Objectives. Survival rates for pediatric cancer have dramatically increased since the 1970s, and the population of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) exceeds 500,000 in the United States. Cancer during childhood and related treatments lead to long-term health problems, many of which are poorly understood. These problems can be amplified by suboptimal survivorship care. This report provides an overview of the existing evidence and forthcoming research relevant to disparities and barriers for pediatric cancer survivorship care, outlines pending questions, and offers guidance for future research. Data sources. This Technical Brief reviews published peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, and Key Informant interviews to answer five Guiding Questions regarding disparities in the care of pediatric survivors, barriers to cancer survivorship care, proposed strategies, evaluated interventions, and future directions. Review methods. We searched research databases, research registries, and published reviews for ongoing and published studies in CCS to October 2020. We used the authors’ definition of CCS; where not specified, CCS included those diagnosed with any cancer prior to age 21. The grey literature search included relevant professional and nonprofit organizational websites and guideline clearinghouses. Key Informants provided content expertise regarding published and ongoing research, and recommended approaches to fill identified gaps. Results. In total, 110 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified 26 studies that assessed disparities in survivorship care for CCS. Key Informants discussed subgroups of CCS by race or ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, and insurance coverage that may experience disparities in survivorship care, and these were supported in the published literature. Key Informants indicated that major barriers to care are providers (e.g., insufficient knowledge), the health system (e.g., availability of services), and payers (e.g., network adequacy); we identified 47 studies that assessed a large range of barriers to survivorship care. Sixteen organizations have outlined strategies to address pediatric survivorship care. Our searches identified only 27 published studies that evaluated interventions to alleviate disparities and reduce barriers to care. These predominantly assessed approaches that targeted patients. We found only eight ongoing studies that evaluated strategies to address disparities and barriers. Conclusions. While research has addressed disparities and barriers to survivorship care for childhood cancer survivors, evidence-based interventions to address these disparities and barriers to care are sparse. Additional research is also needed to examine less frequently studied disparities and barriers and to evaluate ameliorative strategies in order to improve the survivorship care for CCS.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rising among young adults. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in survivorship is not well-described in this population. We assessed HRQoL among young adult CRC survivors diagnosed from age 18–39 (AYAs) to examine differences by time from diagnosis, and to identify key correlates. A cross-sectional online survey was administered in collaboration with a national patient advocacy organization. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-C) was used to measure HRQoL, which assesses HRQoL globally and across 4 domains: emotional, physical, social, and functional. T-tests were conducted to compare HRQoL between survivors who were 6–18 months versus 19–36 months from diagnosis or relapse and multiple linear regression was conducted to identify correlates. The sample (n = 196) had a mean age of 32.2(SD ± 4.5); 116 (59.9%) were male; and the self-reported tumor location was colon (39.3%) or rectal (60.7%). The majority (56.4%) were diagnosed with stage 2 disease; 96.9% were non-metastatic. The mean global HRQoL score was 67.7 out of a possible score of 136. Across domains, mean scores were low. Emotional and physical well-being were significantly higher among survivors who were 19–36 months from diagnosis/relapse compared to those 6–18 months from diagnosis/relapse. Longer time from diagnosis and older current age were associated with higher HRQoL, while more intensive treatment and higher clinical disease stage were negatively associated, particularly in the emotional and physical domains. Overall, HRQoL was low in this population, and further research is needed to inform age-appropriate interventions to improve HRQoL for AYA CRC survivors.

Background Young adults (YA) diagnosed with rectal cancer are disproportionately impacted by the gonadotoxic effects of treatment and potential subsequent infertility. Objective The purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence of fertility preservation measures used, reasons why such measures were not used, and correlates of discussion between providers and YA rectal cancer survivors. Design An online, cross-sectional survey was administered on the Facebook page of a national colorectal cancer (CRC) advocacy organization. Eligible participants were rectal cancer survivors diagnosed before age 50, between 6 and 36 months from diagnosis or relapse, and based in the US. Results Participants were 148 rectal cancer survivors. Over half of the survivors reported that their doctor did not talk to them about potential therapy-related fertility complications. Only one-fifth of survivors banked sperm (males) or eggs/embryos (females) prior to their cancer therapy. Older age at diagnosis and greater quality of life were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of fertility discussions among males. Greater quality of life was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of fertility discussion among females. Conclusions These findings indicate that the majority of YA rectal cancer survivors do not receive, or cannot recall, comprehensive cancer care, and help to identify patients with rectal cancer who may be at risk for inadequate fertility counseling. Clinicians should provide proper counseling to mitigate this late effect and to ensure optimal quality of life for YA rectal cancer survivors.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients. METHODS: This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups. RESULTS: The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types. DISCUSSION: We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.