Survivorship care plans (SCPs) serve to communicate critical information needed for cancer survivors' long-term follow-up care. The extent to which SCPs are tailored to meet the specific needs of underserved patient populations is understudied. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the content and communication appropriateness of SCPs collected from diverse healthcare settings. We analyzed collected SCPs (n = 16) for concordance with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for SCP content and for communication appropriateness using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. All plans failed to incorporate all IOM criteria, with the majority of plans (n = 11) incorporating less than 60% of recommended content. The average reading grade level of all the plans was 14, and only one plan received a superior rating for cultural appropriateness. There is significant variation in the format and content of SCPs used in diverse hospital settings and most plans are not written at an appropriate reading grade level nor tailored for underserved and/or minority patient populations. Co-designing SCPs with diverse patient populations is crucial to ensure that these documents are meeting the needs and preferences of all cancer survivors.

Background

Prior studies attempting to identify disparities in the care of patients with appendiceal (AC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) are limited to single-institution, highly selected patient populations. This observational cohort study sought to identify factors associated with specialty care for Medicare beneficiaries with AC/CRC-PM.

Materials and methods

Patients >65 years old in the United States diagnosed with AC/CRC and isolated PM were identified within the Medicare Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed patient factors associated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) and outpatient consultation with a peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) surgeon, and Cox proportional-hazards analysis compared 3-year overall survival (OS) between patients receiving CRS/HIPEC versus systemic therapy alone.

Results

Among 7,653 patients, only 250 (3.3%) underwent CRS/HIPEC. Among those individuals who did not undergo CRS/HIPEC (N=7,403), only 475 (6.4%) had outpatient consultation with a PSM surgeon. Patient factors independently associated with lower odds of CRS/HIPEC and PSM surgery consultation included older age, greater comorbidity burden, higher social vulnerability index, and further distance from a PSM center (p<0.05). CRS/HIPEC was independently associated with better 3-year OS compared with systemic therapy alone (HR=0.29, 95%CI=0.21-0.38).

Conclusion

An exceedingly small proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with AC/CRC-PM undergo CRS/HIPEC or even have an outpatient consultation with a PSM surgeon. Significant disparities in treatment and access to care exist for patients with higher levels of social vulnerability and those that live further away from a PSM center. Future research and interventions should focus on improving access to care for these at-risk patient populations.