Patients and physicians have discordant expectations with respect to the roles of PCPs and oncologists in cancer survivorship care. Uncertainties around physician roles and responsibilities can lead to deficiencies in care, supporting the need to make survivorship care planning a standard component in cancer management.

Background Recommendations for improved survival after cancer through physical activity (PA) exist, although the evidence is still emerging. Our primary objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between prediagnosis and postdiagnosis PA and survival (cancer-specific, all-cause, and cardiovascular disease mortality) for all cancers and by tumor site. Secondary objectives were to examine the associations within population subgroups, by PA domain, and to determine the optimal dose of PA related to survival. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and SportsDiscus databases were searched from inception to November 1, 2018. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to estimate the summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for primary and secondary analyses and to conduct dose-response analyses. Results Evidence from 136 studies showed improved survival outcomes with highest vs lowest levels of prediagnosis or postdiagnosis total or recreational PA for all-cancers combined (cancer specific mortality: HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.86, and HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.75, respectively) as well as for 11 specific cancer sites. For breast and colorectal cancers, greater reductions were observed for postdiagnosis PA (HR = 0.58–0.63) compared with prediagnosis PA (HR = 0.80–0.86) for cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Survival benefits through PA were observed in most subgroups (within sex, body mass index, menopausal status, colorectal subtypes, and PA domain) examined. Inverse dose-response relationships between PA and breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality were observed, with steep reductions in hazards to 10–15 metabolic equivalent hours per week. Conclusion Higher prediagnosis and postdiagnosis levels of PA were associated with improved survival outcomes for at least 11 cancer types, providing support for global promotion of PA guidelines following cancer.

BackgroundCancer is a major public health issue and represents a significant economic burden to health care systems worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate phase-specific, 5-year and lifetime net costs for the 21 most prevalent cancer sites, and remaining tumour sites combined, in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe selected all adult patients diagnosed with a primary cancer between 1997 and 2007, with valid ICD-O site and histology codes, and who survived 30 days or more after diagnosis, from the Ontario Cancer Registry (N = 394,092). Patients were linked to treatment data from Cancer Care Ontario and administrative health care databases at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences. Net costs (i.e., cost difference between patients and matched non-cancer control subjects) were estimated by phase of care and sex, and used to estimate 5-year and lifetime costs.ResultsMean net costs of care (2009 CAD) were highest in the initial (6 months post-diagnosis) and terminal (12 months pre-death) phases, and lowest in the (3 months) pre-diagnosis and continuing phases of care. Phase-specific net costs were generally lowest for melanoma and highest for brain cancer. Mean 5-year net costs varied from less than $25,000 for melanoma, thyroid and testicular cancers to more than $60,000 for multiple myeloma and leukemia. Lifetime costs ranged from less than $55,000 for lung and liver cancers to over $110,000 for leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma and breast cancer.ConclusionsCosts of cancer care are substantial and vary by cancer site, phase of care and time horizon analyzed. These cost estimates are valuable to decision makers to understand the economic burden of cancer care and may be useful inputs to researchers undertaking cancer-related economic evaluations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2835-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. Study populations and design were heterogeneous, and the quality of reporting was generally poor. Most studies were retrospective (76%), were based on a cancer registry linked with administrative data (47%), and assessed the overall effect of comorbidity using an index score (76%). Sixteen studies (47%) investigated chemotherapy use, and 29 (85%) addressed survival. The majority reported decreased chemotherapy use (75%) and inferior survival (69%) for patients with comorbidities compared to those without. In 11 of 14 studies, inferior survival was independent of treatment. Of the few studies that addressed chemotherapy tolerability, seven of 10 reported an increased rate of severe toxicity, and three of five reported increased treatment delays for patients with comorbidity. CONCLUSION Chemotherapy use and outcomes among cancer patients with comorbidities are generally inferior, but the existing evidence is limited and of insufficient quality to determine the relationship between decreased use and inferior survival. Further studies that are prospective and site and stage specific are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is frequently considered in patients with stage II colon cancer who are considered to be at high risk. However, to the authors' knowledge, the survival benefits associated with AC in these patients remain largely unproven. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the use of AC in patients with AJCC stage II colon cancer and to compare the impact of AC on outcomes in patients with high-risk versus low-risk disease in a population-based setting. METHODS: Patients with stage II colon cancer who were evaluated at 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia from 1999 to 2008 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to correlate high-risk versus low-risk status and receipt of AC with recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1697 patients were identified: 1286 (76%) with high-risk and 411 (24%) with low-risk disease, among whom 373 (29%) and 51 (12%),respectively, received AC. Individuals with high-risk disease treated with AC were younger (median age, 62 years vs 72 years; P<.001) and had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1: 47% vs 33%; P 5.001). . CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, AC was associated with an OS advantage in high-risk patients, most likely due to patient selection. RFS, DSS, and OS benefits were mainly observed in patients with T4 disease, suggesting a limited role for AC in patients deemed to be high risk by non-T4 features. Cancer 2015;121:527-34.

In patients with advanced cancers, distinct symptom clusters can be identified, which are influenced by primary cancer site. Treatments directed at symptom clusters rather than individual symptoms may provide greater therapeutic benefit. Further prospective studies are warranted in order to develop more effective targeted palliative interventions for the advanced cancer patient population.

PCPs and oncologists have different preferences for models of cancer survivorship care. Prior involvement with cancer surveillance was one of the strongest predictors of PCPs' willingness to assume this responsibility.

In patients with advanced cancers, symptom patterns differ according to age and gender. Palliative interventions tailored for symptoms that are more prominent in specific patient subgroups may offer greater therapeutic benefit.