximise the quality of life of cancer survivors. Pelvic radiotherapy is a common cancer treatment. Bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction are recognised side-effects of treatment, and yet relatively little is known of the extent to which they remain problems in the longer term when patients are often managed by primary care, nor of the psychological impact of symptoms and effects on quality of life. Therefore, the aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction late effects in a sample of cancer survivors; assess the impact of time since treatment on symptom prevalence; and explore the relationship between symptoms, psychological morbidity and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS A questionnaire was given to a sample of cancer survivors treated in Oxford who had pelvic radiotherapy 1-11 years previously. The questionnaire measured patient-reported toxicity (Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events/Late Effects of Normal Tissues--Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic Measure), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30). RESULTS In total, 418 (57.1%) completed questionnaires were received. Moderate/severe problems with bowel, urinary and sexual functioning were relatively common: bowel urgency (59% women, 45% men); urine urgency (49% women, 46% men); ability to have a sexual relationship affected (24% women, 53% men). Symptoms were just as frequent in those 6-11 years after treatment as in those 1-5 years after treatment. Symptom severity was significantly associated with poorer overall quality of life and higher levels of depression. CONCLUSIONS Late effects are common among long-term cancer survivors who have had pelvic radiotherapy, and are associated with reduced quality of life and psychological morbidity. It is imperative due attention is paid to this issue during the follow-up phase--both in secondary and primary care. Health care professionals providing follow-up care need to be aware of the importance of assessing and monitoring symptoms, and need to be adequately informed on the most appropriate management strategies.