Effects of structured involvement of the primary care team versus standard care after a cancer diagnosis on patient satisfaction and healthcare use: the GRIP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing number of cancer survivors and treatment possibilities call for more personalised and integrated cancer care. Primary care seems well positioned to support this. We aimed to assess the effects of structured follow-up of a primary care team after a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial enrolling patients curatively treated for breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer or melanoma. In addition to usual cancer care in the control group, patients randomized to intervention were offered a "Time Out consultation" (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP) after diagnosis, and subsequent follow-up during and after treatment by a home care oncology nurse (HON). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire: EORTC-INPATSAT-32) and healthcare utilisation. Intention-to-treat linear mixed regression analyses were used for satisfaction with care and other continuous outcome variables. The difference in healthcare utilisation for categorical data was calculated with a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher exact test and count data (none versus any) with a log-binomial regression. RESULTS: We included 154 patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) who were mostly female (75%), mainly diagnosed with breast cancer (51%), and had a mean age of 61 (SD ± 11.9) years. 81% of the intervention patients had a TOC and 68% had HON contact. Satisfaction with care was high (8 out of 10) in both study groups. At 3 months after treatment, GP satisfaction was significantly lower in the intervention group on 3 of 6 subscales, i.e., quality (- 14.2 (95%CI -27.0;-1.3)), availability (- 15,9 (- 29.1;-2.6)) and information provision (- 15.2 (- 29.1;-1.4)). Patients in the intervention group visited the GP practice and the emergency department more often ((RR 1.3 (1.0;1.7) and 1.70 (1.0;2.8)), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the GRIP intervention, which was designed to involve the primary care team during and after cancer treatment, increased the number of primary healthcare contacts. However, it did not improve patient satisfaction with care and it increased emergency department visits. As the high uptake of the intervention suggests a need of patients, future research should focus on optimizing the design and implementation of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRIP is retrospectively (21/06/2016) registered in the 'Netherlands Trial Register' (NTR5909).

Multidisciplinary decision-making regarding chemotherapy for lung cancer patients-An age-based comparison.

Optimising decision-making in elderly patients is becoming increasingly urgent. We analysed treatment decisions and course of therapy for patients with lung cancer in different age categories: <65, 65-75, and 75 years and older. About 349 patients with lung cancer (median age 67.8 years), discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting in the Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, the Netherlands, were reviewed. Multidisciplinary decision-making and subsequent clinical course were extracted from medical files. We found that 39% of eligible patients older than 75 years of age started treatment with chemotherapy compared to 80% of the younger patients (<65 and 65-75). When patients did receive chemotherapy, primary and secondary treatment adaptations were effectuated in 58%: for patients aged <65 in 49%, for patients aged 65-75 and >75 years in 66%. For 44% of all patients treated with chemotherapy, unplanned hospital admissions were required: in 42% for the patients <65, in 52% for those aged 65-75 and in 27% for >75 years. The decision-making process and course of treatment for lung cancer vary per age category. In particular, patients between 65 and 75 years of age might be more frail than initially thought. Age and frailty are important characteristics that need more attention.