Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1,073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Journal of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Cancer Society or the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other health practitioners with the care of head and neck cancer survivors, including monitoring for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, and care coordination. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015, and a multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, dentistry, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, clinical psychology, speech-language pathology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, the patient perspective, and nursing was assembled. While the guideline is based on a systematic review of the current literature, most evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong recommendation. Therefore, recommendations should be viewed as consensus-based management strategies for assisting patients with physical and psychosocial effects of head and neck cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:203-239. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

https://www.wileyhealthlearning.com/acs.aspx Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow‐up care to address the myriad of long‐term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow‐up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow‐up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long‐term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility‐specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225–249. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignant disease in the United States (U.S.). Almost two-thirds of CRC survivors are living 5 years following diagnosis. The prevalence of CRC survivors is likely to increase dramatically over the coming decades with further advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the U.S. population. Survivors are at risk for a CRC recurrence, a new primary CRC, other cancers, as well as both short and long-term adverse effects of the CRC and the modalities used to treat it. CRC survivors may also have psychological, reproductive, genetic, social, and employment concerns following treatment. Communication and coordination of care between the treating oncologist and the primary care clinician is critical to effectively and efficiently manage the long-term care of CRC survivors. The following guidelines are intended to assist primary care clinicians in delivering risk-based health care for CRC survivors who have completed active therapy.

Purpose Cancer research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations is gaining momentum. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine what is currently known in the research literature regarding patient-reported health outcomes after cancer treatment among SGM populations. Methods In March 2021, a medical librarian conducted a systematic keyword search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary inclusion criterion was assessment of at least one physical, psychosocial, emotional, or functional patient-reported health outcome related to the impacts of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in their entirety, charted in a Word Table, and assessed for quality. Quality considerations included study design, sampling approach, diversity of sample, measures used, and analytic procedures. Studies were synthesized based on type of cancer study participants experienced. Results Sixty-four studies were included in the final analysis: most were quantitative, secondary analyses or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, and focused on people with a history of breast or prostate cancer. Differences between sexual minority men and women in terms of coping and resilience were noted. Few studies reported on experiences of transgender persons and none reported on experiences of intersex persons. Conclusions A growing literature describes the patient-reported health outcomes of SGM people with a history of cancer. This study summarizes important between-group differences among SGM and heterosexual, cisgender counterparts that are critical for clinicians to consider when providing care. Implications for cancer survivors Sexual orientation and gender identity are relevant to cancer survivors’ health outcomes. Subgroups of SGM people have differential experiences and outcomes related to cancer and its impacts.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid shifts in cancer survivorship care, including the widespread use of telehealth. Given the swift transition and limited data on preferences and experiences around telehealth, we surveyed oncology providers and post-treatment survivors to better understand experiences with the transition to telehealth. METHODS We distributed provider (MD, PA or NP, nurse, navigator, and social worker) and survivor surveys through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer in mid-October 2020. Survivor surveys were also disseminated through patient advocacy organizations. We included questions on demographics, experiences with telehealth, and preferences for future telehealth utilization. RESULTS Among N = 607 providers and N = 539 cancer survivors, there was overwhelmingly more support from providers than from survivors for delivery of various types of survivorship care via telehealth and greater comfort with telehealth technologies. The only types of appointments deemed appropriate for survivorship care by both > 50% of providers and survivors were discussion of laboratory results or imaging, assessment and/or management of cancer treatment symptoms, nutrition counseling, and patient navigation support. Only a quarter of survivors reported increased access to health care services (25.5%), and 32.0% reported that they would use telehealth again. CONCLUSION Although there have been drastic changes in technological capabilities and billing reimbursement structures for telehealth, there are still concerns around delivery of a broad range of survivorship care services via telehealth, particularly from the patient perspective. Still, offering telehealth services, where endorsed by providers and if available and acceptable to cancer survivors, may provide more efficient and accessible care following the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is an increasingly recognized element of high-quality, patient-centered cancer care, yet PN in many cancer programs is absent or limited, often because of concerns of extra cost without tangible financial benefits. METHODS: Five real-world examples of PN programs are used to demonstrate that in the pure fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds of reimbursement, strong cases can be made to support the benefits of PN. RESULTS: In three large programs, PN resulted in increased patient retention and increased physician loyalty within the cancer programs, leading to increased revenue. In addition, in two programs, PN was associated with a reduction in unnecessary resource utilization, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations. PN also reduces burdens on oncology providers, potentially reducing burnout, errors, and costly staff turnover. CONCLUSION: PN has resulted in improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and has important financial benefits for cancer programs in the fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds, lending support for more robust staffing of PN programs.